Ted Huntington - Video (Science)

Photon and Gravity simulations
Corpuscular (light particle or photon) simulation videos

Single slit

Single Diffraction Grating

Polarization (observe how beam direction matters) as reflection

Total reflection

Partial reflection

Refraction as reflection

Interesting double refraction







How a single planet can easily move a star


The Pound-Rebka March 1960 (Crenshaw-Schiffer and Whitehead January 1960) experimental proof that gravity changes the frequency of light with gamma ray frequency in accordance with the prediciton made by Einstein in 1911 (or 1907 depending on interpretation). also implies that the speed of light is not constant, and that light is made of material particles that are effected by gravity. Here is a video using the simple Newton equation Am1=Gm2/d^2 where Am1=acceleration of mass1, G is the gravitational constant, d=the distance betwee the two masses - then summing this for all particles in the simulation. This video shows how a large mass changes the frequency of light. We can imagine this video as being what happens for light of every frequency, and electron beams, proton beams - all material particle beams. We see that these beams are red shifted as they approach a large mass like a star - from the perspective of the star, because the closest particles gain a larger velocity than the others, and then blue shifted after passing from the perspective of the outer star system - because the large gravity pulls on the particles which tends to restore their original frequency that was redshifted on approaching a large mass. So, one profound possible truth is that we may be living in a gravitational center where everything appears red shifted - but as we go farther away from the star and look back at the star everything around it appears blue shifted - but the farther away we go the more regular the light looks because the red shifting is mostly balanced by the blue shifting - but obviously this cannot be an exact balance because gravity changes the direction of light slightly too - so overall the net change- I would say- is probably toward the blue - but I didn't model this aspect. So here is a video:
gravity_affects_interval_002.avi
and a text file with the distances between the particle for each frame:gravity_affects_interval_002.txt
and one more where the gravity is very strong:
gravity_affects_interval_003.avi
and a text file with the distances between the particle for each frame:gravity_affects_interval_003.txt

Adding an extra point: Neither Pound and Rebka, nor Cranshaw, Schiffer and Whitehead measure the blue-shifted light which occurs from a higher gravity to a lower gravity - and apparently don't mention that this is a "gravitational frequency shift" - not simply a "gravitational red shift". Even Encyclopedia Britannica describes this effect as a "gravitational red shift" which is too narrow a description, given that gravity can equally blue-shift light and all material particle beams.
Here is the video embedded:



I'm feeling good because I have confirmed my belief that photons passing through a hole (or so-called "slit") in for example, a metal sheet, do spread out, apparently not because of an interference pattern, but because of the number of times they reflect off the inside sides of the hole. The so-called "orders", I think, this video clearly shows, can just as easily be interpreted as the number of times a beam of light has been reflected. Photons reflect off the inside of a slit and cause what many thought is an interference pattern, but what may be more accurately explained as a reflection pattern. Order n=0 is no reflection, n=1 is reflected one time, n=2 is reflected two times, etc.

05/10/2011 As an update on 11/11/1912 William Lawrence Bragg publishes a paper showing that diffraction can be explained easily as a particle reflection by using the simple equation nlambda=2Dsin(theta) where n is the order, lambda=particle interval in meters, D is the distance between crystal planes, and theta is the angle of incidence of light on a grating. This applies to all frequencies of light - even the largest wavelengths of radio. Light particles of similar frequency reflect in the same directoin because the angle of incidence changes the distance between planes. It is a very simple phenomeon. - It's not clear to me yet if the orders are from particles that skip miss one plane (order=2) or two planes (order=3) or are particles that have reflected off of 3 planes (order 2) or 5 planes (order 3). Either way - the Bragg equation - shows how spectral lines are shifted depending on the distance of the source - this is a key truth that it seems the Braggs didn't publish. There is a simple equation for determining where a specific wavelength will appear on the grating for 2 sources of different distance:
Simply:
Xs1=Ys1 / Tan(theta)
Xs2=Ys2 / Tan(theta)
where Xs1 is the distance from the center of the grating the light producing any wavelength - as determined by Bragg's equation- will be located
and Ys1 is the distance to the light source 1. Theta is the angle of incidence required for some specific wavelength.
Xs2 is the horizontal distance on the grating from the center where the same wavelength will be produced by a second light source, Ys2 is the distance to the second light source.
Since Tan(theta) is the same for both equations, an equation that connects the two light sources with their distance from the center of the grating is simply:
Ys1/Xs1=Ys2/Xs2 or Ys1 * Xs2 = Ys2 * Xs1
This presumes that the light source is a point emitting light in a spherical distribution, and that the grating reflecting surface is completely vertical to the light sources (the angle of the grating cut-or equivalently the angle of the crystal plane also matters).
I'm still working on this but I think that: the above is for transmission-and presumes the grating surface is vertical. For reflection the grating surface is presumed to be horizontal and Xs and Ys above are reversed to be Xs=Ys * Tan(theta).
Basically, the farther away a light source, the larger the angle of incidence must be to create the same frequency spectral line as a closer light source - it's very simple trigonometry.See my ULSF record and the Bragg original work and other works for more info. The Braggs were really extremely undervalued heros of truth in this light - we only realize now long after their deaths.


Single Slit movie 3
Single Slit movie 4
Single Slit movie 5
Here is the same principle, but for a diffraction grating. It's like the game "pong" with each dot as a particle of light.
Diffraction Grating movie 6
Diffraction Grating movie 7
Simulation of single slit experiment (what Grimaldi called diffraction, and Thomas Young called an "interference pattern"), this shows that the so-called "intereference pattern" may equivalently, or more accurately be only a "reflection pattern".

Single Slit movie 13 (different colors = how many reflections a photons went through)


07-10-2007 update
My current view is that, unexpectedly enough, the velocity of photons may in fact not be constant and that photons, as matter, are effected as all other matter is by the force of gravity. One way to measure this is simply running the Michelson-Morley experiment in the up-down direction to see if earth's massive gravity slows photons as would be suggested by the Pound-Rebka experiment. I still accept that photons are the basis of all matter in the universe.

My older view was:
I offer a redefined gravity, where photons are the basis of all matter, and are attracted to each other only in direction, keeping the same velocity at all times, as opposed to the Newton view of gravity, which I view as a large scale effect of the previously described direction-only attraction of photons, that is currently defined as the effect a piece of matter has on a different piece of matter that changes the velocity of each piece of matter.

In this movie, the particles (photons), move at a constant velocity from 100 individual photons to 3 groups of photons. Groups of photons can hold together for hours (although I have yet to run a simulation for this much time). These videos are RLE compressed, a great compression for a 2 color video with mostly 1 color (black). This is the "no momentum" model, the photons move only in the direction of the closest photons, past movements have no influence.
100_3.avi
Remember that each of those points is moving with a constant velocity of 1 pixel/frame (although there is round off error, I should probably use integer math). This localized grouping is very interesting. I think that the location of the groups may have importance (but I could be wrong). For example, some times I see groups of 1 in the center with 4 on each side. Each group has a kind of "brownian motion" or small motion because of the influence of various groups of matter (this is why the groups kind of shake, the group is being pulled by smaller groups within the large group), the final effect can be a total velocity for the group that is well below the velocity of a single particle, infact 2 particles can circle each in other in a single place, with only very small movements in any direction (relative to other groups/particles). Getting back to the idea that location of the groups may be important, the groups may balance each other - the pull on a top group from the middle left and middle right may hold the group from moving left or right, etc... Only when there is some amount of distance between the particles will the group not collapse into 1 group (although even in that group there are smaller groups, particles at constant velocity, would never stop, although I suppose if there was no location to move in to the photon would stop. I am not even sure if a photon can ever even be slowed. When a photon passes thru H2O, water molecules, the velocity of any of the photons (in the water or passing thru) probably never changes, only the direction. The photon may orbit 100 molecules and then move on, or may simply change direction. Now I want to measure the group velocities and try to see if some kind of larger "apparant force" (like electric or magnetic) may be possible. Clearly there is an inverse distance velocity of groups of particles as they get pulled in to each other, even though the influence for the above video is based on inverse distance (not inverse distance squared). There is almost no difference between 1/distance, 1/distance^2, ... for these constant velocity models. They all take the same shapes.

This is possibly how atoms look. Instead of particles orbiting, particles are stuck in these mathmatical groupings. A proton, or even an electron may be similar to one of these groups of photons. One question is why do electrons and protons all have the same size? What explains the electric movement/response of electron groups and not neutron groups?

you have to remember in these simulations that this is a tiny fraction of the number of photons that are in this universe. The photons in the most distant parts of the universe, and from other galaxies must pull the photons in this galaxy in some way, keeping the Milky Way (and all other) galaxy from collapsing.

In this video, the photons are tangled, moving slower than the individual photons that move at a constant velocity, and eventually one gets free from this tangle and zooms away at a constant velocity.
Pieces of matter (photons) moving at constant velocity, each only changing the direction of each other (not the velocity). I tried making the influence inverse distance squared, inverse distance, and inverse distance square rooted (this last looks similar to gluons - if I ever could see a gluon, as the pieces of matter get closer there is less "attraction" or "influence", and farther apart there is more.
Video of photons, or pieces of matter with a constant velocity changing the direction of each other.

06/30/06
Somehow I deleted my photons through a prism video links. So here they are once again. I lost the text and so I will just quickly describe these videos:
Prism 1
Prism 1 is photon reflecting off of the front of the prism. Look at the NASA image below, you can see that some photons reflect. I think we need to think about this...why do some photons reflect and others enter the prism? This models the reflecting photons. I think it has to do with how the photons collides with the atoms of the prism.
Prism 2
This one's a beaute. Here is a losely bound prism, and so many photons pass through (I didn't add any changes in direction), and some reflect. This is to show that the spaces between atoms may have an affect on how many photons are reflected and how many are transmitted.
Prism 3
Here is the same thing as prism2 but basically its a beam splitter. The beam is divided into two equal strength beams based on the positions of atoms. This reminds me that I want to model the effect of polarization...it seems to me to be a phenomenon where only one plane of photons are being transmitted (say for example photons [photon beams most likely] with an x component of 0, with a direction [0,y,z] where y,z can be anything), and the rest are reflected, and when you turn a second polarizing material 90 degrees, it's the same effect, but now the the only photon beams passed through have directions [x,0,z] where x and z can be anything. So when you put two polarized films together you don't see much light because in the first film only beams with an x=0 are passed, and in the second only beams with a y=0, so that leaves only beams with a direction of [0,0,z] which are very very few, but yet, there are some...some beams actually get through, those that are perfectly perpendicular to the plane of the film. This definitely can be modeled and I am happy to model it when I get more time. It needs to be done in 3D and I think it will look fantastic. I would make the two polarizing planes have about a good 100 pixels between. And then you would have to see it from many different angles, like a circumference fly around, and then ofcourse, beams of perhaps a thousand or more photons each from a variety of directions. It would look very cool.
Each atom Prism 10
This is where, unlike Snell's law, the photons change direction because of each atom in the prism, so since the beam on top goes through less atoms, it bends the least. I don't think this is accurate for actual prisms and photons, but it does fit the idea that we would see red to blue, but again, clearly Snell's laws have to be accomodated, and here they are not. It seems doubtful, but sometimes we need to model things just to show that a theory probably is wrong.
Each atom Prism 11
Again, this is photons bent by atoms, this one is a bit cooler because it's a solid beam being passed through the prism. And this is an equalateral prism, and this has an effect, there must be interesting effects depending on the dimensions of the triangle, or I guess it's actually some kind of tetrahedron..there needs to be a basic name for a 3D multi sided shape...maybe a polyhedron, I dunno. Again perhaps there is a red to blue phenomenon here, but remembering back and looking at these videos, I think the Snell's law is worth thinking about more...even though in some way it's counter-intuitive to think that photons would not change direction with more and more glass atoms...maybe they do but so slightly that it takes km of glass to show any actual changing of direction.
Prism: Snell's law

This is photons moving according to Snell's law. It's been some time since I was working with this model and so I don't remember...maybe there are more notes in my opinions or elsewhere on tedhuntington.com. It took me some tweaking because of fractions a photon might think it's on an atom twice at the border. Basically, the important thing about Snell's law is that the change in direction on the photons happen ONLY at the boundaries. The direction of photons is not changed at all by the atoms in the prism, only where there is a change in index of refraction. So these photons change direction only at the boundary of entering the prism, and then again upon exit. It's interesting to note that the way the angles are upon entry and exit the beam is bent twice in the same direction (down in this example)...if this were a parallelogram, the photon beam would bend back the exact same amount it initially bent, so this spectrum phenomenon is apparently a result of this double bending. There is a lot happening in a prism and it's something we need to think about more. I think I can see photons heading in the direction of the camera that captured this image that appear like the beam from which they came was basically bent at the transition and not curved inside the prism, look and wonder, compare for yourself. Here, in this model, we don't see, I mean I can't count fast enough the photons in any one direction...but my theory is that there will be less photons in the red, more in the blue, and in fact, to my memory, the red are on top and the blue on the bottom...closest to the prism. It's an interesting angle...for those playing with cheepo prisms from scientifics.com, like me...you see that the spectrum appears at a very extreme angle...it takes a serious bend down...you can see this wonderfully in the NASA photo below...but how many people knew that?
Within this wonderful NASA photo, you can see a beam of photon get divided in numerous direction: first some photons in the beam are reflected, why? they must bump into some non transparent particle and reflect in an angel that reveals the shape of that particle as being completely flat. Then the rest of the photons in the beam are bent, but only, at least according to Snell's law in the first layer of atoms of glass in the prism. From there the photon beams reaches the other side and some are reflected down and reach yet another side at the bottom...but there is no spectrum there...there is no extreme angel there...why not? That is really a mystery to me. And ofcourse, a large number of photons exit the glass prism, and in the first few atoms of air bend extremely downward, and you can see the order is red to blue. My theory is that most photons are bent more, and so therefore form the blue light, where in the red, there are less photons...but there are numerous possibilities, maybe those blue photons are denser and therefore bend more, or maybe there are less dense and so bend more. One key, is that, for example, the spectrum from a destroyed or chemically altered sodium atom is always the same...the photons are never rearranged. It's really a mystery to me, but I think there is some simple answer that everybody will recognize and can be modeled on computers, and that most people will say...ofcourse, that is the answer to this mystery of photons, atoms and the spectrum.



I think it may be possible that photons may change velocity (for example when colliding with other photons), and possibly photons may even actually follow Newton's laws. Alternatively they may follow some new set of laws too, and we should keep an open mind about this possibility.
I did some quick modeling of beams of photons obeying Newton's laws of gravity and here they are:
G=6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s^2,Mass of photons=1kg (again this is very doubtful, but this is using the existing gravitational constant), ignoring collisions. Nothing bends at all, both the mass in the center (289 photons) and the beams of light are uneffected, and continue on preserving their initial velocity. Something interesting happens if you view the gravitational constant as 1, and the mass of photons a 1, then everything depends on the distance (F=1/r^2) and quantity of photons. In addition, Newton never said anything (so far as I know) about what happens when particles of light collide, or if he thought they could, and that is an important question.
m1e0ic.avi
Here is a series of videos with light beams where the mass in the center is gradually increased:
massb6e8.avi

massb6e9.avi


massb6e10.avi

massb6e11.avi

massb6e12.avi



G=6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s^2,Mass of photons=100,000kg, ignoring collisions. Here we see the mass in the center (289 photons) move a tiny bit, but the beams of light are uneffected.
m1e5ic.avi

G=6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s^2,Mass of photons=10 million kg. Here we see the beams of photons bend slightly under the weight of the 289 photons (all photons are in a 2D plane with z=0) in the middle. This is without any collision effect (photons can occupy the same space)
m1e7ic.avi

G=1, Mass=1 (here only distance and quantity has any effect). You can see that at distances this close the full gravitational effect happens and there is no way for light beams to exist (at least apparently). This is with collisions on (photons bounce off each other).
m1g1.avi

G=1, Mass=1, distance from center mass to beams=5km. [here again this is unlikely...we see light beams sail past objects only millimeters away completely unbent]. We have to pull back to see the beams because they are far apart. To stop the photons in the beam from falling in on themselves they need to be around 100m apart. Basically in these G=1, Mass=1 models, gravity is very strong, but the farther the distance, the more likely the beams will continue on unbent. Here the beams bend a little, but basically continue on their way uneffected by the mass in the center.
g1m1d5e4.avi>

An interesting issue: if photon beams are made of photons without any space between them, the photons would show effects of gravitation between themselves within the beam.
billiard3.avi shows this.
gdiff2.avi shows this too.



10/03/05
Heavier matter goes to center. I made some videos of random positioned and weighted points from mass 1 to 5, color coding the points using roygbiv, red=1 (gram for example), orange=2, yellow=3, green=4,blue is heaviest =5. It is clear that the heavier blue points go to the center and basically stay there, the lighter red and orange points take on long elliptical orbits around the central mass. Perhaps galaxies and star systems move the same way, but perhaps other models are more accurate. One question that arises when making these random point simulations is: when does the matter settle down into a spiral? Does that take a few minutes, hours, days, months, years, centuries?!, ... I think I have to dedicate one computer to just running one simulation for a few years and see how much time it takes for a group of points to form a spiral (one power outage or computer problem and I would have to restart the simulation). Video: rgb1000.avi
The heavier blue points (can be thought of a stars too, interesting that there are no green or pink stars...it must have to do with how Helium separates into source photons...a process that ejects photons at specific rates) being heaviest appear to move the fastest, and cover the smallest amount of distance, so they probably are the first points to define the future shape of the cluster of matter, while the lighter points take much longer times, and move over much more distance, slowly making large elliptical orbits around the central mass.

This is kind of cool. These are 12 transparent spheres stuck together as closely as possible, but within 1 radius of each other:
atoms12_trans.avi
Here you can see how one more sphere makes 13 spheres which forms a closed shell. Any new sphere will be significantly more distant from the center, in a new outer shell.
atoms13_trans.avi
Here is the 13 sphere shape, more realistically showing how photon groups might gravitationally balance each other. The distances are the same as the video above (10 pixels), but the spheres are only 1 pixel in radius.
atoms_r1_r10_13.avi
The next shell in the radius=1 pixel model was easy enough to find. It is a 3x3x3 cube:

atoms_r1_200.avi


1) possible to move star very quickly and orderly in -y direction with constant
-.1ypixel/frame constant thrust on 1/100 mass planet.
star100x_planet_up_const.avi

finally, for some fun simulations:
1) fast down to centauri direction
star1000x_planet_down_const.avi
2) diagonal
10 seconds of thrust in the +X-Y
star1000x_upleft_10sth_5xy.avi

3) sideways shuffle
10 seconds of thrust in the X:
star1000x_right_10sth_5x.avi

3/28/06
I made these videos in October 2005, but didn't post them. These are videos where I make a sphere of randomly positioned points (pieces of matter) of mass=1 to 5, without any initial velocity. I found something interesting in that, at a radius of around <30 the points collapsed to a point and then blew apart with a very high velocity, such a high velocity that the pieces of matter could not be retained as a group (to be technically accurate, since there is no other matter in this universe simulation, eventually they would fall together again, but it would take a long time). A spherical radius greater than around 50 pixels results in the pieces of matter holding together. It's interesting to watch these videos because the phenomenon is kind of like a supernova (when a star explodes). I don't know if this is related to what is happening in a supernova, but I think it might be what is happening. I don't know, but I am keeping an open mind. Some observations: The first matter out of the collapse is the heaviest, and I think this may be backwards from what is seen in supernovas, but a star is made of large amounts of matter, nutrinos and many individual photons exit the supernova first. This model is obviously much more simple than a star, but the main idea is that when matter is very close, the force of gravity is much larger. Basically the more matter and the more close the more force. So I am not exactly sure why a radius of <30 causes the matter to disperse, but >30 causes it to stay together. Perhaps there is more time for matter to become tangled and not reach the center at the same time. But this model could be what happens in a star...an empty space forms in the center, or some empty space forms inside the star, the surrounding matter collapses to fill in that space, and the tiny distance between the matter causes them to be repelled with a great force. I think clearly, a supernova is a star that suffers some kind of internal fracture, or some kind of unordered internal collapse (the matter in a star perhaps is under a constant collapse...as it condenses and consolates the remaining matter...stars loose much more matter than they gain...so I think a supernova is a different, more major collapse...and I question the idea of a star "running out of fuel"...I think it is more of an internal instability that causes ... potentially this kind of phenomenon where highly compressed matter gets a high velocity...here is an idea...basically a crack of space opens up in a star, and matter from the inside exits through that space and causes the tear to open up wider, which results in a supernova. One big difference between this simulation and a star is ofcourse that a star has much more matter than this simulation has, but perhaps a parallel can be drawn between the two phenomenons.).

Here is looking at 500 points with an initial radius of 20 pixels, from a distance of million pixels away (blue are heaviest, red are lightest): 1e6_500pt_rad20.avi
Here is looking at 500 points with an initial radius of 50 pixels, from a distance of million pixels away (blue are heaviest, red are lightest): 1e6_500pt_rad50.avi
Notice how the points at 50 pixels stay together, perhaps like a red giant, while at 20 pixels they don't hold together. It's interesting that the claim is that only very massive stars can go supernova, and if that is true (which I seriously question...I mean I think any star can explode in a similar way, but) perhaps a larger star can cause the kind of velocity needed to really spread the matter out from the center. In any event it's a lovely video.


3D Video
3-D model of earth and moon with natural motion.
earth moon system

A video of points moving under inverse distance (not the inverse square law of Isaac Newton (F=m1*m2/d^2)). These pieces of matter are moving with F=m1*m2/d.
matter inverse distance

A video of points moving under inverse distance squared (this is the inverse square law of Isaac Newton (F=m1*m2/d^2)).
matter inverse distance squared

More inverse distance squared. A line of matter that splits into 3 galaxies:
3galaxies.avi

I tried to make a ring galaxy and this is as close as I could get:
ring3.avi
(Do you see the tiny, massive galaxy that goes thru the center from left to right? disrupting the galaxy like a fart in a classroom.)


Heavier matter goes to center. I made some videos of random positioned and weighted points from mass 1 to 5, color coding the points using roygbiv, red=1 (gram for example), blue is heaviest =5. It is clear that the heavier blue points go to the center and basically stay there, the lighter red and orange points take on long elliptical orbits around the central mass. Video: rgb1000.avi




Back to Main Page