One popular method of measuring stellar distance relies on Red Shift theory - which as I understand it assumes the object is moving away from us at high speed (as in the expanding universe theory). This method depends on the doplar effect and also on the wave model for light.
But there is a known problem with the wave model for light. The photoelectric effect of light cannot be explained by it.
There is a problem with the particle model for light too. The double-slit experiment seems to show that light is either traveling faster than the speed of light, or it is appearing in two places without having traveled between the two places (if we insist that light is a particle).
Particularly interesting also is Carver Mead's claim that caluculations made using the particle model result in a discrepancy of 10 to the power of 50. That's a pretty BIG variation!
It seems scientists don't really know what light is yet - particle, or wave. Light still behaves in ways they don't have a unified model to explain.
So I wonder - to what extent might scientists' failure to come up with a unified model for light, be impacting on scientists' conclusions about the distances of stars, and the age of the universe?
I also wonder whether light traveling in one direction does not interfere with light traveling across it at right angles. And which model for light might explain it best.
Former Prime Minister John Howard said one of his favourite subjects in Law School was the Law of Evidence.
I wonder how the evidence is stacking up in favour of the existing models of light, and for the as-yet untested theories which depend so much upon those models? (Theories such as the distances of stars, and the age of the universe.)
No comments:
Post a Comment