[1]
Robert J. Buenker, Fachbereich C-Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Bergische University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
The original theories of light refraction developed in the late 17th century are reviewed. The failure of the corpuscular theory to correctly predict the speed of light in water was a turning point in the way physicists viewed the nature of light. However, closer investigation of Newton’s arguments based on his Second Law reveals a hitherto unrecognized success for his theory, namely a first indication that the momentum p of the particles of light is inversely proportional to the wave length λ of the associated radiation, i.e. the quantum mechanical relation p=h/λ, which in turn is closely related to Planck’s radiation law. It is also noted that the wave theory of Huygens failed to anticipate that the speed of light is proportional to the group refraction index ng rather that the original refractive index n in Snell’s Law. On the other hand, use of Hamilton’s canonical equations to compute the speed of light within the framework of Newton’s theory is shown to correctly predict the empirical relationship between the two types of refractive indices. By contrast, experimental data are presented to show that the traditional arguments of the wave theory to explain the difference between n and ng are not consistent with the observed statistics of single photons passing between different transparent media. Both these developments are discussed in connection with de Broglie’s wave-particle duality theory. Finally, an experimental procedure for the direct determination of ng in refractive media is described which also has relevance to the observation of the displacement of star images during solar eclipses first predicted by Einstein.
Snell’s Law, Newton’s Second Law, Huygens’ Wave Theory of Light, de Brogie Wave-Particle Duality, Displacement of Star Images
[1]
I. Newton, Opticks (Dover Publications, New York, 1952), pp. 270- 273.
[2]
G. Shortley and D. Williams, Elements of Physics, 3rd Edition (Prentice- Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1961), p. 573.
[3]
A. A. Michelson, Rep. Brit. Assoc. Montreal, 1884, p. 56.
[4]
R. A. Houston, Proc. Roy Soc. Edinburgh A62, 58 (1944).
[5]
E. Bergstrand, Arkiv Fysik 8, 457 (1954).
[6]
L. Brillouin, Wave Propagation and Group Velocity (Academic Press, New York, 1960), pp. 1-7.
[7]
Lord Rayleigh, the Theory of Sound, 2nd Edition (Macmillan, London, 1894-96; Dover Publications, New York, 1945).
[8]
A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 17, 132 (1905).
[9]
J. Stark, Phys. Zeitschr. 10, 902 (1909).
[10]
A. Pais, ‘Subtle is the Lord…’ The Science and Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982), p. 409.
[11]
M. Planck, Ann. Physik 4, 553 (1901).
[12]
R. D. Sard, Relativistic Mechanics (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1970), p. 156.
[13]
Lord Rayleigh, Scientific Papers, Vol. 1, 1881, p. 537.
[14]
R. J. Buenker, J. Chem. Phys. (Russia) 22 (10), 124 (2003); see also http:/arxiv.org, physics/0411110.
[15]
P. L. Muiño and R. J. Buenker, J. Chem. Phys. (Russia) 23 (2), 111 (2004); see also http:/arxiv.org, physics/0502100.
[16]
L. de Broglie, Ann. Physique 3, 22 (1925).
[17]
M. Born, Z. Physik 38, 803 (1926).
[18]
H. Paul, Photonen: Experimente und ihre Deutung (Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1985), pp. 98-111.
[19]
R. J. Buenker, J. Chem. Phys. (Russia) 24 (4), 27 (2005); see also http:/arxiv.org, physics/0904.3232.
[20]
A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 354, 769 (1916).
[21]
L. I. Schiff, Am. J. Phys. 28, 340 (1960).
[22]
I. Shapiro, M. E. Ash, R. P. Ingalls, W. B. Smith, D. B. Campbell, R. B. Dyce, R. F. Juergen and G. Pettengill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1132 (1971).
[23]
I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 789 (1964).
[24]
R. J. Buenker, Apeiron 15, 338 (2008).
[25]
R. J. Buenker, Apeiron 15, 382 (2008).
[26]
R. J. Buenker, Relativity Contradictions Unveiled: Kinematics, Gravity and Light Refraction (Apeiron, Montreal, 2014), pp. 157-178.
