Re: Is light deflected by electric field?

carlip-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Thomas Smid <thomas.smid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > carlip-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> Furthermore, deflection by plasma is highly frequency-dependent. Almost
> >> all modern measurements therefore include observations at several different
> >> frequencies, allowing observers to remove this effect.
>
> > A possible deflection by an electric field (gradient) would be
> > different from the usual plasma deflection. It would only be indirectly
> > associated with the plasma as the latter produces the electric plasma
> > polarization field, but in principle the light would also be deflected
> > by an electric field in a vacuum. This is therefore a completely
> > different process which may not be frequency dependent.
>
> So what you seem to be advocating is this:
>
> 1. There is a hitherto-unknown interaction of the electric field
> with light, that is, a nonlinearity in Maxwell's equations.
> 2. This new interaction is achromatic. In quantum language, the
> deflection of a photon does not depend on its energy -- in
> other words, as far as light is concerned, the new interaction
> obeys the equivalence principle.
> 3. The electric field of the Sun is just right to deflect light
> passing near its surface, via this new interaction, just the
> amount predicted by general relativity.
> 4. The plasma outside the Sun produces a varying electric field
> that is just right to deflect light just the amount predicted
> by general relativity, even for paths beyond 90 degrees from
> the Sun. Not only does the distance dependence match the GR
> predictions, but the Earth's magnetic field, although it
> significantly affects the Solar wind, does not modify the
> results.
> 5. Since deflection of light by Jupiter agrees with the predictions
> of GR: Jupiter has an electric field, and, despite the great
> difference between Jupiter and the Sun (including any mechanism
> for generating such a field), the deflection produced by this
> field, via this new interaction, is just right to reproduce the
> predictions of GR.
> 6. Since weak lensing by galactic clusters agrees with predictions
> of GR (with masses determined by other methods): galactic clusters
> have electric fields extending out tens of Megaparsecs (that's the
> relevant impact parameter), which again are just right to reproduce,
> via this new interaction, the predictions of GR.
>
> Is this starting to sound like a stretch? Let's add one more:
>
> 7. GR is wrong about light deflection by a gravitational field. But
> it manages to be right -- or its predictions are duplicated by
> more new interactions -- about precessions of the perihelia of
> Mercury, Mars, Icarus, and a number of binary pulsars; gravitational
> time dilation and red shift; the de Sitter precession of the Earth-
> Moon system; the self-gravitation of the Moon's gravitational
> field (Nordtvedt effect); and the decay of binary pulsar orbits.
>
> I'm skeptical...

I think the discussion has somewhat gone off-topic now. The original
question was what the theoretical and observational/experimental
arguments for and against a deflection of light by electric fields are.
I mentioned the deflection of light by the sun (and other celestial
objects) as a potential evidence for such an effect considering the
fact that all of those objects can be assumed to have some kind of
plasma halo which in turn must be associated with an electric plasma
polarization field. This suggestion is unaffected by the circumstance
that these observations are presently explained by General Relativity
(after all it is common in science that there is more than one theory
to explain observational data). Obviously, clarity in this respect can
only be achieved by less ambiguous observations, i.e. on the one hand
by controlled laboratory experiments examining the bending of light (or
not) in sufficiently strong electric field (gradients), and on the
other by observations of the bending of starlight (or not) by massive
objects that can be assumed to have a negligibe plasma halo (e.g. the
moon, asteroids etc.).

Thomas


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is light deflected by electric field?
    ... deflection by plasma is highly frequency-dependent. ... > A possible deflection by an electric field would be ... Since deflection of light by Jupiter agrees with the predictions ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Said it once, Ill say it again
    ... not appear to predict any deflection. ... What makes you think the density of the plasma (and other solar atmospheric ... and the height of the observer can ... to include such effects in routine rise/set computations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is light deflected by electric field?
    ... > arguments for and against a deflection of light by electric fields are. ... > plasma halo which in turn must be associated with an electric plasma ... Certainly there are many theories of gravity, for example, which all ... new one that predicts planetary orbits but not light-bending. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: gravitational bending of light, surprising?
    ... differential equation as described in the above paragraph and what is ... General relativity predicts a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount. ... predictions is easy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Subprime Mortgage Concerns Shake Stock Mar
    ... Nice try at a deflection mo. ... You must think the readers are pretty stupid. ... Can you show in your response to my predictions on ... the housing market where you indicated, as you claim, that you "shared my ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)