A View on Relativity
How far might the relativist-mode of thinking be extended?
Dan Romalo
Whatever the way STR is engaged compulsorily Maxwell’s equations stay at the very base of any approach. This means that from the very beginning one meets the well known set of four differential equations binding abstract symbols representatives of non substantial electric and magnetic fields, these ones formally interlinked into a not yet strictly précised reference frame, the casually used one being supposed floating somehow freely in space. It is a state usually précised by implicit boundary conditions and field generating sources; a rational foibles Max Born qualified as non satisfied need “to identify the rest frame of the Lorentz aether with the absolute space of “ Isaac Newton.” [1]. It is powerfully thinking confirming that on the so set stage all is pure symbolism except the two constants ε0 and μ0 the two of them constituting the only direct link with the nearby material world. Nevertheless of this conceptual deficiency Poicaré considered the so formatted equations truthful enough to engage the search for a coordinate transform operator which, when operating on Maxwell’s equations, would let their form unchanged.
Usually the Lorentz coordinates transformation system is formatted on basis of two postulates: A) the equivalence of all inertial reference frames and B) the absolute invariance of the speed of light. Or, similarly engaged but in a more general mode conceived: a) conceptually assuming the same principle of equivalence of all inertial systems as above considered yet associating it with b), the principle of space and time symmetry formally imposed as V. M. Yakovenko demonstrates [2].
When so justified the Lorentz coordinates transformation comes out as a formal structure intrinsically dependent from a single parameter , “c”, supposed representing an universal physical constant which, explicitly worked out, shows:
c = 1 √ μ 0 ε 0
Dimensionally analyzed the relation indicates that c must represent a constant speed of a magnitude determined by the aether’s physical properties.
So set, the Lorentz coordinates transformation, because configured as a purely formal instrument, is certainly not assumable as comprehensible theory of relativity. This assertion is justified by that the coordinate transformation at this stage of development has not a consistent enough conceptual base. Yet minding that so were the first steps towards a coherent theory of relativity it’s natural to refer to it as Lorentz-Poincaré ‒ or Poincaré- Lorentz ‒Theory of relativity, in spite of some conceptual draws back linked to it.
One had to evoke the weaknesses of this first relativity because the symbols μ 0 a n d ε 0
The question preoccupied Maxwell himself and, successively, Lorentz and Poincaré also, determining them to falter about a possible real existence of aether, proof being Poincaré’s doubtful statement: "Does our ether actually exist? We know the origin of our belief in the ether. If light takes several years to reach us from a distant star, it is no longer on the star, nor is it on the earth. It must be somewhere, and supported, so to speak, by some material agency.”, shortly followed by the not quite coherent forecast: “while some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless." [3], cf. [A 14] ".
Poincaré, learning about the negative results of Michelson-Morley’s experiment, became suspicious that not only Maxwell’s equations are invariant relative to Lorentz’s transformation, yet that the whole class of electromagnetic phenomena may be physically insensible to any inertial modification of the system’s movement. By that Poincaré implicitly introduced the idea of Relativity into electromagnetism, essentially, the doubt that a so presumed invariance might be an all covering natural phenomenon. So preoccupied, Poincaré hesitates between hypothesizing for or against the presence of an aether medium [3]. Meanwhile, Albert Einstein earnestly fight against any idea of a ether’s existence, stating sharply that thinking about aether shall not be any longer taken into consideration [4]. It is a strong statement he forwards considering it justified on basis of the STR premises. By that Einstein differentiates stone hard strong its own Relativity from that by Poincaré and Lorentz initiated: while in Lorentz-Poincaré conception c has the meaning of a mathematical constant only, i.e. the consistence of a virtual item, in Einstein’s conception c has the meaning of a materially instrumented measurement, essentially the meaning of a physical reality.
The subject as till here assumed looks like somehow well rounded up. Yet, if more in depths thought of, it comes out as deserving a more profound analysis. This may start by observing that most often it is the principle of absolute constancy of the speed of light in void which is assumed as conceptual kernel of the Special Theory of Relativity. But factually looking at, simply naming it “principle” is controversial because its significance results deductively from Maxwell’s equations themselves, essentially from the general relation:
V p = 1 √ μ 0 μ r ε 0 ε r
which, when adapted to describe electromagnetic energy propagation in void, becomes:
This shows that in the classic Lorentz-Poincaré theory the absolute constancy of “c” results deductively, essentially from values delivered by measurements carried out on electric and magnetic fields. The fields being basically non substantial entities the constant parameter c results as an obvious abstract construct. And, because formally imposed, it might represent a physical reality only if one precises relative to what physical environment the speed of light in void is factually evaluated. If space-time mode thought of the answer cannot be otherwise stated than: “vaguely into the inertial variety situated”. On the contrary, if aether mode considered, the answer comes out directly from the very definition of
Now, when so assumed, the subject itself suggests that the appellative “Relativity” – endorsed as a general concept, more precisely as a thinking procedure – cannot be any longer assimilated as a single, unitary, piece of theory. It looks so because it was by Poincaré and Lorentz initiated as coordinates transform procedure particular by that it doesn’t modify the form of Maxwell’s equations when operating upon them. To this piece of theory Einstein superposed, somehow provocatively, his Special Theory of Relativity [4], configured into the newly born four-dimensional space-time continuum and including into the operative part of the procedure the principle of absolute constancy of “c”, symbol for the speed of light in void.
The deep difference in meaning of the two “relativities” as above evoked suggests that the intent to reform the concept of relativity might make sense. So, tempting to assimilate in physics a notion of Relativity clearly significant one assumes a innovatory theoretical construct, referred at as Intuitive Relativity ‒ antonym of ratiocinative relativity ‒ configured as follows:
- it is into the classical Euclidian space defined and conjointly with the classical time referencing procedure associated;
- by moving through aether matter is supposed submitted in universal extension to the FitzGerald-Lorentz lengths-contraction phenomenon [5], [6], as well as to the phenomenon of slowing down of all electromagnetic oscillators by Ives and Stilwell assumed and experimentally proved [7].
Now, due to the fact that all electromagnetic phenomena are Maxwell’s equations enslaved and that these are, analytically, Lorentz-invariant, it follows that all electromagnetic phenomena shall run identically whatever the inertial reference frame adopted. And on the same line of thinking reasoned: because the measure of the speed of light relative to the aether is instrumentally determined and because the instruments naturally are purely electromagnetic structures, the meaning of constant c gets the sense of “absolute constant” c.
So assumed, Intuitive Relativity becomes a piece of analytical physics intuitively accessible on condition “c” is no more presumed a scalar entity yet a vector on two component built: one, symbolized “c”, is a vector on the light’s track aligned and of constant magnitude “c” ‒ constancy imposed by the Lorentz identically transforming formalism and implicit imposition of the aether’s implicitly presumed isotropy ‒ the second one, veth , is the very speed of the aether at the composing point, whatever the inertial referential frame used.
Supposing the world on aether somehow so built and aiming to understand inertia, gravitation and electromagnetism aether-way determined, a less vague model of aether is needed. A clear image stays not at hand; but because the subject is not new an investigation through the archives might help. At that intent richly informative is Conrad Ranzan’s The History of the Aether Theory [8] and, somehow supplementary informative, [9] in which the concept of “aether” is evoked as it has been imagined all along the lasts centuries. One finds so “aether” mentioned under many forms and senses, some of them surprisingly dissimilar, even contradictory in their meaning, example being: continuous versus particulate fluid, gravitation/ luminiferous substance, contractile/labile medium or even “rigid-gas” presumed. Richly informative is the list of references offered, particularly inciting being R. T. Cahill’s strongly provocative article [10], which develops an intently critical analysis of the in year 1887 by Michelson and Morley run experiment [11], of interest being also [12].
Cahill, in his text, contests the very sense the authors ascribed in 1887 to the then recorded data. After reinterpreting them, Cahill concludes: “... absolute motion was first detected in 1887 …”, a most surprising assertion. Cahill’s conclusion is surprising because it implicitly contradicts the stone-hard formal validity of absolute invariance of Maxwell’s equations when submitted to Lorentz’s coordinates transformation. Indifferently how formulated, the assertion needs a clear-cut logic justification. Following Cahill’s demonstration one beholds
After him Newton ponders about a conjoint existence of luminiferous and gravitational aether, launching so the idea that electromagnetism and gravitation might be, from the point of view of cause-effect determinism, disjoint determined. Yet he suggests that only vaguely, proof being the quotation in Wikipedia free encyclopedia: “Sir Isaac Newton apparently wrote nothing about the effect of mass on the path of light rays, other than to note at the end of his treatise, "Optics," published in 1704, that light particles should be affected by gravity in the same way as is ordinary matter.” [13].
Further, one meets Bernhard Riemann who “Similar to Newton, but mathematically in greater detail, …….. assumed in 1853 that the gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid in which normal matter drives aether-sinks. So, if the aether is destroyed or absorbed proportionally to the masses within the bodies, a stream arises and carries all surrounding bodies into the direction of the central mass. Riemann speculated that the absorbed aether is transferred into another world or dimension.” [13], [14]. Powerful innovatory was imagining then aether sinks into mater located in view to explain gravitation. And even more so was referring to “aether transferred into another world or dimension.
In the same spirit Sir William Thomson characterizes aether as being a “fluid medium by sources produced and towards at large flowing” [15]. It is a strong hypothesis hindered by the evidence that, quoting him in its own words, “a fluid constantly flowing out of a body without any supply from without, or flowing into it without any way of escape, is so contradictory to all our experience, that an hypothesis, of which it is an essential part, cannot be called an explanation of the phenomenon of gravitation.” [15].
The conceptual blockage Sir William Thomson refers to is deeply significant. A recent essay tries to bypass the blockage by daringly hypothesizing the coexistence of two “symbiotic” forms of aethers: one specifically correlated with the matter we are made of, the other with antimatter specifically connected [16].
In a hypothetical world so imagined inertia, gravitation and electromagnetism would exist in consequence of specific absorption into elementary particles of the first kind of aether, process balanced, “Lavoisier style”, by out flowing from the particle of an equivalent quantity of aether of the second kind.
Plausibly, a world running that way would develop itself as a cosmic bubble of, let’s say, the first kind of aether surrounded by another shell-like concentric universe, on antimatter functional this one, the only connection between the two universes so organized being reciprocal fluxes of aethers exchanged between them on their surface of contact.
At a first sight not a quite attractive hypothesis, meritorious yet by that it enables to bypass the conceptual blockage Newton himself didn’t transcend and Sir William Thomson intently deplores.
Returning to the main subject, essentially that of configuring a comprehensive Intuitive Relativity, one finds out that answering the question: “are electromagnetism and gravitation factually independent?” imposes itself in our days as a knowledge must. Answering the question presupposes devising, assembling and running an experimental device sensible to changes in its orientation relative to the gravitational field it is immerged in. Trying to precise the principle the device should run on, a straight forward answer is: a Kennedy-Thorndike interferometer particular by that the optical length of one of its branches would be purely inertia-gravitation determined while the other one remains strictly on solid matter anchored.
The subject once so framed the World Wide Web was consulted to find out if eventual researches of this kind have not been earlier engaged. Two promising titles were found:
Müller, J. Soffel, M. H. (1995). "A Kennedy–Thorndike experiment using LLR data". [17], and
J. A. Lipa, S. Buchman, S. Saraf, j. Zhou, A. Alfauwaz, J Konklin G. D. Cutler, and R. L. Byer. “Prospects for an advanced Kennedy-Thorndike experiment in low Earth orbit.” [18].
The first article was identified in January 2020 but, in February, when called again to work with, it was no more to be found. As for the second article it approaches the subject means of a design conceived in the very spirit of Einstein’s STR principles, essentially the testing if c is most exactly constant and rigorously independent of the magnitude and direction of the observer’s speed relative to the local rest frame adopted.
Or, as by the authors themselves expressed: the aim of the so intended experiment is to “search for variations in c les than ….” the scope being thought attainable by means of optical cavity specific instruments [18]
For the present study such reports are much to elaborate to be of direct help. Yet they incite to ask why researches with simple, direct classic Kennedy-Thorndike devices are not considered and reported? Thought of is a Kennedy-Thorndike device activated by some electronic oscillator tenths of seconds rigorously coherent, generating a Hertzian beam divided in two branches: one towards a geostationary satellite sent and returned, the other into an optical fiber injected and reflected, the fiber being horizontally on earth extended and of as many as possible kilometers length. At first sight no other difficulties than unpredictable influences onto the earth to artificial satellite distance are envisaged.
Anyhow, the presence of subjects as [17] and [18] in Wikipedia met prove the need some physicists feel for a deeper understanding of relativity whatever the way it is presently assumed.
Still, the subject seems to be even more largely demanding, asking an answer for the question: does the universe run on Newton forces through void space acting”, or simply leaning on “space-time laws”, or …… being on aether unconditionally dependent?
An answer to these questions might come out from astrophysical investigations. Of special interest appears the influence gravitation exercise on propagating electromagnetic waves. First needing to be tested in details appears the bending of light traversing a gravitational field. Obviously how the phenomenon appears running depends essentially from the nature light is considered made of, basically either corpuscular or undulatory. Somehow surprising is that scientists who along the last centuries approached the subject didn’t care about this duality. So, in spite of Newton’s deep interest in concern of the nature of light, he nonetheless mentions the subject only in a short restrictive way reported by Steven S. Shapiro and Irwin I. Shapiro the way of: “Sir Isaac Newton apparently wrote nothing about the effect of mass on the path of light rays, other than to note at the end of his treatise, "Optics," published in 1704, that light particles should be affected by gravity in the same way as is ordinary matter.” [19].
Years after Newton Johann Georg von Soldner, approaching the same subject, calculates the bending a light beam totalizes when passing by a massive body [20].
More recently Albert Einstein delivers in his Theory of General Relativity an abstract motivation of the phenomenon, concluding that “…the deflection shall be twice the Newtonian value.” [21].
Theoretically, the phenomenon of light bending by passing through an intense gravitational field can be approached in two different mode of understanding. Basically, light may be assumed particles based, or, alternately, of undulatory nature presupposed.
The phenomenon was in this last conceptual mode approached and by way of finite differences in virtual space represented [22]. The computing process was run, parametric iterative style, for different gravitational-center-to-light-beam distances. The curves so obtained show the shape the beam takes when of undulatory nature supposed differing essentially from the ones by Newton and Einstein foreseen. Those last predict tracks bent monotonously concave towards the attractive body all the way from source to observer. On the contrary, if light is of undulatory nature supposed, the beam is convex bent towards the gravitation generating center from source to the attracting body only, becoming concave to it only after having past the point of nearest approach to the gravitation generating center [22]. This anomaly, if by astronomy eventually confirmed, would constitute an undeniable proof the universe is filled with fluid aether, a medium supposed being the essence of universal causality.
A somehow surprising consequence of the so imagined reality might appear when observing a far away source situated beyond a black hole one of the fascicles of light ‒ by chance emitted so as to pass through a well determined “window” nearby the black hole ‒ when reaching the observer this one would see the source as a small curved segment situated into the very area of no allowance of light coming out from.
At the end of such a lengthy exposé a synthetic conclusion might be of some utility.
Along the science’s development process two distinct concepts of relativity have been over time developed: the Galilean one to mechanics specific and Lorentz’s one to electromagnetism dedicated. Both were meant to configure formal processes able to transcribe the virtual description of a mechanic, respectively electromagnetic phenomenon from its initial descriptive reference frame into another one of the same class. Both sets of relations so defined where conditioned to strictly bestow the invariance of nature’s laws relative to the transform from one inertial reference frame to another one of the same restricted specificity.
Considering the problem of formal referencing in its whole generality ‒ i.e. of Galilean as well as Lorenz specific ‒ it was from Newton times intently mechanic-side ruminated yet poorly in depth understood. One speaks of the search for the inertial, absolute system, eagerly pursued yet poorly caught sketched as a logic coherent category. From a practical point of view, inertial referencing is great; but when from a philosophical point of view approached the subject comes out as a real head ache. Who don’t believe that should consult e.g., DiSalle’s “Space and Time: Inertial Frames” [23].
With regard to how the general concept of relativity has evolved ‒ laxly framed as it is into the not yet well delimited space of inertial referring frames ‒ one distinguish three stages of accomplishment: a historical Lorentz-Poincaré Relativity prolonged by the yet became classical Special and General Theories of Relativity, followed now by the presently essayed Intuitive Relativity.
The first one, essentially a clearly defined abstract construct, is limpidly evoked by H. E. Ives as: “The Lorentz transformations, as first developed by Voigt in a discussion of the Doppler Effect, were a mathematical device calculated to leave the optical equations unchanged in form from one moving body to another. Lorentz, in his independent development, introduced the “local time” as a mathematical convenience, relating it to no physical operation by which it might be obtained.” [24].
Concerning the second one, i.e. the Special Theory of Relativity, because conceptually located into a non intuitive space-time manifold and also because bound to assume an arbitrary imperative ‒ referred at here as “c= absolute constant”, absolute actually understood as a physical reality, not an indication attached to a symbol into a virtual space located ‒ not only STR yet both Einstein’s Relativities come out as hybrid theoretical constructs impossible to assimilate into whatever on cause-effect based model of universe.
As for the last, i.e. the Intuitive Relativity, this one differs from the precedent two by that it interprets the world’s phenomenology means of the classical two categories of space and time paired as such. This means that space is Euclid’s way assumed, philosophical assumption which makes geometry to be thought of and practiced as if on solid matter drawn. The most important consequence of so philosophizing is that the Lorentz’s contraction, principle way assumed as physical phenomenon, shall affect all matter solid modes constituted. From this follows the universally valid conclusion that all electromagnetic tracks on solid matter anchored are compulsorily FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction submitted.
As regards the notion of time, intuitive relativity conception meant, it shall be, by definition, the best possible sidereal defined time. For a fair understanding of the meaning attributed to time in the present essay one may consult [25]. Time, as there thought of, is no more a physical item yet a virtual universal parameter significant in working with synchronisms at distance. Sensitive problems may arise when time would be that way practiced; this because eventual poorly known gravitation to Lorentz-Ives-Stilwell interactions might be still not well précised. Factually this is the principal motive pleading in favor of engaging a gravity sensitive Kennedy-Thorndike experiment to be performed. It is so because from the till here developed analysis comes out clearly that only one part of our universe, i.e. the electromagnetic one runs “relativity” enslaved, while the other part, the inertia-gravitation determined one, lies in uncertainty.
But what does that exactly means?
Looking into the near past one sees physicists who, looking after specific methods for solving electromagnetic problems, investigated changes of coordinates reference frames as operating method. Coming as a kind of surprise they discovered a transforming set which transforms identically Maxwell’s equations from one inertial frame to any other one of the same class. This came out, not quite surprisingly, from analytical researches. What came out afterwards, more or less as a surprise, was the seemingly wide extent of the invariance relative to the newly developed transform. The phenomenon was referred to as relativity, an abbreviation for relativity of space and time. Rightly assumed by Albert Einstein as valid for the entire electromagnetic domain it became of general use as Special Theory of Relativity.
In the wake of this prime success and in hope the innovatory spirit of “relativity” could be extended to the gravitational domain also, becoming so of general value, Albert Einstein launched his Theory of General Relativity. Regrettably, this one did not succeed to fill the gap simply because, intuitively interpreted, to suppose the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction operating on a gravitational track in void has no clear logical meaning. The so met conceptual hiatus in understanding the basics of our world justifies the engaging of experiences of a Kennedy-Thorndike type previously mentioned. Engaging experiences of that kind make sense simply because a pair of meaningful answers might come out from their carrying out. Explicitly expressed:
Supposing the device is found convincingly insensible to its orientation in space, the logic conclusion to draw would be that the length of the branch by inertia-gravity determined is, like the one on solid matter leaning, FitzGerald-Lorentz & Ives-Stilwell mode readjusted.
On the contrary, if the experiment delivers a clearly marked effect, the obliged conclusion would be that the length of the interferometer’s branch purely by inertia-gravitation determined is not significantly FitzGerald-Lorentz as well as Ives-Stilwell mode influenced.
The meaning of the so obtained results shall naturally depend from the point of view they are looked at. So, for the STR “fans” it would be good news because their desideratum of absolute constancy of c is, seemingly, experimentally confirmed. Yet it would be a somehow illusory confirmation because c’s constancy so demonstrated assay constancy of c only relative to the aether referred at, in fact its absolute value being
as previously mentioned.
On the contrary, if variant b) will be the one experimentally confirmed it would prove without possible doubt the real existence of substantial aether, universally extended and basis for all cause-effect based acting phenomena in universe. By this the truth-value of Intuitive Relativity would be confirmed, both Lorentz-Poincaré and Einstein’s GTR relativities remaining abstract mathematical constructs while STR will be pushed back in forlornness.
One may think that Intuitive Relativity, if ever so confirmed, will be able to fulfill Albert Einstein’s dearest dream: configuring the general laws of physics molded in a unitary formal structure valid whatever the reference frame adopted. It was illusory hope in Einstein’s time; it may be not so if intuitive relativity way approached. A set of formal expressions describing in a unified mode inertia, gravitation and electromagnetism may eventually come out from a well configured fluid-aether theory binding in a unitary melt gravitation and electromagnetism.
This might eventually happen, perhaps not very far away in time and not as a real surprise. What comes out now as a real surprise is to find, cited in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, the sequence: “In his last years, Ives considered the possibility of a theory which would unify the phenomena of contraction of time and length as arising from motion on the one hand and from presence in gravitational fields on the other. This was to be done by supposing that there is a luminiferous ether which itself flows through space into every gravitational body. The local velocity of this ethereal flow would be the Newtonian velocity of a body falling freely from infinity towards the center of gravitation. Bodies thus freely falling would be stationary with respect to the inwardly flowing ether and so would experience no contractions.” (author’s emphasizing). [25].
The synthesis H. E. Ives in his times and the Inertial Relativity presently look after is a theory coherently associated with a intuitive model of substantial, fluid aether. Still, this is hardly imaginable so long the existence of a substantial aether is widely negated.
So, it seems one has to wait for individuals making their minds on the subject and eventually deciding to engage a convincing trend in this sense.
REFERENCES.
[1] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Lorentz ether theory, Born (1964), 172ff)
[2] V. M. Yakovenko, http://physics.umdedu/-yakovenk/teaching/
[3] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Lorentz ether theory, Poincaré (1900a); Poincaré (1902), Ch. 9–10.
[4] A Einstein - Zur elektrodynamik bewegter körper.Annalen der physik, 1905.
[5] Length contraction, From Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia.
[6] Herbert E. Ives. THE FITZGERALD CONTRACTIONS. Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, new series, 26 (1952). Apud [7]
[7] Richard Hazelet and Dean Turner. The EINSTEIN Myth and the IVES Papers. A Counter-Revolution in Physics. Edited with comments by Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner. The Devin-Adair Company, Publishers. OLD GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT
[8] www.CellularUniverse.org The History of the Aether Theory. Conrad Ranzan.
[9] Conrad Ranzan, The History of the Aether Theory. A compendious summary and chronology of the aether theories. Published on the Celular Universe website 2002 (last updated 2019-12).
[10] R. T. Cahill, The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion. Progress in Physics, Vol. 3 (October 2005).
[11] Michelson, Albert A.; Morley, Edward W. (1887). "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether" . American Journal of Science. 34 (203): 333–345.
Bibcode:1887AmJS...34..333M. doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-34.203.333
[12] Herbert E. Ives. Extrapolation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA. VOL.40, NUMBER 4, APRIL 1950
[13] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Isaac Newton (1726). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, General Scholium. Third edition, page 943 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.
[14] Bernhard Riemann. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[15] Sir William Thomson. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 7th Feb. 1870.
[16] Dan Romalo, Heuristic Configuration of an Aether Model. Galilean Electrodynamics. Vol. 29, Number 4, July/August 2018.
[17] Müller, J. Soffel, M. H. (1995). "A Kennedy–Thorndike experiment using LLR data". Physics Letters A. 198 (2): 7–73
[18] J. A. Lipa, S. Buchman, S. Saraf, j. Zhou, A. Alfauwaz, J Konklin G. D. Cutler, and R. L. Byer. “Prospects for an advanced Kennedy-Thorndike experiment in low Earth orbit.” arXiv:1203.3914 [pdf].
[19] Steven S. Shapiro, Irwin I. Shapiro, “Gravitational deflection of light” in: Einstein Online Band 04 (2010), 03-1003
[20] Eric Baird. Relativity in Curved Spacetime. Life without special relativity.
[21] MARKUS PÖSSEL The elevator, the rocket, and gravity: the equivalence principle in: Einstein Online . Band 04 (2010), 02-1020
[22] Dan romalo, Bending of a Light-Ray Passing a Black Hole. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Vol. 2, No. 1.
[23] DiSalle, R. (1988). Space, Time and Inertia in the Foundations of Newtonian Physics. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago
[24] Herbert E. Ives. Loretz Tipe Transformations as Derived from Performable Rod and Clock Operations. JOURNAL OF THE OPTICALSOCIETY OF AMERICA. Vol.19 number 1949. Apud [7].
[25] Dan Romalo. Absolute Time. PROCEEDINGS of the NPA, Albuquerque 2012, pages 463-468
[26] Ives on Gravitation: Previously Unpublished Remarks. ([7], p. 191])
5 COMMENTS
Hi Mr. Dan,
Interesting point of view. I was wondering if in your theory the ether exists somewhere below the Planck length.
As you know, the Planck length is really a derived quantity from all the constants of the universe and so nothing below it, in theory at least, could be measured.
Thank you for the evaluation of my work and for the associated question. The answer is that the Planck length is conceived as a symbol into the virtual space-time field (“According to our current understanding of physics, the planck length is the shortest unit of length possible in spacetime due to the impossibility of observing anything smaller.[4] “Wikipedia – Planck length) while I am supposing the aether being an entity in space and time situated.
Best regards,
Dan Romalo
Hello Mr. Dan Romalo,
I’ve read your view on relativity and although I am not a professional in the physics field by any means, I do have a lot of curiosity about the world around us and as such I am trying to understand as much about it as possible.
I find your views on the existence of aether fascinating but due to my limited understanding, I can’t quite grasp certain concepts and I was wondering if you could help me out with some clarifications.
From your statements, my understanding is that you clearly differentiate between virtual constructs and actual physical objects/properties.
The present scientific conclusion is that there is no aether due to the fact that the optical resonator experiment confirmed the absence of any aether wind at a 10−17 level.
I guess the hard question is, if there is indeed an aether and it has a certain flow/speed (such that it can conceal the relative movement involved in experiments trying to detect it), what would this speed be relative to ? In other words, the speed of the aether would be measured against what?
What sustains the aether, in “what” does it exist ? I can imagine that this leads to a recursive type of thinking but I am curious what solution would solve this problem.
All waves need a medium to travel through, but we know that light itself is a dual-property entity (wave and quanta/photons). I don’t know if a solution would be to think of the light traveling as quanta instead of a wave and if this would be an explanation of how it would travel in void, although it is very hard to think of a void that allows anything to travel within it. Even Maxwell used properties of this “void” to derive the speed of light, the ones mentioned by you.
I also found interesting the discussion about anti-matter. One could think of the aether as having a balance between inward/outward flow, anti-matter/matter but its existence must be, just as everything else in the universe, possible only due to a slight imperfection in an otherwise theoretical perfect balance. If antimatter and matter would existing in exact equal quantities, nothing would exist.
A second question that I have is about the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment. My understanding is that this experiment is a modified version of the M-M experiment that shortened the length of an arm of the M-M apparatus to also test if the velocity of the apparatus would be independent from the speed of light.
The results where that both the orientation and the velocity of the apparatus has no effect on the measurement of the speed of light and so somehow validated that a time contraction is also needed.
Are the actual measurements (time dilatation, known from having to synchronize clocks of GPS satellites to clocks on earth) just something that we do not understand and Einstein reversed engineered equations that would fit this model ?
Thank you!
Most grateful for your message and for the problems you signal as needing clarification. Surprisingly, it’s the first time I am called to discuss physics from a philosophical point of view. It is a very good surprise.
Yes, I certainly differentiate virtual constructs from actual physical objects or properties. More specifically: I consider one may build physics either the intuitive way, by modeling real phenomena by means of representations interrelated by specific interacting logic rules into a thinking space — forcibly virtual this one because thinking is a virtual process – or, alternately, assuming physics as an ensemble of symbols linked by name and specific rules of interconnection with real physical entities yet defined more or less ad libitum conformal with specific physical evolutions, yet not by instrumental evaluation connected with the real thing.
A perhaps somehow enlightening example may be the space-time notion – certainly a physics’ item yet not a physical item because it is into a virtual space by arbitrary laws defined – compared to Euclid’s space or real time those clearly instrumented physical representations. Not caring of this led to the more than hundred years long anomaly of Einstein’s STR by which “c” is abstract way defined as an absolute constant supposed to represent the speed of light in void, yet not instrumented means connected into a real phenomenon.
Relative to : “The present scientific conclusion is that there is no aether due to the fact that the optical resonator experiment confirmed the absence of any aether wind at a 10−17 level.” I feel ashamed to confess I am not in clear with what “optical resonator experiment” exactly means.
Regarding : “what would this speed be relative to ? In other words, the speed of the aether would be measured against what?”
In my view the problem of determining the aether’s speed relative to something begins by finding out if there exist instrumental means to do that. This said because if gravitation and electromagnetism are, physically, not absolutely independent, by no means would an aether-speed be detectable whatever the experimental electromagnetic device might be. This is why I so hotly recommend a Kennedy-Thorndike type experiment should be run on a principally hybrid gravitation-electromagnetic structure. Essentially one with one arm purely inertia-gravitation determined – example being one with an earth to a stationary artificial satellite branch – the other branch remaining on matter supported. If successful, the experience would tell the device’s speed relative the locally ambient aether. In this case, by running the experiment in as much as possible different space and time locations would allow a mapping of the aether flow in a more or less limited domain.
“What sustains the aether, in “what” does it exist ?”. I suppose it is contained in classical space and evolving in a still to be determined cinematic way.
Regarding “All waves need a medium to travel through, but …etc.” I postpone thinking about details on that matter until the existence of aether shall appear proved.
In relation with presuming the real existence of two kinds of aether, each one specifically related with matter, respectively antimatter, it was the only imaginative hypothesis I could imagine to explain at a deeper level of understanding inertia and gravitation. In my opinion it’s a zero priority in succeeding to really understand part of the universe.
Referring to your mention that a balance “between inward/outward flow, anti-matter/matter but its existence must be, just as everything else in the universe, possible only due to a slight imperfection in an otherwise theoretical perfect balance. If antimatter and matter would existing in exact equal quantities, nothing would exist.” I humbly confess that I do not understand the blockage you refer to.
As for your second question i.e. the one implying the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, I feel it perfectly well expressed.
As for an answer to your last question I must decline my competence; I am an ignorant in GPS science. Some years ago I tempted to approach, aether mode, the subject but was blocked by the complexity of correlating signals from two or more artificial satellites. Yet, esoterically thinking, I am convinced that a wise analysis of the 24 hours periodicity component into the GPS correction procedures may evidence a dilation of time-measurements which might be aether-way understandable. This sustained also by eventual earth to artificial satellite kind of Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, may open a way to intuitive understanding physics.
Sincerely grateful for your comments
Thanks for sharing your ideas. Did you publish anything else on the matter?