2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

397 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext

(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
October 6, 1991
RELAT1.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Tom Albion.
Tom runs the THC Online System in CANADA at 604-361-4549.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Title-> A challenge to Einstein. (challenges to Albert
Einstein's special theory of relativity) (special issue:
35th Anniversary 1955-1990)
Authors-> Bethell, Tom
HOWARD HAYDEN, a professor of physics at the University of
Connecticut since 1967, is in the final stages of an experiment that
may undermine a basic assumption of Einstein's special theory of
relativity: that the speed of light is a constant, irrespective of
the observer's motion.
Hayden claims that the invariant velocity of light has never been
demonstrated experimentally, and to dramatize this startling claim,
he and Petr Beckmann, Professor Emeritus of electrical engineering
at the University of Colorado, are jointly offering a reward of
$2,000 to anyone who can cite a valid optical experiment
demonstrating that the speed of light east to west on the Earth's
surface is the same as it is west to east (to an accuracy of fifty
meters per second). The experiment does not have to be performed,
merely cited.
A longtime skeptic about relativity, Beckmann a few years ago
proposed a rival theory of physics which, he claims, fits the known
facts and explains them much more simply than Einstein's. Before
publishing his theory in a book (Einstein Plus Two, 1987) he sent
the manuscript to Howard Hayden at Storrs, Connecticut. Hayden's
initial reaction was near-disbelief that the velocity of light had
not already been demonstrated to be invariant. But eventually he
became convinced that Beckmann was right.
In 1988, he devised an experimental test of Beckmann's theory. His
preliminary results support Beckmann, raising the question whether
there are any experimental observations which require relativity
theory to explain them.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the evidence that light
travels in a wave became overwhelming. Just as sound waves need air
to travel in, so light would need a medium, if it traveled in waves.
This hypothetical medium was called the ether, and a famous
experiment by Michelson and Morley, performed in Cleveland in 1887,
Page 1
was expected to demonstrate its existence. Since the Earth must be
passing through this ether on its journey around the sun, everyone
assumed it would be possible to detect the ether wind" with a
suitable apparatus, just as it is possible to detect the air from a
moving car by putting your hand out into the breeze. In the 1880s
Michelson devised an experiment sensitive enough, in theory, to
produce a measurable effect.
But no matter how many times they tried, Michelson and Morley could
detect no ethereal breeze. (In their experiment, this had been
expected to take the form of a shift in the interference pattern
visible where criss-crossing light rays came together.)
Various explanations for the null result were suggested. Michelson
himself supposed that the ether was "entrained," which is to say
carried along with the Earth. As we shall see, this may have been a
close approximation to the truth. But the entrained-ether theory was
rejected by most scientists.
The physicists G. F. FitzGerald and H. A. Lorentz suggested another
possibility: that moving objects contract slightly in the direction
of motion-the contraction being just sufficient to account for the
null result. This was ingenious, but unsatisfactory.
It had the ad-hoc look of an unfalsifiable assumption, rather like
the suggestion that everything in the universe is getting bigger at
the same time.
Then in 1905, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein
suggested a third way of looking at the matter. He proposed
a) that the speed of light is the same in all directions,
irrespective of the motion of any apparatus set up to
measure it; and
b) that observers traveling with different velocities would
see the same things with different lengths and
durations.
This eliminated the need for an ether altogether.
Einstein's famous paper showed that everything could be worked out
mathematically if these peculiar assumptions about the universe were
made.
This was a very odd procedure. Einstein bent" space and time so
that a velocity could be preserved as a constant. But velocity
itself is merely distance divided by time.
Discarding space and time as "absolutes" so that a velocity can be
retained as an absolute is as strange as it would be for a man to go
on living undisturbed on the second floor of his house while the
basement and ground floor were completely remodeled.
Einstein's assumption about the invariant velocity of light emerged
from the turn-of-the-century quandary of physicists trying to
account for the Michelson-Morley result. But if it turns out that
there is a simpler way of explaining what really happened, we
should, out of deference to the simplicity that is preferred by
Page 2
science, discard the premise that the speed of light is invariant.
We should (everything else being equal) prefer the notion that light
behaves like other wave phenomena (such as sound). This would allow
us to bring back space and time as absolutes. And it would, to a
large extent, restore the classical world view of Isaac Newton.
What, then, is Beckmann's theory, and does it indeed achieve such a
degree of simplification?
Beckmann argues that the medium through which light waves travel (or
more generally, electromagnetic waves) is not a universal, all
pervasive, uniform substance-the ether-but more simply the local
gravitational field.
For us, the local" gravitational field is overwhelmingly that of the
Earth. And this field moves forward with the Earth on its journey
around the sun. The null result obtained by Michelson-Morley is
therefore easily explained because there was no "ether wind" to
measure.
Analogously, someone in the bathroom of a Boeing 747 would not
expect to feel a slipstream if he stuck his head out into the main
cabin. The air in the main cabin is moving along with him.
Plot Twist
AT THIS POINT Beckmann adds a plot twist-almost literally. The Earth
is also rotating on its axis every 24 hours, and there are good
reasons for believing that the Earth really does rotate within its
gravitational field; that is, that this field does not twist around
with the Earth. Beckmann illustrates this key point with the
following analogy:
Imagine a woman wearing a hoop skirt fitting loosely around
her waist.
As she moves forward, the skirt moves with her and there is
no relative motion between her and the skirt. But if she then
pirouettes, or does the twist, while still moving forward,
she would rotate" within the skirt.
At that point relative motion between her body and the skirt
would be detectable.
The Earth moves forward around the sun at about sixty thousand miles
per hour; but it rotates on its axis (in the latitude of New York)
at only about six hundred mph.
If Beckmann is right, therefore, the detectable relative motion
between the rotating Earth and its gravitational field is only about
one-hundredth of what Michelson and Morley were looking for.
But the relevant equation requires that this fraction be squared,
and so the expected "fringe shift" is only one ten-thousandth of
what they expected to find. This was beyond the technical limits of
measuring instruments in the 1880s. But today it can be measured.
Readers at this point may well be imagining that Howard Hayden has
Page 3
simply redone Michelson-Morley, looking for this much smaller
effect. In fact, such an experiment would be very expensive for
someone without the necessary equipment.
Instead, Hayden has repeated another old experiment, first performed
at Cambridge in 1903 by Trouton and Noble; an experiment sometimes
called the electromagnetic equivalent of Michelson-Morley.
It cannot easily be explained, but it involves suspending a
capacitor from a very thin copper wire, the whole apparatus being
carefully protected in a vacuum and shielded from stray currents and
magnetic influences.
If the Earth's surface is, as claimed, moving through the Earth's
gravitational field west to east at six hundred mph, and if this
field really is the medium in which electromagnetic waves travel,
the suspended capacitor should experience a torque, slowly twisting
in the "ether wind" until the capacitor is aligned north-south.
If, on the other hand, Einstein is right, and the velocity of
electromagnetic waves is an absolute regardless of the gravitational
field, there should be no torque.
HAYDEN HAS DETECTED A TORQUE, as Beckmann predicted.
Four additional points should be borne in mind:
Einstein's famous equation, E = MC.sq.2, expressing the relationship
between mass and energy, is unaffected by all this. It was derived
independently of relativity theory (some textbooks and
popularizations to the contrary notwithstanding) and would be
unaffected by its demise.
"The most famous experimental test of Einstein occurred in 1919,
when an expedition photographed a solar eclipse off West Africa and
confirmed the truth of a new theory of the universe," according to
the opening page of Paul Johnson's Modern Times.
Light rays from a star bent slightly, as predicted, as they passed
close by the sun. But according to Beckmann and Hayden, this can
easily be explained without relativity. Light rays do bend when
they pass through a medium of varying density; they bend sharply, as
anyone can see by looking at a pencil in a glass of water, when
passing from one medium to another.
Likewise, but to a much smaller extent, light rays passing from the
rarefied medium of gravity in outer space into the denser
gravitational field nearer the sun should be expected to bend.
Classical physics (Fermat's Law) is sufficient to explain it;
Einsteinian complexity, such as curved space is not needed.
(Fermat's Law states that light en route from A to B
follows the path that minimizes the time of transit.)
Another much-heralded confirmation of Einstein is the small
discrepancy between the advance of Mercury's perihelion (the orbital
point closest to the sun) and the result predicted by Newton.
Page 4
"Einstein's theory accounted exactly for this residue," Bertrand
Russell wrote in The ABC of Relativity. Beckmann is astounded by the
rewriting of history here.
Einstein's formula explaining Mercury's orbit, published in 1915 and
derived from general relativity theory, had in fact been published
17 years earlier by a man named Paul Gerber (Beckmann believes he
was a high-school teacher in Stargard, Germany).
Gerber used classical physics, plus the assumption that gravity is
not instantaneous (as Newton thought) but propagates with the speed
of light (as is now generally accepted). Gerber derived Einstein's
equation exactly, without relativity. Einstein arrived at the same
point using a complex trick-bag of gravitational tensors and
Riemannian geometry.
The protocols of science recommend that simpler explanations should
be preferred to complex ones, but Gerber has been ignored.
Albert Michelson, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in
physics, never accepted the theory of relativity. (Nor did H. A.
Lorentz.) Michelson believed that the ether he failed to detect was
entrained by the Earth in its orbit, but NOT IN ITS ROTATION.
In 1925 he checked this theory, so similar to Beckmann's, in an
elaborate optical experiment at Clearing, Illinois, with a colleague
at the University of Chicago, H. G. Gale. They did indeed find a
fringe shift, which Einstein had to explain by a highly complicated
application of general relativity theory. But by then Einstein was
well on his way to deification, and today Michelson/Gale is rarely
mentioned.
What is now needed is a rerun of the Michelson-Morley experiment,
with the Beckmann theory put to the test. The famous experiment was
repeated by physicists at the University of Colorado in 1979, on a
rotating table and using laser light. Unexpected perturbations were
detected, but attributed to other causes.
One of the experimenters, Dr. John L. Hall of the Joint Institute
for Laboratory Astrophysics, a leading expert on speed-of-light
experiments, says that Beckmann "has made a serious effort to reduce
relativity thinking to an objective environment, in which
measurements can be made and his theory put to the test." He has
suggested that Michelson-Morley should be repeated on an orbiting
satellite.
The experiment would be crucial because, if Beckmann is correct, the
much greater velocity with which a satellite passes through the
Earth's gravitational field (a satellite's "day" is ninety minutes)
would increase by a factor of four hundred the fringe shift that
Beckmann would expect to find.
"Such an experiment would not prove that Beckmann is right," Hall
added, but it sure could prove that he is wrong." By the same token,
it could also prove that Einstein is wrong. Let's hope that Hall
gets the opportunity to do the experiment.
* NB: Those who would like to try to collect the $2,000 reward can
reach Beckmann at: P.O. Box 251, Boulder, Colo. 80306; and
Page 5
Hayden at: Physics Department, Storrs, Conn. 06269.
Incidentally, Beckmann publishes Galileian Electrodynamics, a
bi-monthly journal on the topics raised herein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6