BEYOND THE SPEED OF LIGHT
by William F. Hamilton 1997-2001
Space-Ether series I
Revision 1 (12/25/2004), Revision 2 (02/12/2005)
1. THE LIGHT BARRIER
Since the
wide acceptance of the Special Theory of Relativity, scientists have generally
accepted the notion that the speed of light in vacuo is the upper limit of all
material speeds. For this reason, space
travel greater than the speed of light is usually considered unattainable
except through special contrivance, which is used to alter the properties of
the space-time continuum. If the Special
Theory of Relativity is correct, the speed of light in vacuo is the only
universal absolute. Another way of
stating this principle is that light or, more precisely, electromagnetic waves,
have no preferred frame of reference.
Often cited in support of this principle is reference to the classic
Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment.
This experiment was an attempt to measure the earth’s motion through the
hypothetical ether at rest in space. The negative result of this experiment was
used to prove that Einstein’s proposition that the speed of light is not
altered by addition of velocities with light-
emitting objects or that an ether was necessary for
explaining the propagation of light across empty space.
2.
COORDINATE SYSTEMS:
Einstein
assigns Cartesian coordinate systems to rigid bodies. The rigid body then becomes useful as a
measuring rod and Einstein postulates that all physical measurements depend on
physical measuring rods. Marks on rigid
measuring rods will not alter their position with respect to each other. Einstein soon realized that no ideal rigid
measuring rod exists. For instance, a
rod could expand or contract if it is heated or cooled. Instead of Einstein’s rigid measuring rod, we
could now substitute a specific wavelength of laser light as a reliable means
of measuring length.
Imagine
coordinate system K fixed to some position on the moving earth. The length x in coordinate system K is
measured to be 100 meters. Some distance
from coordinate system K is coordinate system K’ fixed to a moving spacecraft
which has a measured velocity as determined from system K of .9c (the measured
velocity of the speed of light in vacuo).
Spacecraft system K’ has a length x’ = x. In accordance with SR (Special Relativity),
if x’ is parallel to the direction of k’, then x’ is contracted in length by
the Lorentz transform:
x’ = x-vt2⁄
√1-v2/C
which is computed to have contracted to a length of
56.41123 meters from the frame of reference of rod K in which the translational
velocity (vt) has been subtracted from x, the length of our measuring rod. Einstein concludes that this is the actual
contraction of spacecraft K’ relative to Earth’s system K. According to Einstein’s principle of
relativity neither of the reference bodies, K or K’, is unique and it is
immaterial whether we choose either one as our preferred frame of
reference. Has the spacecraft actually
contracted? What if we could view and
measure the rod K fixed to the earth from our spacecraft? Would rod K be contracted? Or does it just appear contracted because of
our spacecraft’s velocity?
3.
INTRODUCING A THIRD COORDINATE SYSTEM
The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to
measure the absolute motion of the earth through a stationary
ether. The M-M experiment made use of an
interferometer, a device that measures
the amount of interference between two beams of light. The interferometer has four critical
points. A beam of light from some
suitable source (S) is split into two beams by a partially silvered mirror (A)
with one beam deflected at 90-degrees to a second mirror (B) and the other beam
directed at 0-degrees to a third mirror (C).
The beam from mirror B is now reflected through A to a detector (D) and
the beam from mirror C is deflected 90-degrees by mirror A to interfere with
the first beam at detector D.
The distances of paths within the interferometer are
such that AB = AC =AD = SA, or SC = BD.
Thus if a beam of light of a specific color is emitted at S (light
source) and travels along equal path lengths and arrives at D in phase, then
the conclusion is that the beam has traveled at the same velocity along paths
SC-CD and SB-BD.
If the split beam traveled at different velocities
due to a retardation of its velocity on any of the paths due to ether drag, then the beam should arrive
at D out-of-phase and interference fringes will be registered. This is the case in the M-M experiment for
measuring the absolute velocity of the earth through a stationary ether. Other interferometer experiments and the case
for an entrained ether will be
addressed as we proceed with our analysis.
4. THE
SWIMMER ANALOGY
For simplicity an analogy of the experiment, called
the swimmer analogy, is given to
explain the key elements. The critical
points are now represented as the corners of a square and the paths are given as
channels rigidly fixed to the banks of a river.
The channels are fixed by straight boards and two swimmers represent the
beams of light that are split by the interferometer with one swimmer swimming
parallel to the river (ether stream) and the other swimming perpendicular to
the river. The ether which was at rest
is now a moving river. This would be a preferred frame of reference. The earth and the interferometer are now
at rest with respect to the river and are represented by the river banks and
our straight boards. All points of
motion are now inverted, and the preferred frame is now in relative motion.
In accordance with this analogy and the results of
the actual M-M experiment, the results are negative, a negligible amount of
interference occurred, and no variation is found in the speed of the swimmers
or the speed of light in moving from one point to another and back again. We could conclude from this that the speed of
light is constant and the ether doesn’t affect it’s speed or just doesn’t exist!
However, the swimmer analogy contains a fatal flaw
or two.
When inverting stationary positions for moving
positions and vice versa, the movement of the light beams themselves are not
inverted. In other words, the swimmers
would not be swimming!
A correct analogy would show the wooden frame
traveling across a still lake and the
swimmers would be swimming, one parallel to the motion of the wooden frame, and
one normal to its motion. If we were to
now measure the distance each swimmer traverses with respect to the water in
the lake, the path lengths of the triangle from position (A) to position (B’)
and back to position (D) would not equal the path length of the swimmer going
from position (A) to position (C’) and back to (A’). If two swimmers traverse unequal path lengths
in equal times, then the velocities of the two swimmers are not equal.
S1 = 2(1/sin(A-B) where A-B
is the path length for swimmer 1.
S2 =
(A-C’) + (C’-A) which is the path length for swimmer 2.
S2 >
S1 therefore S1V ≠ S2V
If there is one universal coordinate system, the
ether of space, we could visualize these models, but we could not affix a
measuring device to the ether itself. We
would have to assume that the velocity of light is changing when it is emitted
from an object moving through a motionless ether. But, are we to assume the ether is
motionless? Is there any other
experiment we could perform to determine if the velocity of light is invariant
in all reference frames, or whether it varies by composition with kinematic
sources?
Professor Laro Schatzer has made this cogent
statement regarding an ether frame:
“There have
been a variety of theories to describe electromagnetic waves (light) as
excitations of some medium, quite in analogy to sonic waves which propagate in
the medium air. This hypothetical medium was called the ether and it was
supposed to be in rest in the absolute space-time frame. That is why this frame is also called ether
frame sometimes. Since the establishment of the theory of special relativity it
has become extremely unpopular among scientists to speak about”ether".
However, we know today that electromagnetic waves are indeed excitations of
some "medium". However, this
medium is not a solid or a liquid in the classical sense, but it is governed by
the laws of quantum mechanics. Quantum field theorists found the name vacuum
for it. Some people interpret the vacuum as space-time itself, but this does
not cover the fact that its true nature still remains a mystery. Anyhow, the
term quantum ether might be used to
indicate a possible modern synthesis of both concepts.”
Rev 1: Since
the initial writing above, a number of scientists have now revived theories of
the ether and a few have re-analyzed the Michelson and Morley experiment as
well as pointing out positive results from other experiments. Physicist Paul Marmet has written:
We show that Michelson and Morley used an over
simplified description and failed to notice that their calculation is not
compatible with their own hypothesis that light is traveling at a constant
velocity in all frames. During the last century, the Michelson-Morley
equations have been used without realizing that two essential fundamental
phenomena are missing in the Michelson-Morley demonstration. We show that
the velocity of the mirror must be taken into account to calculate the angle of
reflection of light. Using the Huygens principle, we see that the angle
of reflection of light on a moving mirror is a function of the velocity of the
mirror. This has been ignored in the Michelson-Morley calculation.
Also, due to the transverse direction of the moving frame, light does not enter
in the instrument at 90 degrees as assumed in the Michelson-Morley
experiment. We acknowledge that, the basic idea suggested by Michelson-Morley
to test the variance of space-time, using a comparison between the times taken
by light to travel in the parallel direction with respect to a transverse
direction is very attractive. However, we show here that the usual
predictions are not valid, because of those two classical secondary phenomena,
which have not been taken into account. When these overlooked phenomena
are taken into account, we see that a null result, in the Michelson-Morley
experiment, is the natural consequence, resulting from the assumption of an
absolute frame of reference and Galilean transformations. On the
contrary, a shift of the interference fringes would be required in order to
support Einstein’s relativity. Therefore, for the last century, the relativity
theory has been based on a misleading calculation. (1)
Also, the ether drift experiments of Dayton Miller
have received new attention and seem to indicate a positive result for the
existence of an ether.
Dayton
Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive
results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of
ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of
light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have
been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale
(1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v), but
these were not adequately constructed for detection of a larger cosmological ether-drift,
of the Earth and Solar System moving through the background of space. Dayton
Miller's work on ether-drift was so constructed, however, and yielded consistently
positive results. (2)
Rev 2. Reginald
T. Cahill of School of Chemistry, Physics, Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
GPO Box 2100,
“The
experimental evidence from at least seven observations of absolute linear
motion, some using Michelson interferometers and some coaxial cable
experiments, all showed that absolute linear motion is detectable, and indeed
has been so ever since the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Even Michelson and
Morley reported a speed of 8km/s using the Newtonian theory for the instrument,
but which becomes ≥ vp = 300 km/s when the Fitzgerald-Lorentz dynamical
contraction effect and the refractive index effect are both taken into
account. It then follows that vacuum
interferometer experiments will fail to detect that absolute motion, as is the
case. We also understand that the various relativistic effects are caused by
the absolute motion of systems through space, an idea that goes back to
Lorentz. Elsewhere [2,3,7] we have shown that both the Galilean and Lorentz
transformations have a role in describing mappings of data between observers in
relative motion, but that they apply to different forms of the data. So
absolute motion is a necessary part of the explanation of relativistic effects,
and indeed the Lorentz transformations and symmetry are consistent with
absolute motion, contrary to current beliefs. On the contrary the Einstein
postulates and their apparent link to these relativistic effects have always
been understood to imply that absolute motion is incompatible with these
relativistic effects. It was then always erroneously argued that the various
observations of absolute motion over more than 100 years must have been flawed,
since the relativistic effects had been confirmed in numerous experiments. (3)
There
seems to be a growing preponderance of evidence that a space ether medium
exists and that physical theories on gravitation, inertia, electromagnetism,
and nuclear forces as well as cosmological theories will need to take account
of these. It is even possible that an
extensive revision of theoretical physics will be necessitated by these
discoveries, both old and new.
5. AN
ENTRAINED ETHER
A. Brillet and J.L. Hall conducted a modern ether
drift experiment in 1979. Brillet and
Hall put a laser on a rotating platform and split the beam. One part of the beam went into a Fabry-Perot
interferometer, the other was directed via mirrors off the platform to be
compared with a reference beam from a stationary laser. The frequency of the rotating laser was
compared with that of the reference laser; the difference was Fourier analyzed.
Any anisotropy of the speed of light would show up as a frequency shift which
varied dependent on the direction of the interferometer. If the old pre-Lorentz ether theory were true
(static ether), they would have found a frequency shift dependent on sidereal
direction of the interferometer and found no such effect.
They also found a frequency shift of 17 Hz at twice
the table rotation rate, which they could not explain on direction of
interferometer with respect to the lab.
It is this effect which is predicted by an entrained ether theory.
An entrained ether theory favors a dynamic ether,
an ether that can be entrained in motion by a rotating object, such as earth,
embedded within the dynamic ether.
6. ETHER
EXPLANATIONS
If a velocity-dependent medium such as the ether
could be established by experiment, then it could open the door to alternative
explanations to SR and GR regarding physical phenomena. If this ether is quantized, then we could explore
the theoretical nature of a quantum ether.
Is gravity a result of some state of the quantum ether?
Does the quantum ether explain inertia? What does an electric or magnetic field do to
the state of the quantum ether? Are
material particles some wave-state of the quantum ether? Can we unify physical principles by
considering a quantum ether?
A complete theory of the ether has been attempted
but many such theories lack the sweep and power of modern mathematical
theories.
A complete theory of the ether would not only account
for the origin of forces, but the origin of matter and mass. Past theorizing has postulated the existence
of circulating flows in a hydrodynamic ether that form hollow or ring vortices
that give rise to electromagnetic forces and constitute the elementary
particles that make-up the atomic nature of the world. Experiments conducted on the alternating
gradient synchrotron with colliding protons seem to indicate that protons
behave like composite vortices as described by Helmholtz and others in their
excellent treatises on hydrodynamics.
7.
EXPERIMENTING WITH LIGHT
A test of light speed could be made if some object
holding a measuring device could accelerate to some sizable fraction of light
speed, say .5c, and test the speed of an electromagnetic emission from this
object through space to a reflection point and back to the object from the
reference frame of the moving object.
Also, Bryan Wallace delivered a paper on the 1961
measurements of the distance of Venus using radar. Wallace claims that the inconsistencies in
the measurements are not supportive of SR, but support a C+v velocity for the
radar signal. Perhaps a review of this
data, and further refined experiments could determine if the data is consistent
with SR or Galilean addition of velocities.
8.
INERTIA
Inertia is simply the tendency of a mass to maintain a uniform
state of motion.
Every
body persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless
compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.
This is his famous 1st Law of Motion.
Notice that there really is no distinction between "rest" and
"uniform motion". Uniform motion simply means moving at a constant
velocity in relation to observers that measure that motion. A body
observed to be at rest relative to one observer can, at the same time, be
observed to be moving at a constant velocity v by another observer who
happens to be moving at v relative to the first observer. The important
point is that a body's inertia is simply its tendency to maintain its current
state of uniform (unaccelerated) motion. We can restate this as the tendency of
a body, when no net force is acting upon it, to move in a straight line
through space and time.
The origin of inertia is treated as a mystery in
physics. There are several theoretical
proposals postulating the origin of inertia.
Austrian philosopher-physicist Ernst Mach proposed
that the earth's rotation is not relative to any absolute reference such as
space or some other ethereal substrate, but is rather defined in reference to
all the other masses in the universe ("the fixed stars", as he put
it). This became known as Mach's Principle.
Some scientists propose a General Relativity
solution to the origin of inertia. One
proposal is that inertia is an effect of gravitomagnetism. Another proposal is that radiation pressure
is the source of inertia. Still another
proposal attributes inertia to the zero-point energy that is found everywhere
throughout space.
I tend to agree with one proposal that attributes
inertia to the ether, however the difficulties with this idea and the
objections to the existence of ether have been numerous in the scientific
community. It is necessary to both revive
and revise the idea and show that space itself is the ether, that space is a
non-material medium that exerts a pressure on material bodies and that we
interpret this pressure effect as gravity or inertia depending on our motion. Space-ether has its own range of motions that
may be described as hydrodynamic. It is
this approach to gravity and inertia which I feel holds the most promise for
space travel.
9. SPACE
DRIVES
Why is it important to determine the nature of the
ether of space and time? One obvious
answer is to determine whether we could find new ways to travel through space
or time. The most common solution
offered in the past has been to use hyperspatial dimensions to cross enormous
distances that separate stellar systems.
While it is true that space could harbor more than three dimensions, and
time could be enfolded from greater than one dimension, the energy dimensions
of ether have yet to be explored.
NASA is now interested in breakthrough physics, on
new solutions to space travel, on dispensing with rocket propellants and
finding new sources of energy, and on theoretical means for breaking the light
barrier.
If the light barrier can be broken by some sort of
inertial drive, a drive that changes the resistance of the ether, reducing that
resistance in a forward direction, then the velocity of an object may, indeed,
exceed the measured velocity of light.
In actual fact, if the properties
of weight and mass can be nullified by application of electromagnetic forces to
the ether in the vicinity of our test object, the object may be propelled
without inertial lag and “g” forces to reach incredible speeds with the
slightest expenditure of energy. The
very periodic vibrations of time may vary with the application of forces that
affect the etheric substrate of space and means may ultimately be found to
transport objects from spatial origin to destination by altering the flow of
time.
End of Part I in the Space-Ether
series
References:
(1)
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/michelson.html
(2)
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
(3) The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005, A Crtical
Review of the Evidence by Reginald T. Cahill