BEYOND
THE SPEED OF LIGHT
by
William F. Hamilton 1997-2001
Space-Ether
series I
Revision
1 (12/25/2004)
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)
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