Updated on November 14th 2005 and August 30th 2008

Abstract

The present study puts forward some weighty arguments that call into question the basic assumptions of special relativity. The existence of an aether frame in a state of absolute rest appears absolutely necessary to explain some experimental facts. Such a fundamental frame is demonstrated to be at variance with the application of the relativity principle in the physical world. The relativity of simultaneity which was already discussed in ref ³ and ⁴ is re-examined in the light of these new arguments. Some important consequences of these considerations are discussed.

 

I - A decisive argument in favour of the existence of an aether frame in a state of absolute rest.

In his original formulation of special relativity, Einstein denied the concept of aether. Later he changed his mind in order to formulate the theory of general relativity¹. In his little book "Sidelights on relativity", he expressed his views in the following terms : ..."according to the theory of general relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense therefore there exists an aether...But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it".

So it is clear that for Einstein one cannot define a privileged aether frame. Indeed, with respect to any other inertial frame, this aether frame would be in motion.

As we will see in the paragraph that follows, the conception of Einstein cannot be retained. The argument that will be developed has already been tackled in ref ². We propose to reconsider it and make other remarks.

1/The real relative speed v between two bodies A and B receding uniformly along the same line is invariant. It is the same for A and for B.

2/The real relative distance does not depend either on which one measures it.

3/Consequently, the time t needed by the bodies to recede from each other from distance zero to distance , is also invariant.

For example, consider a muon which covers the distance from the Earth to a point P and then decays. Its life-time must be the same for an observer on Earth as for an observer moving with the muon.

At very low speed with respect to the Earth, the life-time of the muon is, for example, t. At high speed, measured from the Earth frame, suppose that we find T.

According to relativity, t is the proper life-time of the muon, and since in this theory there is no difference between rest and uniform motion, its proper life-time at high speed (measured by an observer at rest with respect to the muon) must also be t.

But if this were true, this would contradict propositions 1, 2 and 3.

So, we can conclude that, the proper life-time of the muon at high speed is also T, (and it is different from the life-time at low speed, which is t).

But if the proper life-times at rest and at high uniform speed are different, it is because there is a difference between rest and motion, which implies that motion possesses an absolute character. In other words the rest frame and the moving frame are not equivalent, and we are led to recognize the existence of a privileged inertial frame designated as Cosmic Substratum.

Apparent coordinates

The life-time of the muon at high speed is T. But clocks moving with the muon (at rest with respect to it) would display approximately the time

                              
so t is not the real time but the clock display due to clock retardation. (This result is in fact approximate because the velocity of the Earth with respect to the Cosmic Substratum is not zero, but it is very low compared to the speed of high energy mesons, which approximates the speed of light).

II - Arguments lending support to the absoluteness of simultaneity

Let us briefly bear in mind the arguments of special relativity and succinctly reply.

The question has also been studied in ref ³ in a different way. See also ref ⁴.

According to special relativity, two distant events which are simultaneous for one observer, are not for another moving with respect to the first with a rectilinear uniform motion.

In order to demonstrate this theorem, Einstein takes the classical example of the train and the two flashes of lightning ⁵: two flashes strike at the two ends A and B of an embankment at the very instant when the middle O’ of the train meets the middle O of the embankment (Einstein). By definition, the two flashes will be considered simultaneous with respect to the embankment if the light issuing from them meets the middle of the embankment at the same instant. Einstein adds that the definition is also valid for the train, but as the train runs towards point B, the light coming from B will reach the middle of the train before the light coming from A.

Einstein concludes that two events simultaneous for the observer of the embankment, are not for the observer of the train (figure 1).

Figure 1

As already seen in ref ⁴, the definition of simultaneity given by Einstein is only appropriate if the sources of light are firmly fixed to the reference frame in which the measurement is carried out.

In the aforementioned example, if the light is emitted by two lamps attached to the embankment, the definition will be true for this embankment and not for the train and conversely. In effect, Einstein himself recognizes that the light issued from B must cover a shorter path to reach O’ than the light issued from A. But the definition is only valid if the light covers the same path in the two directions.

(Note that the Earth also moves with respect to the train).

 

Hence, to accurately define the simultaneity of two events we must specify the following points:
     Two instantaneous events, occurring at two points A and B and emitting light in opposite directions toward a point O which is the middle of A B at the beginning of the experiment, can be considered simultaneous if the light issuing from A and B reaches point O at the same instant, provided that O remains fixed with respect to A and B all through the experiment.

We must add that this definition is exact, only if the speed of light is equal in both directions. If we assume the postulates of Lorentz and take for granted the existence of a fundamental inertial frame, the definition is exact only in this aether frame and not in other frames, where the one way speed of light is not isotropic.

We will now propose another definition of simultaneity valid when point O’ moves with respect to A and B.

Let us reconsider to this end the example of the train and the embankment just seen (see fig 1). Contrary to ref ⁴ we will not suppose a priori that the speed of light is identical in the opposite directions: let us designate respectively as C_AB and C_BA the speed of light in the two reverse directions.

Let us place at A, O and B three clocks perfectly synchronous.

At the initial instant, O coincides with O’. At this very instant two signals start from A and B in opposite directions.

When the signal coming from A reaches point O, point O’ has moved towards B a distance , where v is the speed of the train and .

When the signal has covered this distance in turn, point O’ has moved a distance ,
                                   
and so on. So that, in order to reach point O’ the signal must cover the distance

                              

The sum S of the series can be easily obtained by multiplying all the terms by .

The distance covered by the signal is then

                              
and the time needed to cover this distance will be

                              

Now, in order to reach the middle of the train, the signal coming from B will cover a distance x such that

                                 (see fig 2)

Figure 2

Therefore

                              
and the time needed to cover the distance will be:
                                   

Hence, we can conclude that two instantaneous events occurring at A and B can be considered as simultaneous if the light issuing from them reaches the middle of the train at two instants t _AO’and t _BO, such that
                                   

 

Important remarks

1 - In reference ⁴ we assumed that the speed of light was isotropic in such a way that C_AB=C_BA. This is true exclusively in the fundamental inertial frame.

In this case we would have.

                              
where C is the speed of light in the fundamental frame.

2 - Note that in this example, t_AO’ and t_BO’ are the real times given by the clocks in the privileged frame. As a result of clock retardation, the reading of the clocks in the train will be different. But this will not affect our reasoning and our conclusions regarding the absolute character of simultaneity.

The same remark can be done about the length contraction affecting the train.

- Here is another example which will confirm this absolute character of simultaneity. It will, without doubt, convince the wavering reader.

Consider two rigid collinear rods AB and A’B’ moving towards one another uniformly, along the same line. The rods are assumed to have identical lengh when they are in motion with relative speed v. They are firmly fixed respectively to reference frames S and S’ (see figure 3).

Figure 3

In A and B are placed two identical clocks perfectly synchronous. This is also the case for A’ and B’.

In order to reach A’, clock A must cover a distance D=AA’. This is also the case for B in direction of B’ (since BB’=AA’=D)

Therefore, for an observer in frame S, the meeting of A with A’ and of B with B’ will be simultaneous.

But an observer in frame S’ will draw the same conclusions.

Hence the two observers agree that both events are simultaneous.

(Note that this does not imply that the clocks in fame S will display the same reading as the clocks in frame S’. The conclusion concerns the simultaneity and not the clock display. We must distinguish between clock retardation and relativity of simultaneity).

We must be aware that an apparent relativity of simultaneity exists. But it is not essential and results from the error of synchronism entailed by the synchronization procedure of Einstein-Poincaré (or by the method of slow clock transport). These methods of synchronization are not ideal but they are the most simple and the most often used.

After correction of the systematic measurement errors entailed by these methods, the absolute character of simultaneity is found again.

A criterion of absolute simultaneity has already been given in a previous paper ³: let two identical rubber balls bounce on the two pans of a precision balance; if the central pointer of the beam does not move, we can consider that the balls have bounced at the same instant, and this is true for all observers, at rest or in motion with respect to the balance, accelerated or not.

Of course, a small correction would be necessary, since there is probably a tiny difference in the speed of propagation of the vibration along the two arms of the beam of the balance. But this is of no consequence since the correction would be identical for all the above mentioned observers.

Note also that the notion of four dimensional space has also conventional character, and once the errors of synchronization corrected, the mixing of space and time disappears. (See ref ² and ³).

III. The relativity principle is not compatible with the existence of a privileged inertial frame.

 

We know that Poincaré did not call into question the aether of Lorentz: indeed Poincaré was not familiar with the concept of photon which was Einstein’s idea, and for him the electromagnetic waves needed a medium to propagate.

He expressed his belief in the aether in the following terms: "Does an aether really exist ? One knows the origin of our faith in the aether. If light comes from a distant star and takes many years to reach us, it is (in the meantime) no longer on the star, but not yet near the Earth. Nevertheless it must be somewhere and supported by a material medium ⁶ (La science et l’hypothèse, chapter 10 p 180 of the French edition, "Les théories de la physique moderne").

During a lecture given in Lille (France) in 1909 ⁷, speaking of the new conceptions of modern physics, Poincaré declared "Let us remark that an isolated electron moving through the aether generates an electric current, that is to say an electromagnetic field. This field corresponds to a certain quantity of energy localized in the aether (rather than in the electron)".

Thus, Poincaré tried to reconcile two notions apparently contradictory, the aether of Lorentz and the application of the relativity principle. Indeed, according to Poincaré’s relativity principle, it would be impossible, by means of an experiment internal to a given inertial frame, S, to know whether this frame is at rest or in motion with respect to the aether frame.

This statement is questionable: indeed, consider two vehicles moving uniformly in opposite directions along a straight line. At the initial instant (0), they meet at a point O of frame S and then continue on their way symmetrically at speed v, towards two points A and B placed at equal distances from point O. We assume that the speed of the vehicles has been measured with great accuracy. At the instant they meet, the clocks inside the vehicles are set to zero. According to Poincaré’s relativity principle, the clocks should display the same reading when they reach points A and B because if this were not the case, this would represent a criterion capable of determining if frame S is at rest or in motion with respect to the aether frame.

But, insofar as the vehicles do not have the same speed with respect to the aether frame, the slowing down of their clocks with respect to this privileged frame will be different, and then, they will display different readings. (The only exception to this rule is when frame S is at rest in the Cosmic Subtratum).

So, the application of the relativity principle appears incompatible with the existence of an aether frame in a state of absolute rest (contrary to Poincaré’s approach).

Since there are today a number of theoretical and experimental arguments speaking in favour of a privileged frame, the exact application of the relativity principle appears inappropriate for the physical world. See the argument given above in chapter I and ref ^8,9,10,11.

This experiment would, in principle, make it possible the exact synchronization of the clocks attached to frame S placed at A and B. To this end, the clocks A and B need only be synchronized with the clocks inside the vehicles when the vehicles pass in front of them. The reading of these clocks at this instant should be noted. If the clocks in the vehicles display different readings when they pass in front of A and B, one of the clocks A or B, must then be adjusted so that to display the same reading as the other.

Note that the arguments we have just put forward imply that the speed v of the vehicles is determined with sufficient accuracy, a task difficult but not theoretically impossible.

(One can demonstrate that if we use the Einstein-Poincaré synchronization procedure in order to measure the speeds of the vehicles, the speeds are affected by a systematic error dependent on the synchronization. In this case, the clocks in the vehicles will display the same reading. But the application of the relativity principle cannot be viewed as a fundamental principle of physics if it depends on a false measurement of the speeds, see Ref 12).

Important note: Insofar as the relativity principle does not strictly apply in the physical world, real frames associated to bodies not subjected to external physical forces, cannot be perfectly inertial. The existence of a privileged aether frame implies the existence of an aether drift which removes the inertial character to all frames except the privileged frame. Nevertheless, for convenience, and provided that the absolute speed is low compared to the speed of light, the frames in which a body at rest is not submitted to other forces than the aether drift will be called "inertial"in this text, a term sanctionned by use.

- Generally speaking, Galilei’s relativity idea (as well as those of Poincaré and Einstein which derive from it) does not strictly apply because it implies reciprocity and this is in contradiction with mass-energy conservation, see Ref 13.

Indeed, if the relativity principle was exactly applicable in the physical world, the substratum would exert an identical influence on all "inertial" systems** or no influence at all, because if this were not the case, the physical laws would appear different in S₀ and in S. (This notion appears implicit in the modern approaches of the aether).

Now, suppose that a space-ship leaves an "inertial" frame S₀ and, after acceleration, reaches a constant speed v and becomes firmly attached to another frame S. For this, suppose that it has used an amount of fuel F corresponding to the content of its tanker. (We assume that this mass of fuel is negligible with respect to the mass of the space-ship). If there were no aether drift, the frames S₀ and S would only distinguish from one another by their relative speed. So, in order to come back to S₀, the space-ship should use the same amount of fuel F as it does going from S₀ to S, corresponding to the energy E. And this would be true no matter what point in S₀ the space-ship reaches upon its return. (Indeed, a body at rest with respect to a given inertial frame, has a well defined mass-energy whatever its position may be in this inertial frame. This mass-energy is equal to the sum of the internal mass-energy of the body and its kinetic energy which is the same in any position in the inertial frame*** ).

Therefore, the space-ship would have used an amount of fuel corresponding to the energy 2E =2K+2h to leave and to recover the same energy state. Of course the exhaust energy h would be conserved since it is released in the environment but the kinetic energy K would not since the final kinetic energy is the same as before the travel.

And therefore there would be no conservation of mass-energy.

To ensure that the law of conservation of mass-energy is obeyed, it would suffice that the space-ship gives the kinetic energy K up to the environment during its return, but this means that S₀ and S are not equivalent.

But this implies that S₀ and S experience a different influence from the substratum. Since to move from S₀ to S we must supply energy, to the spaceship we can conclude that the substratum opposes a resistance to motion which increases with absolute velocity and then will be higher in S than in S₀**** .

Furthermore, the relativity principle implies that the mass-energy available of a body A, at rest with respect to an inertial frame S, is not well defined. It has only relative value with respect to another body B, and if the speed of body B tends towards the speed of light, the kinetic energy of A with respect to B will tend towards infinity. This is untenable. The total mass-energy available of body A is finite and is defined with respect to the fundamental frame. It is absurd to consider that it depends on the speed of another body.

It nevertheless remains that the uniform motion of a given "inertial" frame (whose absolute velocity is low enough) is imperceptible by an observer at rest in this frame. But this does not result from the fact that only relative speeds have a meaning (and from the Galilean idea that motion is like nothing). It is rather due to the fact that only the variations of the absolute speeds are perceived. Uniform absolute speed is not perceived precisely because it remains unchanged all the time. In other words, because the energy of the body in motion is not modified.

 

 

On the origin of mass

As we have seen, the relativity principle implies that two identical bodies, present in any two inertial systems S₁ and S₂, assume a completely symmetrical situation and therefore have the same energy status.

If a space-ship needs to use energy to move from S₁ to S₂, it will also use the same energy to move from S₂ to S₁ and the energy will not be conserved. So in order for the energy to be conserved, it should move from S₁ to S₂ (or from S₂ to S₁) without consuming kinetic energy.

Therefore, assuming that the rest mass is we should have:

                              

                             
where is the mass of the space-ship in S₂ viewed from S₁, and v the speed of S₂ with respect to S₁.

Since the mentioned equation implies that .
So, paradoxically, the fact that the aether exerts no influence on the inertial frames, would imply that the bodies do not possess mass.

On the contrary, the existence of a privileged aether frame implies a different influence of the substratum on S₁ and S₂. So, S₁ and S₂are not in the same state of energy.

Designating as v₁ the speed of S₁ with respect to the aether frame S₀ and v₂ the speed of S₂ with respect to S₀, we have

                              
and as a consequence

We can conclude that the existence of a mass depends not only on the quantity of matter, but also on the action of the aether on the physical processes. The application of the the relativity principle is once more called into question.

 

The study that precedes was presented at the seventh International Conference, Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Imperial College London, (sponsored by the British Society for the Philosophy of Science).

References

1. A. Einstein, Sidelights in relativity, Dover New-York 1983.

2. J. Lévy, Is the relativity principle an unquestionable concept of physics. Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, (P.I.R.T) 1998 late papers p 156. Updated in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

Basic concepts for a fundamental aether theory, in "Aether space-time and cosmology" Volume 1, Michael C. Duffy and Joseph Levy Editors, PD Publications Liverpool, UK, March 2008.

Aether theory and the principle of relativity, in "Aether space-time and cosmology", Volume 1, Michael C. Duffy and Joseph Levy Editors, PD Publicatons Liverpool, UK, March 2008.

3. Ibid, Is simultaneity relative or absolute, in Open questions in Relativistic Physics, (1998) F. Selleri Editor, Apeiron 4405 rue St Dominique, Montreal, Quebec H2W, 2B2 Canada, E-mail: apeiron@vif.com Updated in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

4. Ibid, Some important questions regarding Lorentz-Poincaré theory and Einstein’s relativity II, Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory (P.I.R.T), (1996) supplementary papers p 178. Updated in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

5. A. Einstein, La relativité, Payot, Paris

6. H. Poincaré, "La science et l’hypothèse", champs, Flammarion, Paris (1968).

7. Ibid, "Lecture given in Lille in 1909" in "La mécanique nouvelle", Jacques Gabay, Publisher, Sceaux (1989).

8. J.P. Wesley, Evidence for absolute space and time, in Open questions, in Relativistic Physics, (1998) p 255. F. Selleri, Editor, Apeiron, 4405 rue St Dominique, Montreal Quebec H2W, 2B2, Canada, E-mail: apeiron@vif.com see in particular table 1 and section 8.

9. Ibid, Selected topics in advanced fundamental physics, Benjamin Wesley publisher, Blumberg, Germany 7712 (1991).

10. H.E. Wilhelm, Phys Essays, 6, 420 (1993).

11. S. Marinov, Spec Sci Tech, 3, 57 (1980a). The thorny way of truth (East West, Graz, Austria (1984)), Gen rel grav, 12, 57, (1980).

12 J. Levy, ArXiv: physics/0610067

13 J. Levy, Basic concepts for a fundamental aether theory in "Ether space-time & cosmology"Volume 1, Michael C. Duffy and Joseph Levy Editors, PD Publications Liverpool UK, March 2008.

---