September 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Last December (’05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium. Amongst the many topics covered in the conference was the subject matter of string theory. This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity. David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: “We don’t know what we are talking about” whilst referring to string theory as well as “The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity.”
The Nobel Laureate is a heavyweight in this field having earned a prize for work on the strong nuclear force and he indicated that what is happening today is very similar to what happened at the 1911 Solvay meeting. Back then, radioactivity had recently been discovered and mass energy conservation was under assault because of its discovery. Quantum theory would be needed to solve these problems. Gross further commented that in 1911 “They were missing something absolutely fundamental,” as well as “we are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.”
Coming from a scientist with establishment credentials this is a damning statement about the state of current theoretical models and most notably string theory. This theoretical model is a means by which physicists replace the more commonly known particles of particle physics with one dimensional objects which are known as strings. These bizarre objects were first detected in 1968 through the insight and work of Gabriele Veneziano who was trying to comprehend the strong nuclear force.
Whilst meditating on the strong nuclear force Veneziano detected a similarity between the Euler Beta Function, named for the famed mathematician Leonhard Euler, and the strong force. Applying the aforementioned Beta Function to the strong force he was able to validate a direct correlation between the two. Interestingly enough, no one knew why Euler’s Beta worked so well in mapping the strong nuclear force data. A proposed solution to this dilemma would follow a few years later.
Almost two years later (1970), the scientists Nambu, Nielsen and Susskind provided a mathematical description which described the physical phenomena of why Euler’s Beta served as a graphical outline for the strong nuclear force. By modeling the strong nuclear forces as one dimensional strings they were able to show why it all seemed to work so well. However, several troubling inconsistencies were immediately seen on the horizon. The new theory had attached to it many implications that were in direct violation of empirical analyses. In other words, routine experimentation did not back up the new theory.
Needless to say, physicists romantic fascination with string theory ended almost as fast as it had begun only to be resuscitated a few years later by another ‘discovery.’ The worker of the miraculous salvation of the sweet dreams of modern physicists was known as the graviton. This elementary particle allegedly communicates gravitational forces throughout the universe.
The graviton is of course a ‘hypothetical’ particle that appears in what are known as quantum gravity systems. Unfortunately, the graviton has never ever been detected; it is as previously indicated a ‘mythical’ particle that fills the mind of the theorist with dreams of golden Nobel Prizes and perhaps his or her name on the periodic table of elements.
But back to the historical record. In 1974, the scientists Schwarz, Scherk and Yoneya reexamined strings so that the textures or patterns of strings and their associated vibrational properties were connected to the aforementioned ‘graviton.’ As a result of these investigations was born what is now called ‘bosonic string theory’ which is the ‘in vogue’ version of this theory. Having both open and closed strings as well as many new important problems which gave rise to unforeseen instabilities.
These problematical instabilities leading to many new difficulties which render the previous thinking as confused as we were when we started this discussion. Of course this all started from undetectable gravitons which arise from other theories equally untenable and inexplicable and so on. Thus was born string theory which was hoped would provide a complete picture of the basic fundamental principles of the universe.
Scientists had believed that once the shortcomings of particle physics had been left behind by the adoption of the exotic string theory, that a grand unified theory of everything would be an easily ascertainable goal. However, what they could not anticipate is that the theory that they hoped would produce a theory of everything would leave them more confused and frustrated than they were before they departed from particle physics.
The end result of string theory is that we know less and less and are becoming more and more confused. Of course, the argument could be made that further investigations will yield more relevant data whereby we will tweak the model to an eventual perfecting of our understanding of it. Or perhaps ‘We don’t know what we are talking about.’
Theoretical cosmologists spend much of their time perfecting what is now known as the ‘Big Bang’ theory. This concept originates from ideas percolating in the minds of scientists, theologians and astronomers down through the ages. However, much of what they consider as proof for the ‘Big Bang’ is dependent upon uncontrolled experimentation that is molded to meet their expectations.
Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. This ancient description of the creation of the universe found in the Book of Genesis may be accurate after all. The big bang theory describes the beginning of the universe as having been precipitated from an infinitesimally small point. In this small volume, all matter and energy was concentrated until its contents exploded in either a smooth expansion or an incredibly violent energetic explosion that formed the planets, stars and galaxies. Originally this theory had competition from what is called the ’steady state’ theory whereby the universe is forever expanding and new matter and energy is created spontaneously within the space left by the receding galaxies. However, empirical observations have directed astronomers and scientists into the acceptance of the big bang model. But how did we get to this point in our understanding?
In the early part of the twentieth century the American astronomer Vesto Slipher and the German Carl Wirtz made some important astronomical discoveries. Using spectral analysis, Slipher deciphered the mixtures of gases contained in planetary atmospheres as well as nebulae. What distinguishes his findings is the discovery that most if not all galaxies outside of our own demonstrate what is called a ‘Red Shift.’ This shift is simply a change in the wavelength of the light emitted by those objects under investigation towards a longer wavelength. Wirtz similarly catalogued many red shifts of the nebulae which he chose to study. But it was still to early for them to realize the full potential meaning of their observations. That would wait until Einstein’s General Relativity would be interpreted by other scientists through further mathematical analysis.
His contemporaries demonstrated to Einstein that his new Theory of General Relativity published in 1916 was not compatible with a ’static’ universe of space time. The theory predicted an expanding or collapsing universe but not a fixed cosmos. Because he personally believed the universe to be an invariable space time continuum, Einstein engaged in a degree of scientific legerdemain. To correct what he perceived to be as ‘flaws’ in his theory he added the contrivance of a cosmological constant known as lambda to force the static universe into reality. Einstein’s view of perfection in an unchanging space time continuum had led him down a blind alley as much as Aristotle’s concept of perfection had brought that great philosopher into the error of believing in a static Earth at the center of the universe.
But even with the addition of the cosmological constant lambda, the universe was still found to be unstable and this whole affair would later be viewed by Einstein as his “greatest blunder.” His cosmological acrobatics behind him, Einstein yielded the stage to others for a clearer understanding of his own theory. It fell to Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann to consider the consequences of General Relativity without the constant lambda interfering with his study of these relationships. In doing so, the Russian mathematician and cosmologist derived the solution which predicts an ever expanding cosmological structure (1922), a prediction which was disagreeable with Einstein’s concept of universal perfection. A couple of years later, Friedmann published his findings in “About the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space.” But the entire hypothetical construct still lacked a complete verbalization mathematically and theoretically.
Enter the Reverend Father Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest from Belgium. Rev. Fr. Lemaitre provided the equations necessary to formulate the basis of Big Bang theory in his work entitled “Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.” He postulated that the universe began as a primordial atom of infinitesimal volume and enormous mass energy as well as space and time and everything else comprising the future universe. At some point the universe began with the explosion of this super atom. Lemaitre published his theoretical ideas between the years 1927 and 1933 and speculated that the movement of the nebulae demonstrated the validity of the explosion of his cosmic super atom. Unfortunately, he also wrongly believed that cosmic rays might be an after effect of the super atom’s big bang. These are now known to be generated not from a universal conflagration but from galactic sources unrelated to the big bang.
However, the new theory still lacked a major source of observational support. This would be provided by Edwin Hubble’s observations of the redshift of galaxies. Taking up where Slipher and Wirtz left off, Hubble employed a novel technique to discern the properties of the galactic movements. By choosing to observe stars that are known as Cepheid Variables he could more accurately make measurements. Cepheids are a type of star that brighten and darken and lighten back up in regular periods of time that are well known. Cepheids that have identical cycle times of brightening darkening and brightening again also have identical or nearly identical luminosity. Thus, if one compares the length of the cycle to the amount of light apparent to the observer it is possible to accurately prepare an estimate of the distance to the cepheid.
In this manner, Hubble had found that the nebulae or galaxies exhibited a galactic red shift; in other words, that galaxies were receding away from ours at a speed which is correlated directly with the distance between our vantage point and the galaxy being studied. The further away the galaxies were the faster they appeared to be going in moving away from us. The results of these investigations is now known as Hubble’s Law. Essentially, this law states that universe is in an ever expanding mode whereby the intergalactic distances continue to grow without bound into infinity. Hubble’s Law depends upon the shifting of the wavelength of light and after having been delineated in 1929 has been subsequently proven over and over again. Further, Hubble’s constant has been recalculated to a more ‘perfect’ value and retains a great probability of being ‘recomputed’ in the future based upon new observations.
Thus, it should be clear to the reader that our scientists have a fateful habit of introducing their preconceived notions of beauty into their models. From Aristotle’s static Earth to Einstein’s greatest blunder, the constant which forces a static universe, we proceed only from the wisdom of our weak minds. The more things change the more things stay the same. Man’s hubris knows no limits in our attempts to understand things without the wisdom to comprehend its underlying meaning. Humble we are not. We are making the same mistakes we always have. Back to the future. To be continued…
By Albert Einstein
The basal principle, which was the pivot of all our previous considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let as once more analyze its meaning carefully.
It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must be considered only as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of which are equally justifiable :
(a) The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment,
(b) The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.
In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our statement of the motion taking place. If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called “the principle of relativity,” which we have taken as the basis of our investigations.
The principle we have made use of not only maintains that we may equally well choose the carriage or the embankment as our reference-body for the description of any event (for this, too, is self-evident). Our principle rather asserts what follows : If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use of
(a) the embankment as reference-body,
(b) the railway carriage as reference-body,
then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases. This can also be expressed as follows : For the physical description of natural processes, neither of the reference bodies K, K1 is unique (lit. ” specially marked out “) as compared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter statement need not of necessity hold a priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of ” motion” and ” reference-body ” and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to its correctness or incorrectness.
Up to the present, however, we have by no means maintained the equivalence of all bodies of reference K in connection with the formulation of natural laws. Our course was more on the following lines. In the first place, we started out from the assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such that the Galilean law holds with respect to it : A particle left to itself and sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line. With reference to K (Galilean reference-body) the laws of nature were to be as simple as possible. But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K1 should be given preference in this sense, and they should be exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of natural laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K ; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galilean reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity.
In contrast to this we wish to understand by the “general principle of relativity” the following statement : All bodies of reference K, K1, etc., are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage.
Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity has been justified, every intellect which strives after generalization must feel the temptation to venture the step towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple and apparently quite reliable consideration seems to suggest that, for the present at any rate, there is little hope of success in such an attempt; Let us imagine ourselves transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is traveling at a uniform rate. As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its motion, and it is for this reason that he can without reluctance interpret the facts of the case as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion. Moreover, according to the special principle of relativity, this interpretation is quite justified also from a physical point of view.
If the motion of the carriage is now changed into a non-uniform motion, as for instance by a powerful application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded motion is manifested in the mechanical behavior of bodies relative to the person in the railway carriage. The mechanical behavior is different from that of the case previously considered, and for this reason it would appear to be impossible that the same mechanical laws hold relatively to the non-uniformly moving carriage, as hold with reference to the carriage when at rest or in uniform motion. At all events it is clear that the Galilean law does not hold with respect to the non-uniformly moving carriage. Because of this, we feel compelled at the present juncture to grant a kind of absolute physical reality to non-uniform motion, in opposition to the general principle of relativity. But in what follows we shall soon see that this conclusion cannot be maintained.
To read more, go to .EffortlessPhysicsLessons.com/relativity/
Stephan Bourget, physicist
Effortless Physics Lessons
.EffortlessPhysicsLessons.com
Heralding a new age in the cosmos, Norwegian Kristian Birkeland predicted that the universe likely consisted of an exotic component that would later be called dark matter. His comments about this subject matter appeared in a description of the Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (1902-1903). Birkeland’s ideas about the Expedition were published in the fateful year of 1913 which would see the rise of the socialist Federal Reserve System and the Income Tax in the United States of America, two key components of the communist manifesto. Evolutionary processes were in motion throughout all fields of endeavor. Economics, politics, science and the hearts and minds of men and women were in the balance whilst relativism not truth held sway over the modern imagination. Cosmology would suffer from the same ‘evolutionary’ mindset and Birkeland wrote as much:
“We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in “empty” space.”
In this fashion, Birkeland predicted that because of the ‘evolutions’ present within the cosmos most of the matter in the universe must be found in ‘empty’ space rather than that which is observable in stellar objects. It is currently believed that only four percent of the universe is of this ordinary visible stellar type. Further, about a quarter of the universe is made up of the ubiquitous dark matter with the rest of the cosmos being filled with the even more bizarre dark energy. It was Fritz Zwicky, a swiss astrophysicist working for Caltech, who would further the concept of dark matter through the aegis of the Virial Theorem.
This mathematical relation is a formula which bounds the energy of a set of particles. In another dark year in the steady evolution to slavery since 1933 saw the removal of gold from the accounts of american citizenry, Zwicky used the Virial Theorem in an attempt to ascertain the validity of the dark matter hypothesis. He focussed his attention on the Coma galactic cluster and his analysis provided prima facie confirmation for the existence of dark matter. By evaluating the amount of movement of those galaxies at the periphery of the cluster he was able to approximately surmise the aggregate of all the matter therein.
He was astonished to learn that this sum total of mass is different from a separately computed estimate. This other value was obtained by analyzing the sum total of galaxies and the brightness of the Coma cluster. Juxtaposing this value with the periphery computation he observed that there was a discrepancy of at a minimum four hundredfold. Since the galaxies were insufficiently massive to cause the computed orbital velocities there must be some other mechanism to explain this phenomena. This conundrum became in the scientific lexicon the missing mass problem. Zwicky had established the need for the existence of an invisible source of mass hitherto unknown which must provide the necessary gravitational effect for the cluster.
Thus, it is a fact of the current state of cosmology that the greatest set of evidence for dark matter comes from this galactic gravitational data. Scientists have even made galactic curves describing the rotational properties of stars versus the distance from the galactic center. When the gravitational data is plotted it can be shown that only a small portion of the observed speeds are explicable by classical computations. In other words, there is a scarcity of visible mass in the observed galaxies to attribute the sum total of gravitational effects to visibly observable stars planets and galaxies. Thus, the simplest way to explain this galactic mystery of insufficient mass is to hypothesize a non-detectable type of mass known as dark matter which can be the cause for the gravitational effects.
As more and more data is collected on these and other aspects of the universe, formulae and cosmological postulates are generated describing the results so obtained. Fulfilling the requirements of the aforementioned aspects leads some scientists to propose several different types of dark matter. The four main types of dark matter are called 1- baryonic dark matter; 2- warm dark matter; 3- cold dark matter and 4- hot dark matter. Dark matter ranges from the known to the predicted, from black holes to brown dwarfs to the massive compact halo objects (MACHOs), the neutrino, axions, WIMPS or weakly interacting massive particles and the esoteric neutralino. However, there is an alternative explanation for the gravitational effects which originally created the dark matter concept.
If an incomplete understanding of gravitation is factored into the picture, then it can be asserted that the dark matter interpretation is incorrect because some other cause is generating these phenomena. Several different contending theories have been developed to describe the observed galactic data. In particular, one of the main competing explanations is given by scalar tensor theories which try to combine the teachings of quantum mechanics with gravity. Amplifying these ideas leads to a variety of exotic ideas which challenge our most fundamental notions of physics and astronomy. Other concepts go even further and have been the subject of interest for astronomers like Dr. Riccardo Scarpa since these allow for a cosmology without the inclusion of the enigmatic dark matter.
Dr. Scarpa works at the European Southern Observatory in Santiago Chile using the Very Large Telescope Array at Paranal. With all of his experience in this field, it is interesting to note some of his most recent comments on the superfluous dark matter:
“Dark matter is the craziest idea we’ve ever had in astronomy. It can appear when you need it, it can do what you like, be distributed in any way you like. It is the fairy tale of astronomy.”
In view of these comments one should ask if another scientific idea might be on the verge of collapsing. Indeed, astronomers are routinely using these other theoretical principles on a daily basis in infrared observatories around the world. Thus, it is very likely that we are simply wrong about all of this dark matter. It is within all probability that the only dark matter that we will ever find is that ignorant dark matter between our ears.
The concept of the invisible ether or ‘aether’ is an old concept dating to the time of the ancient Greeks. They considered the ether as that medium which permeated all of the universe and even believed the ether to be another element. Along with Earth, Wind, Fire and Water Aristotle proposed that the ether should be treated as the fifth element or quintessence; this term which literally means ‘fifth element’ has even survived down to the present day to explain an exotic form of ‘dark energy’ which is crucial in some cosmological models. These ideas spread throughout the world until the advent of a new springtime in scientific thought. The first person in the modern era to conceive of the idea of an underlying ether to support the movement of light waves was seventeenth century dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens.
Many others followed in expressing their opinions on the ether concept. Whilst Isaac Newton disagreed with Huygens wave theory he also wrote about the ‘aethereal medium’ although he expressed his consternation in not knowing what the aether was. Newton later renounced the ether theory because in his mind the infinite stationary ether would interrupt the motions of the enormous masses (the stars and planets) as they moved in space. This rejection was reinforced by some other problematical wave properties which were not explicable at the time; most notably, the production of a double image when light passes through certain translucent materials. This property of matter known as ‘birefringence’ was an important hurdle to be overcome for a proper understanding of the wave nature of light.
Some time later (1720) whilst working on other astronomical issues related to light and the cosmos, English scientist James Bradley made observations in hopes of quantifying a parallax. This effect is an apparent motion of foreground objects in comparison to those in the background. Whilst he was unable to discern this parallax effect he happened to reveal another effect which is prevalent in cosmological observations; this other effect is known as stellar aberration. Bradley was able to easily describe this aberration in terms of Newton’s particle theory of light. However, to do so in light of the wave or undulatory theory was difficult at best since to do so would have required a ‘motionless’ medium; the static nature of this ether concept was of course the property which had originally caused Newton’s denial of the idea.
But Newton’s acolytes would find themselves in a difficult position when it was shown that birefringence could be explained through another interpretation of the nature of light. If light was treated as being in a side to side action or ‘transverse motion’ then birefringence could be attributed to a light wave rather than the particle or corpuscular theory of Newton. This along with the detection of an interference effect for light by Thomas Young in 1801 renewed the ascendancy of the wave theory of light. These findings however carried with them all of the preconceived notions prevalent in the scientific mind. Since it was assumed that waves like water and sound waves required a medium of propagation, it was similarly assumed that light still needed a medium or ether for its waves to be transmitted across the universe.
However, further problems would afflict the ether theory. Because of the unique properties of a transverse wave it became apparent that this hypothetical explanation required the ether to be a solid. In response, Cauchy, Green and Stokes contributed theoretical and mathematical observations to an ‘entrainment’ hypothesis which later came to be known as the ‘ether drag’ concept. But nothing would give more impetus to these ideas than when James Clerk Maxwell’s equations (1870s) required the constancy of the speed of light (c). When the implications of Maxwell’s equations are worked out by physicists, it was understood that as a result of the need for a constant speed of light only one reference frame could meet this requirement under the teachings of Galilean Newtonian relativity. Therefore, scientists expected that there existed a unique absolute reference frame which would comply with this need; as a result, the ether would again be stationary.
As a consequence, by the late nineteenth century the aether was assumed to be an immovable rigid medium. However, earlier previous theories existed as to the nature of the aether. One of the most famous of these is known as the ‘aether drag’ hypothesis. In this concept, the aether is a special environment within which light moves. Also, this aether would be connected to all material objects and would move along with them. Measuring the speed of light in such a system would render a constant velocity for light no matter where one tested for light’s speed. This ‘aether drag’ idea originated in the aftermath of Francois Arago’s experiment which appeared to show the constancy of the speed of light. Arago believed that refractive indexes would change when measured at different times of the day or year as a result of stellar and earthly motion. In spite of his efforts, he did not notice any change in the refractive indexes so measured.
Many other experiments would follow; these were performed in order to find evidence of the aether in its many different abstractions. However the most important of these was conducted by american scientists Michelson and Morley. Their experiment considered another alleged effect of a different aether theory which came to be known as the aether wind. Since the aether permeated the entire universe, the earth would move within the ether as it spun on its axis and moved within the solar system about the sun. This movement of the earth with respect to the aether gave rise rise to the idea that it would be possible to detect an ‘ether wind’ which would be sensed because of the aforementioned movement. Thus, their experiment was essentially an attempt to detect the so-called ether wind. This mysterious zephyr would be nearly impossible to detect because the aether only infinitesimally affected the surrounding material world. Michelson first experimented in 1881 with a primitive version of his interferometer; a mechanism designed to measure the wave like properties of light. He would follow this by combining forces with Morley in the most famous ‘null’ experiment of physics.
In this investigation, Michelson utilized an improved version of his interferometer device. Michelson’s apparatus would help him win the Nobel prize for his optical precision instruments and the investigations carried out with them. His most important study being what became known as the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson and Morley used a beam splitter made of a partially transparent mirror and two other mirrors arranged horizontally and vertically from a light source. When a beam of light traveled from a source of coherent light to the half-silvered mirror (the semitransparent mirror) it is transmitted to either of the horizontal or vertical mirrors. When the light returned to the eyepiece of an observer the separately returning light waves would combine destructively or constructively. This phenomenon is known as the interference effect for light. It was hoped that a shifting of the interference fringes from that which was normally predicted would be able to ascertain the existence of the aether wind.
To detect this effect, the Michelson interferometer was prepared in such a manner as to minimize any and all extraneous sources of experimental error. It was located in a lower level of a stone edifice to eliminate heat and oscillatory effects which might comprise the experimental results. Additionally, the interferometer was mounted atop a marble slab that was floated in a basin of mercury. This was so that the apparatus could be moved through a variety of positions with respect to the invisible ether. But despite their many preparations the experiment did not yield the expected fringe patterns. Thus, Michelson and Morley concluded that there was no evidence for the existence of the ether. Others would replicate the experiment in different incarnations which modified the premise of the experiment. Each and every one returning a similar negative result. Modern theorists have taken these results and those of many other experiments as being indicative of the non-existence of the aether. However, even the negative result of Michelson Morley has come in to question as far back as 1933.
In that year, Dayton Miller demonstrated the fact that even though the duo’s experiment had not specifically found the expected range of interference patterns, they had found an interesting little noticed effect. Miller then went on to suggest that Michelson Morley had found an experimental sine wave like set of data that correlated well with the predicted pattern of data. He also described how thermal and directional assumptions inherent in the experimental arrangement may have impacted badly on the fringe interference data. Thus, the test may have been performed in an imperfectly conceived experimental setup and with a built in mathematical bias against the detection of an appropriate outcome. Thus, in the future the aether theory in some form or another may still be sustainable as a foundational theory of physics.
Perhaps it is best to leave with these ideas as expressed in 1920 by Einstein who stated that he believed the ether theory to still be relevant to his ideas on space and time:
“More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether”
he continued:
“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether”
and finally:
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
Is Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity incompatible with the very equations upon which science’s greatest theory is built? New observations made by many scientists and engineers appear to contradict the great scientist’s ideas. Apparently there are implicit contradictions present within Relativity’s foundational ideas, documents and equations. One individual has even pointed that quotations from the 1905 document and Einstein’s contemporaries as well as interpretations of the Relativity equations clearly and concisely describe a confused and obviously erroneous theory. It is time therefore, for science to update its thinking on this theory with a comprehensive analysis of the history leading up to, during and after that revolutionary year of Special Relativity.
As this is the 100 year anniversary of the original release of Special Relativity, a review of the original assumptions, documents and ideas which led to the acceptance of this theory is timely and warranted. Every year millions of students are taught this theory without a critical analysis of Relativity. Relativity Theory consists of its two variants Special Relativity and General Relativity and is considered the cornerstone of modern physics.
Albert Einstein borrowed from the ideas of Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Voigt to create a new concept of the universe. His first work in this regard later came to be known as Special Relativity and contained many controversial ideas which today are considered axiomatic. Amongst these are Length Contraction, Time Dilation, the Twin Paradox and the equivalence of mass and energy summarized in the equation E=mc2.
This equation became the shining capstone of the new theory along with its first & second postulates, namely, that the laws of nature are the same from all perspectives and that the speed of light ‘c’ is constant in a vacuum regardless of perspective. Further, the theory also predicted an increase in mass with velocity. Numerous examples have been given of the ‘proof’ of the validity of Special Relativity.
Most notably, experiments using particle accelerators have sped particles to incredible velocities which apparently provide confirmation of Einstein’s theory. However, doubts remain in the scientific community who have never totally given up the comfort of a Newtonian world view. This is readily apparent in that they refer to the Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravitation whilst Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are given the polite attribution ‘The Theory of’ or simply SR ‘theory’ and GR ‘theory.’ Einstein would continue working on the ideas of Special Relativity until producing the aforementioned even more controversial treatise.
In his later more comprehensive work called the Theory of General Relativity (1916), Einstein proposed a major re-thinking of cosmology. He conceived of a space time continuum that is curved by mass; in other words, planets, stars, galaxies and other stellar objects cause a curvature of space time. The movement of these objects are determined by the aforementioned curvature.
As a result of these ideas, our understanding of geometry, math, physics, science and the universe would never be the same. However, some scientists are reporting that speed of light is not constant from different experimental observations. One has even reported errors in the fundamental equations. If so, this would require a major rethinking of the known cosmological models and assumptions of modern physics.