Albert Einstein and the speed of light

[beekeeper]

Greetings EU Pilgrims, here is an article that maybe of interest. Http://ca.news.yahoo.com/albert-einstei ... 46350.html
opinions?

[Metryq]

Sounds like a non-starter to me. If one builds on a faulty foundation, all one will get is a more convoluted model that runs to internal conflicts requiring even more epicycles.

The article mentions the alleged cosmic microwave "background," which EU proponents explain in a much more mundane way, yet does not explain exactly how the CMB might validate this variable lightspeed model. I'm assuming it's another redshift = Doppler effect test, and Arp has convinced me that's a flawed idea. I don't see how this epicycle will help anyway. If the speed of light changed, wouldn't time scales vary in step? Thus, if one were trying to shoehorn in some way to make the universe even older, or more advanced for its "young" age like Guth's inflation, then variable lightspeed will not help. And where does quantum mechanics fit in? It never has, has it?

[neilwilkes]

Whenever I read an article like this one I cannot but help being reminded of Ptolemy's theory of the solar system (perfect circles for orbits) with it's endless series of epicycles added to try & force-fit observational evidence (in that case the retrograde motion of the naked eye planets) into a theory that is fundamentally flawed.

I have no issue with SRT - it is GRT that has the implausible assumtions - and SRT does seem to allow a value in terms of C2 as Einstein's first equation was M = E/C2, which became E = MC2 so if those 2 are both valid, triangulation (in a similar manner to the way we can triangulate Ohms Law) also must therefore give us C2=E/M

Therefore - unless I am being dense (and please, someone, tell me why & how) - the upper limit cannot be C, which I personally suspect to be not a physical barrier any more than the speed of sound is (which prior to Chuck Yeagear's flight was also thought to be a physical barrier beyond which it was not possible to travel in our atmosphere)

[saul]

Therefore - unless I am being dense (and please, someone, tell me why & how) - the upper limit cannot be C, which I personally suspect to be not a physical barrier any more than the speed of sound is (which prior to Chuck Yeagear's flight was also thought to be a physical barrier beyond which it was not possible to travel in our atmosphere)

The analogy is very apt. However the difference is that the structures that make up Chuck Yeager's plane are not built on disturbances of the air itself. However they ARE built on disturbances of the aether itself, that is atoms and electrons and electromagnetic fields between them. Thus we have two troubles to overcome in our pursuit of local (meaning non-Alcubierre) superluminal travel:

1) Overcoming increasing inertia. As we near the average peculiar speed of local spacetime our ability to accelerate ourselves becomes lower and lower. I have no idea how this could be overcome. "external" or "nonlinear" effect ??

2) Overcoming Cherenkov radiation. If we find ourselves in suddenly in an environment in which we are moving through local space-time faster than the average peculiar speed, formerly stable structures such as the electron and the proton decay into a blur of electromagnetic waves. This seems really tough to survive. "assume tachyonic form on my signal captain?" ?

[Metryq]

Even before Yeager's famous flight, it was known that objects had exceeded the speed of sound in the atmosphere—bullets and the larger war rockets. I'm not sure how engineers explained the difference, or perhaps it is a popular misconception about what "sound barrier" meant.

In Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets the late Tom Van Flandern described his Meta Model which includes a Light Carrying Medium (LCM, or aether) and a corpuscular gravity medium. His model and observations place the speed of gravity at around 20 billion times that of light.

As a thought experiment, Flandern posits a universe with "air atoms" and thus a wave propagation speed of sound. (Every medium has a wave propagation speed, which is why sound travels faster in water than in air.) A prop-driven airplane would approach the speed of sound in a "relativistic" way, getting asymptotically closer, but never able to exceed the speed of the medium it drives against. Rockets and later jets were able to break the "sound barrier" by using an action-reaction approach, rather than pushing the medium itself.

Perhaps we can learn how to exceed the speed of light without an appeal to exotic forms of matter. Even if not, gravity is unquestionably faster than light. And if gravity is an electrical effect, then the key to FTL travel may lie in understanding that.

[saul]

In Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets the late Tom Van Flandern described his Meta Model which includes a Light Carrying Medium (LCM, or aether) and a corpuscular gravity medium. His model and observations place the speed of gravity at around 20 billion times that of light.

This is a bit deceptive to say "and observations". It's hard enough to measure |G|, let alone the minor vector change in acceleration after you move a large mass. Nobody has done that and it seems unfeasible by any methods currently available. His model (and others before him) put the speed of gravity that high, however other models with speed of gravity at c are also consistent with astronomical observations (see Steve Carlip paper on the topic for how).

[neilwilkes]

I have tried several times to answer the above and each time I have had to wander quite some distance from the original posts and the trouble with that is we end up distancing ourselves from the original topic by some way.
I will be putting together a post in the "Future Of Science" board some time in the next day or three that will hopefully go some way towards answering the above posts (at least, I hope it does) and also introducing the subject of an alternative to Einstein's version of the Unified Field Theory (UFT) with that of Dr Frederick Alzofon instead which attributes the origin of the gravitational force field resting on properties of subatomic phenomena, rather than on an intrinsic property of the space-time metric.
Therefore any such vehicle as described above would be subject to field dynamics and it's occupants would be blissfully unaffected by the radical accelerations (equivalence principle).

Please bear with me whilst I collate the information I have here to a properly formatted thread in the right board here

[Metryq]

Neil, I look forward to your post. I'm just an armchair fan of science with no fancy degrees. So I appreciate any clarifications.

This is a bit deceptive to say "and observations".

Flandern described an experiment during a solar eclipse where aberration was observed between the Sun's light and its gravity. The light showed where the Sun was about 500 seconds previously, while the gravity showed where the Sun is "instantaneously"—at least on the scale of the Solar system. I recall reading of similar experiments involving starlight and Jupiter and space probes, but I can't remember any specifics to track down the exact experiment.

Then I've heard establishment explanations to cover such observations—I think it involved "frame dragging" of some such. Frankly, I never bought in to the Einsteinian "warping of space-time." How can one warp a mental construct, like an axis of measurement? Whether you call it "space-time" or quantum foam, it still sounds like aether to me. "But Michelson-Morley..." To my understanding, and I may be wrong, they did not fail to find an aether, rather what they measured wasn't the expected speed.

[saul]

Neil, I look forward to your post. I'm just an armchair fan of science with no fancy degrees. So I appreciate any clarifications.

This is a bit deceptive to say "and observations".

Flandern described an experiment during a solar eclipse where aberration was observed between the Sun's light and its gravity. The light showed where the Sun was about 500 seconds previously, while the gravity showed where the Sun is "instantaneously"—at least on the scale of the Solar system. I recall reading of similar experiments involving starlight and Jupiter and space probes, but I can't remember any specifics to track down the exact experiment.

Perhaps it is semanatics but this is more observation than experiment, as nobody put a controlled force on the sun to make a laboratory experiment None the less, the argument is very interesting and was presented as early as Laplace (see Van Flandern for excellent review). Note however that the same attraction to instantaneous (rather than retarded) position occurs with the electromagnetic force!! If one calculates the electric force on one charge due to another moving charge, using the Leonard-Weichart potentials, one finds that the force is towards the instantaneous position rather than the retarded one (meaning, the light-speed corrected position). This seems a remarkable coincidence and repeating this calculation is ususally a part of any graduate class on electromagnetism. It's not unreasonable to think the same thing will occur with gravitation.. and that is what Steve Carlip claimed (and worked out further details about).

Again, this doesn't disprove faster-than-light propagation gravitational perturbations from an IMPULSE ACCELERATED mass. Such a proof or disproof would have to take the form of a laboratory experiment. So we are left with observations consistent with both models. Personally I find the light-speed propagation of graviational impulse more compelling, but as a scientist my preference here shouldn't be relevant to you

Then I've heard establishment explanations to cover such observations—I think it involved "frame dragging" of some such. Frankly, I never bought in to the Einsteinian "warping of space-time." How can one warp a mental construct, like an axis of measurement? Whether you call it "space-time" or quantum foam, it still sounds like aether to me. "But Michelson-Morley..." To my understanding, and I may be wrong, they did not fail to find an aether, rather what they measured wasn't the expected speed.

It is exactly aether, as Einstein himself made clear, his general relativity is an aether theory. I think you are right
The space-time metric of GR is not pure mental contruct, but is physical.

[jacmac]

Saul said:

Personally I find the light-speed propagation of graviational impulse more compelling

What about a stable gravity FIELD. No impulse. Thus no speed. Thus the appearance of instant speed. ???

[upriver]

There is some experimental evidence for superluminal propagation of coulomb forces.

Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation
http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.html


Faster Than Light Transmission of Signals
http://startrek.ehabich.info/ftl.htm

[saul]

There is some experimental evidence for superluminal propagation of coulomb forces.

Experimental Clarification of Coulomb-Field Propagation
http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.html


Faster Than Light Transmission of Signals
http://startrek.ehabich.info/ftl.htm

Thanks, I read through them. Seeing as "luminal" means exactly the speed at which coulomb forces "propagate" (to be more clear, how quickly changes in the field at some location reflect accelerations of the sources)... it's hard to make sense of these claims. The "quantum tunneling" stuff is easily dismissed.. the discharge results also - we have accelerated charge here. We know what radiation this produces. It's not clear to me from reading this exactly what delta T they are measuring and how.

[neilwilkes]

Neil, I look forward to your post. I'm just an armchair fan of science with no fancy degrees. So I appreciate any clarifications.

I am no scientist either, and like your good self just an armchair fan with a very wide ranging library (okay perhaps that is stretching it & "collection" might be a better word) on a large range of subjects that appear to be unrelated at first but on closer reading there appear to be definite links.
Forgive me for being late posting this though - I am waiting for permission from the authors to post from some of the books I want to bring everyone's attention to and will not proceed until I get the green light. I hope you understand.
I do believe that this permission will be forthcoming however so hopefully much sooner rather than later.

The coulomb field propagation as well as the linked articles about Hertz' own experiments that showed instantaneous action at a distance are highly interesting and at the same time extremely suggestive.......

[kiwi]

Hiya Saul

It is exactly aether, as Einstein himself made clear, his general relativity is an aether theory. I think you are right

I dont think that is quite right?

Einstein said ..

"The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events."

How would you interpret that statement against the conventional interpretation?

Here is a paper transcripted from German written by Einstein ...

Concerning Ether. If we talk about ether here, then of course we don't talk about the bodily ether of the mechanical theory of undulation, which obeys the law of Newton's mechanics, and whose single points have velocities assigned to them. This theoretical construct has, in my opinion, found its definite end in the special theory of relativity. Instead, we talk about those things considered as physically-real, which, apart from ponderable matter consisting of electrical elementary particles, play a role in the causal nexus of physics. Instead of 'ether', we could as well talk about 'physical qualities of space'. Well, one could be of the opinion that this definition applies to all objects of physics, because according to strict field theory, also the ponderable matter (i.e. the elementary particles that constitute it) can be considered as 'fields' of a special kind, i.e. as special 'states of space'. However, one will have to admit that, in the current state of physics, such an opinion would be premature, because all effort of theoretical physics directed at this goal, has so far been in vain. As things are today, we are factually forced to discriminate between 'matter' and 'ether', but we may hope that later generations will overcome this dualistic picture and replace it with a uniform field theory, as field theory in our day has tried in vain. It is generally believed that Newton's physics have known no ether, but that only the undulation theory of light has introduced an omnipresent medium which co-influences physical phenomena. But this is not so. Newton's mechanics has its 'ether' in the proposed sense: It is called 'absolute space' there. To recognize this clearly and, in doing so, define the concept of ether more clearly, we must go deeper into the subject. Let's first look at a branch of physics which manages without ether, namely Euclid's geometry, interpreted as the theory of possible ways to bring practically rigid bodies in contact with each other. (Let's not consider light rays, which may also play a role in the genesis of geometrical conceptions and theorems). The laws of storage of rigid bodies, if we exclude relative motion, temperature and influences of deformation, as they are laid down in an idealized way in Euclid's geometry, only need the concept of the rigid body. Any influences from the environment, which are there independently of the bodies, and are thought of as acting on the bodies and affecting their laws of storage, are unknown to Euclid's geometry. The same is true of the non-Euclidean geometries of constant curvature, if these are interpreted as (imaginable) natural laws of body-storage. It would be different, if we were forced to assume a geometry of variable curvature. This would mean that the laws of possible contact-storages of practically rigid bodies would be different in different cases: Conditioned by influences from the environment. In this case, one would have to state in the sense of our line of thought that such a theory would use an ether-hypothesis. Its ether would be something physically-real, as good as matter. Would the laws of storage be inert to physical factors, auch as accumulation and state of motion of bodies in the vicinity, but given unchangeably, then we would call this ether 'absolute', i.e. independent in its structure from any influences. As little as Euclid's (physically interpretable) geometry needs an ether, as little do kinematics or [???] in classical mechanics need one. Their laws have a clear physical meaning, if only we accept that the influences of motion on clocks, which are proposed in special relativity, don't exist. [big cross-out] Things are different in Galilei's and Newton's dynamics. The law of motion 'mass x acceleleration = force' not only contains a statement about material systems, not even if, as in Newton's astronomical fundamental law, force is expressed by distances, i.e. quantities whose real definition is based on measurements with rigid bodies. This is because the real definition of acceleration can not completely be reduced to observations of rigid bodies and clocks. It can not be reduced to measurable distances between points which constitute the mechanical system. For a proper definition, you also need a frame of reference, i.e. a reference body, of appropriate state of motion. If you choose another frame of reference, then Newton's equations are not valid with respect to that frame of reference.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... ther.4021/

Metryq....

"But Michelson-Morley..." To my understanding, and I may be wrong, they did not fail to find an aether, rather what they measured wasn't the expected speed.

Dayton Miller

Michelson, and Others, Confirm an Ether-Drift

Miller's work did finally receive an indirect support from Albert Michelson in 1929, with the publication of "Repetition of the Michelson-Morley Experiment" (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929). The paper reported on three attempts to produce ether-drift fringe shifts, using light-beam interferometry similar to that originally employed in the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiments.

In the first experiment, undertaken in June of 1926, the interferometer was the same dimensions as the original M-M apparatus, with a round-trip light path of around 22 meters. A fringe shift displacement of 0.017 was predicted, but the conclusions stated "No displacement of this order was observed". The second experiment, undertaken on unspecified "autumn" dates in 1927, employed a slightly longer round-trip light path of around 32 meters (given as 53' for an assumed one-way distance). Again, "no displacement of the order anticipated was obtained", and the short report did not give details about the experimental surroundings or locations.

The third experiment was undertaken on an unspecified date (probably 1928) in "a well-sheltered basement room of the Mount Wilson Laboratory". The round-trip light path was further increased to approximately 52 meters (given as 85' for an assumed one-way distance). This time, having moved the apparatus to a higher altitude and using a longer light-path, a small quantity of ether-drift was detected which approximated the result observed by Miller, although the results were unjustifiably reported in negative terms:

"... precautions taken to eliminate effects of temperature and flexure disturbances were effective. The results gave no displacement as great as one-fifteenth of that to be expected on the supposition of an effect due to a motion of the solar system of three hundred kilometers per second. These results are differences between the displacements observed at maximum and minimum at sidereal times, the directions corresponding to ... calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system. A supplementary series of observations made in directions half-way between gave similar results." (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929)
One fifteenth of 300 km/sec. is 20 km/sec., a result the authors dismissed as they apparently had discarded the concept of an Earth-entrained ether, which would move more slowly closer to sea level. A similar result of 24 km/sec. was achieved by the team of Kennedy-Thorndike in 1932, however they also dismissed the concept of an entrained ether and, consequently, their own measured result: "In view of relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometers per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result". This incredible statement serves to illustrate how deeply ingrained was the concept of a static ether.

The full article is linked below .. fascinating reading

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.

Miller's work, which ran from 1906 through the mid-1930s, most strongly supports the idea of an ether-drift, of the Earth moving through a cosmological medium, with calculations made of the actual direction and magnitude of drift. By 1933, Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec. towards an apex in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, towards Dorado, the swordfish, right ascension 4 hrs 54 min., declination of -70° 33', in the middle of the Great Magellanic Cloud and 7° from the southern pole of the ecliptic. (Miller 1933, p.234) This is based upon a measured displacement of around 10 km/sec. at the interferometer, and assuming the Earth was pushing through a stationary, but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec. at the Earth's surface. Today, however, Miller's work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having "proved the ether did not exist".

While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller's work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether-measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein's relativity theory.

After his death in 1941, Miller's work was finally "put to rest", in the publication of a critical 1955 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics by Robert S. Shankland, S.W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone and G. Kuerti (hereafter referred to as the "Shankland team" or "Shankland" paper), which purported to make a fair and comprehensive review Miller's data, finding substantial flaws.

Lloyd Swenson's Ethereal Aether (1972) presents a cursory discussion of Miller and his "inexplicable" positive results, giving a high degree of significance to the Shankland team's critique. Swenson wrote:

"...Shankland, after extensive consultation with Einstein, decided to subject Miller's observations to a thoroughgoing review ... Einstein saw the final draft [of Shankland's pre-publication manuscript] and wrote a personal letter of appreciation for having finally explained the small periodic residuals from [Miller's] Mount Wilson experiments." (Swenson, p.243)
In August of 1954, Einstein replied to Shankland:

"I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted. You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause [having] nothing to do with 'ether wind', but with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles which produce the bands of interference." (Shankland, 1973a, p.2283)
From the above accounts, it certainly would appear that the case was finally closed on Miller, and that all the lose ends were finally cleaned up. With the strongest support for cosmological ether-drift swept aside as the alleged product of temperature errors, Einstein's theory of relativity continued to grow in popularity and dominance.

- See more at: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm#sth ... SqiSE.dpuf

[willendure]

The full article is linked below .. fascinating reading

From the above accounts, it certainly would appear that the case was finally closed on Miller, and that all the lose ends were finally cleaned up. With the strongest support for cosmological ether-drift swept aside as the alleged product of temperature errors, Einstein's theory of relativity continued to grow in popularity and dominance.

- See more at: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm#sth ... SqiSE.dpuf

Seems strange that his experiments were repeated many times, yet a temperature difference in the paths of the beams would remain constant across every repetition of the experiment. I suppose I would need to read the criticism in full to understand why it was claimed that that is the case.

Thanks for posting this though, I had never heard of this until now.