Abstract

In Aristotle physics¹ the Earth occupied the center of the universe and, rest as well as motion, assumed an absolute character. This conception was fought by Galilei² who, with the help of arguments based on experience, asserted that their character was relative.

The idea of Galilei was developed by Poincaré³ and then by Einstein⁴ who proposed extending it to all motions (uniform or accelerated).

Certainly Galilei had enabled physics to take a great step forward by demonstrating that motion does not need a motor to carry on its course, and that, at low speed and for uniform translations, the absolute aspect of motion remains unobservable. But numerous arguments demonstrate that the idea cannot be generalised to high speed transfers, or when acceleration occurs.

The rejection of the concept of fundamental inertial frame, and the “absoluteness” of the idea of relativity lead to absurd consequences analysed in this text.

 

Important note: We do not question the relativity principle as an abstract concept. Indeed, if frames were perfectly inertial, the principle would obviously apply.

In this text, we will call "inertial" the frames in which a body at rest is not submitted to any perceptible external force, a term sanctionned by use. But we must be aware that insofar as an aether drift acts on them, the frames cannot be perfectly inertial and therefore, the relativity principle does not strictly apply.

The present manuscript was registered at the French society of authors on February 11^th 1999.

 

The relativity principle is so firmly rooted in minds that the idea of envisaging limits to it, becomes a taboo subject. However, more than likely, all has not been said about it, and some consequences to which it leads are far from having been explored. We propose here pursuing this objective and trying to see if these consequences are compatible with other aspects of physics.

Galilean relativity, without doubt, has represented a progress with respect to Aristotelian physics, because it has permitted false ideas to be rejected such as “motion needs a motor to be maintained”. It is clear that motion needs a motor to be produced, but not to be maintained.

Nevertheless, by asserting the equivalence of all "inertial" frames, it rejects the concept of absolute rest, and, at the same time, the idea of fundamental inertial frame. This implies that identical bodies, attached to different "inertial" frames, are in the same state of energy. In effect, if this were not the case, the comparison of two "inertial" systems A and B, would lead us to verify that one of them (for example B) is in a state of energy lower than the other. One could also find an "inertial" system C in a state of energy lower than B and so on. Nevertheless, the difference of energy between reference system A, and any other, could not indefinitely improve, since the available energy of a finite object, is necessarily finite. And, as a consequence, a state of lowest energy, (that we could qualify as fundamental state) should exist. Of course, this is not compatible with the rejection mentioned above, and with the idea of relativity.

Therefore, the relativist approach implies that identical bodies, moving with respect to one another, with a rectilinear uniform motion, are in the same state of energy.

Now, experience shows that to arrange things so that a body passes from a Galilean reference frame to another, one must supply (or extract) energy to it, and, as a consequence, absolute equivalence of all frames qualified as" inertial"cannot be maintained.

This result is not incompatible with the idea that all matter constituting the universe could have been in the past, in a basic state more fundamental than the present one. Although identical, the total energy of the universe would then have been potential rather than kinetic. Such a hypothesis is much more difficult to justify, when one adopts the relativity viewpoint.

-       Another weighty argument can allow us to establish quite accurately the restricted character of the relativity principle (see endnote (1)). Consider a vehicle, equipped with a clock A, moving in an "inertial" frame along a straight line at constant speed, towards another clock B placed on the floor.

At the instant t₀, the two clocks are synchronized (the synchronization is supposed to be perfect. As we have seen in a previous paper⁵, this is possible(2)). The equivalence of all "inertial" frames, would imply that, at the instant they meet, the time indicated by the clocks A and B would be identical. Nevertheless experiments have demonstrated that this was not the case(3): therefore the relativity principle cannot be held as a general rule.

Figure 1
If the relativity principle were true, clocks A and B would indicate the same time when they meet.

 

 

Nevertheless, at low speeds, the indications of the two clocks are hardly different. That is why, in this case, the results of Galilei can be considered as essentially correct.

-        One may also wonder whether the principle of inertia is absolutely valid. In effect, this principle is a direct consequence of the relativity principle, and, if the latter is called into question, the principle of inertia must be questioned too. In the same way as the relativity principle, it must almost exactly apply at low speeds (weak ether wind). But, at very high speeds, a slowing down would probably show itself, translating the restitution of the kinetic energy acquired by the body when it has been propelled from the fundamental inertial frame to the present one. This energy would very likely be transferred to the ether, but very slowly, since the resistance put up by the ether would be very weak.

In three papers⁵, we demonstrated that the criterium chosen by Einstein to prove the relative character of simultaneity, could not be retained.

On the contrary, it is possible to define a criterium of simultaneity applicable to all reference frames, "inertial" or not: let us release from the same level two identical elastic balls, on the two pans of a precision balance; and let us observe the possible movement of the central pointer of the beam.

If the pointer does not move, we can conclude that the two balls have bounced at the same instant, and this result is independent of the motion of the observer with respect to the balance (even if this motion is accelerated). (The subject was treated in detail in our article “Is simultaneity relative or absolute(4)”).

This absolute character of simultaneity is of the utmost importance, since it shows us that the concept of space-time inherent to the equations of Poincaré, or to those of Einstein, must be re-examined(5) and that it is necessary to come back to the more classical notions of space and time. These classical notions are found again when one corrects the systematic errors affecting the Lorentz-Poincaré transformations due to length contraction, clock retardation, and unreliable, clock synchronization.

From this we can see that the Maxwell equations are no longer invariant under a change of inertial frame. So, in order to preserve this invariance, the Maxwell equations must also be modified. Some authors proposed replacing them by the equations of Hertz⁶ (which are invariant under a transformation of Galilei). One can then preserve the relativity principle(6).

As for us, we think, in agreement with other physicists⁷(7) that the relativity principle is applicable only approximately in the case of low speeds, a fact attested by the arguments just presented.

-        “Absolute” character of the relativity principle also leads to some absurd consequences that will be analysed now.

Consider a space-ship, of rest mass m₀, and let us communicate to it, from the outside, sufficient energy to extract it from the terrestrial attraction and to attribute it the speed v.

According to the relativistic views, its kinetic energy is then:

(where m designates the mass of the space-ship in motion).

Let us refer to the energy of extraction as e₀.

If no absolute inertial frame exists, the state of energy of the two bodies (Earth and space-ship) would only depend on their relative speed and on their internal energy. And, as a consequence, the kinetic energy gained by the Earth would be

(where M₀ refers to the rest mass of the Earth, and M its mass considered from the frame of the space-ship), (see also additional note b).

Hence, a consumption of energy equal to e_c + e₀ could permit the energy of the Earth to be increased by an amount equal to E_cwhich is contrary to th mass-energy conservation law.

Therefore, the increase of the kinetic energy of a body is not defined by its speed with respect to another body, but rather by the speed acquired with respect to its initial reference frame.

In the example just mentioned, the speed acquired by the Earth is null, and, as a consequence, its kinetic energy is not modified.

Thus, to each reference frame to which it is attached, corresponds, for a definite body, a definite kinetic energy (independent of the speed of other bodies) which implies a hierarchy between the different reference frames and thus, supposes (as we have already seen) the existence of a fundamental inertial frame.

This result allows us to avoid the absurd conclusion to which the strict application of the relativity principle led. Therefore, depending on the fact that the motion of speed v is applied to the Earth, or to the space-ship, the energy consumption is, without any ambiguity, completely different.

-        There is, in the following example, another absurd consequence to which the strict application of the relativity principle leads.

Consider a body of mass M₀, initially at rest in its inertial system S₀. Let us accelerate this body in order to provide it with a speed v close to C. To this endt, we must use up the energy E. Then let us stop the force ; the mass will adopt a uniform motion in reference frame S.

If all the "inertial" frames were equivalent, it would also be necessary to provide it with the energy E in order to bring it back to the reference frame S₀, i.e. to its initial frame, and this would be true no matter what point in this initial frame the body reaches upon its return. (Indeed a body at rest in a given inertial frame has a well defined mass-energy whatever its position may be in this inertial frame).

Consequence : we have spent the energy 2E for a null result, and therefore, the mass energy is not conserved.

On the contrary, if the reference frames are not equivalent, the body will come back to its initial frame, without consuming energy. Moreover, the energy stored will be restored to the environment. (To give a comparison, a plane needs not consume energy to come back to the Earth frame).

In the first case, in accordance with the relativity principle, there are two equivalent accelerations ; in the second case, there are, successively, an acceleration and a slowing down. This implies a hierarchy between the different Galilean frames. This last point is in accordance with the principle of conservation of mass-energy.

-        Finally, a last argument results from the experiments relative to the muons and the pions (Rossi et al, Frish et al, Bailey et al ...)⁸. In effect, all the measurements carried out on these unstable particles, have demonstrated that the mean distance covered by them before decay ( L), at high speed (>> 0.999 C) is much longer than the distance they would travel if their mean life-time was not affected by motion.

Nevertheless, this mean distance must be reciprocal ; that is to say, it must be identical according to whether it is measured from the particles reference frames, or from the Earth. In addition, according to relativity the proper life-time of the particles t, must not be affected by the movement (since the theory assumes that uniform motion has no absolute character). So that, observed from their reference frame, the speed of the pions, (or of the muons) , must be much higher than that observed from the Earth , (where T refers to the life-time as measured from the Earth frame), and then also to the light velocity.

This result contradicts the principle of reciprocity of the relative speeds.

Therefore, the proper life-time of these particles, moving at speeds very close to the speed of light, must also be equal to T. This calls into question the application of the relativity principle in the physical world (8).

(Notice that T is the real proper life-time of the rapid muons. It is different from the clock reading in their reference frame which, obviously, (as a result of clock retardation) will be equal to t).

Conclusion

For bodies assuming rectilinear and uniform translations at low speeds, the absolute character of motion is almost imperceptible. This is why the conclusions of Galilei can be maintained. Nevertheless, although unobservable in the usual conditions, this absolute character must show itself at high speeds. Its rejection ends in absurd conclusions that have been analysed in this text. Its acceptance implies the return to classical notions such as the existence of a fundamental aether frame.

Endnotes

(1) — The roots of the relativity principle go back to antiquity, but it is attributed to the Italian physicist Galilei, who gave a clear formulation and carried out a thorough study of it.

According to the Galilean relativity principle, absolute rest does not exist ; rest and uniform movement have only relative character. Every object at rest in a given "inertial" frame is at the same time in uniform motion when it is observed from another "inertial" frame. And, as a consequence, no privileged inertial frame can exist.

One of the consequences of the relativity principle, is that it is impossible by means of an experiment internal to a given Galilean reference frame, to determine if this frame is at rest, or in motion, with respect to another Galilean reference frame. And, therefore the laws of nature must be identical in all inertial frames. (Some physicists use this consequence as a definition of the relativity principle. We think that it is less restrictive than the definition of Galilei ).

The relativity principle applied easily to mechanics and to slow uniform motions, but the laws of electromagnetism seemed to escape it. Poincaré and Einstein undertook to reconcile them with it; it is for this reason that special relativity was founded. (Later, Einstein undertook extending the concept of relativity to all motions, uniform as well as accelerated).

Several arguments, today, call into question the strict application of the relativity principle in the physical world. Nevertheless, it applies almost exactly to bodies moving, with respect to one another with rectilinear and uniform motions at low speeds (v << c).

(2) — For the demonstration that the exact synchronization of 2 clocks in relative motion at an instant t is theoretically possible, consult our article “Is simultaneity relative or absolute” in the book “Open questions in relativistic physics” F Selleri editor, Apeiron, Montreal Canada p 39 updated in October 2002 and in november 2005 in the web site www.levynewphysics.com. (Note that as the retardation affects differently the two clocks, the synchronization is not maintained after the instant t).

(3) — To be exact, the display of clocks A and B could be different at the moment they meet, for a reason having nothing to do with their slowing down. In effect, weighty arguments demonstrate that the one-way speed of light is anisotropic and, in consequence, every method of synchronization of clocks with light rays, which supposes the isotropy of the speed of light, entails a systematic error.

Nevertheless, the Ives and Stilwell experiment regarding the transversal Doppler effect, demonstrates the existence of a slowing down of moving clocks, which brings into play the factor that has nothing to do with a problem of synchronization. Confirmation is given by the experiment of Hafele and Keating in which atomic clocks were flown eastward and westward around the globe and compared with atomic clocks in Washington.

So, our argumentation relative to the clocks A and B, permits us to conclude that the retardation of one clock with respect to the other, calls into question the application of the relativity principle.

(4) — For more detailed explanations, consult also “Critique of some assumptions of special relativity and arguments in favour of an aether frame” in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

(5) — The physicists of the beginning of the twentieth century were convinced of the unquestionable necessity of the relativity principle. They believed that the natural phenomena should be expressed by the same laws in all "inertial" frames. In order that this result be extended to electromagnetism, they were compelled to formulate a set of equations, named Lorentz transformations, which called into question absolute simultaneity.

In effect, consider a punctual event, occurring at time t₁ and at point x₁ in the inertial frame S. In the inertial frame S', the instant of the event will be given by equation.

                                           
where v refers to the relative speed of the two reference frames.

Now, for an event occurring also at time t₁, but at point x₂, the instant noticed by the observer of reference frame S' will be:

                                           

So, and therefore, two events simultaneous for one observer, are not for another.
We therefore remark that the extension of the relativity principle to electromagnetism, implies the relativity of simultaneity and the reference to a four dimensional space-time.

So that, the return to absolute simultaneity, the necessity of which we have demonstrated, implies the abandonment of Minkowski’s space-time and the return to more classical notions of space and time.

For more detailed explanations consult the article “Extended space-time transformations for a fundamental aether theory" in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

(6) — T.E Phipps Jr points out that the physicist Hertz, has developed a covering electromagnetic theory invariant under a Galilean transformation.

(7) — The theories of Tangherlini and Mansouri and Sexl are not in agreement with the relativity principle. For Franco Selleri, it has nothing more than a conventional character.

(8) — Here is an argument suggested by Mr Robin of Marseille

(private communication of 15-12-98)

“Electrons in motion generate a magnetic field”.

Nevertheless, if rest and motion are relative, then the field exists, or does not exist, depending on the fact that it is seen by an observer at rest or in motion, with respect to the electrons. This is absurd.

The field is a reality in itself, the existence of which does not depend on the one who observes it.

Additional Notes.

a — It is currently asserted that the total quantity of motion is exactly conserved even when collisions occur at very high speeds. This seems eminently questionable, since, by the usual methods of synchronization of clocks, one makes systematic errors in measuring the speeds.

b — In relativity theory, no absolute inertial frame exists. So, absolute speeds have no meaning, only relative speeds do.

With respect to a space-ship starting from the Earth at time t₀, the relative speed of the Earth changes progressively until it reaches the value v. So, paradoxically, according to relativity, with respect to the space-ship, the Earth is submitted to an acceleration dV/dt. And the kinetic energy gained by the Earth is then (for values v/c<<1):

                                           

In fundamental theories (conversely), the speed presents an absolute character. The relative speed of the Earth with respect to the space-ship increases from 0 to v, but the absolute speed (with respect to the fundamental inertial frame) does not vary. It is this absolute speed which must be taken into account in order to know if the Earth has been submitted to an acceleration. And energy presents an absolute character.

This point of view, more rational, cannot be supported without the assumption of the fundamental inertial frame.

Note for example that, if a body is at rest in this privileged frame, according to fundamental theories its kinetic energy will be zero independently of the speed of any spaceship.

Conversely, since according to relativity, no absolute frame exists, the kinetic energy of the body will be considered with respect to any space-ship moving at speed v (with v<<c). This approach is completely different.

References

¹— L. Jerphagnon, Histoire de la pensée,

Editions France loisirs Paris (1997) p.141.

²— M.A. Tonnelat, Histoire du principe de la relativité

Flammarion, Paris (1971).

F. Balibar, Galilée, Newton lus par Einstein

Collection philosophies P.U.F (1990).

B. Hoffmann, Histoire d'une grande idée la relativité

Pour la science, Diffusion Belin, Paris (1990).

³ —    H. Poincaré, La mécanique nouvelle. Jacques Gabay, publ, 92330 Sceaux France (1989) – Consult particularly p. 18, “Sur le dynamique de l'électron”.

- Ibid, La Science et l'hypothèse, Collection Champs, Flammarion, Paris (1968).

- Ibid, Science and method, Dover, NY, p. 209.

⁴— A. Einstein, The principle of relativity. Dover, NY.

- Ibid, Sidelights on relativity, Dover NY.

This work contains, among others, the text of a lecture given at the university of Leyden on May 5^th 1920, entitled Ether and the theory of relativity.

- Ibid, L'évolution des idées en physique, Payot Paris (1974).

⁵— J. Lévy, Is simultaneity relative or absolute? In open questions in relativistic physics, a book of 375 pages, p. 39, F Selleri editor, Apeiron, 4405 rue St Dominique Montreal Quebec H2W, 2B2, Canada, updated in October 2002 and november 2005 in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

- Ibid, Some important questions regarding Lorentz-Poincaré’s theory and Einstein’s relativity II, Proceedings of the PIRT conference 1996 supplementary papers p. 178, updated in October 2002 and november 2005 in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

- Ibid Critique of some assumptions of special relativity and arguments in favour of an aether frame, PIRT 2000 late papers and web site www.levynewphysics.com

⁶— T.E Phipps Jr, Phys assays. 6, 249, (1993).

- Ibid, private communications.

C.I. Mocanu, Hertzian relativistic electrodynamics and its associated mechanics, Hadronic press, Palm Harbour, USA, Fl, 1991.

⁷— F. R Tangherlini, Nuovo Cimento suppl 20, 251, (1961).

R Mansouri and R. U Sexl, General relativity and gravitation, 8, 497, (1977).

F. Selleri, Found phys lett 9, 43, (1996).

- Ibid, Found phys 26, 641, (1996).

- Ibid, Chinese J of systems engineering and electronics, 6, 25, (1995).

⁸— B. Rossi, D.B. Hall, phys rev 59, 223, (1941).

D.H. Frisch, J.H. Smith Am, J, phys 31, 342, (1963).

J. Bailey et al, Nature 268, 301, (1977).

See also

M. Allais, L'anistropie de l'espace, Clément Juglar, Paris (1997).

DC. Miller Rev Mod Physics, 5, 203, (1933).

E. Esclangon, Journal des observateurs vol XI, 52, (1928).

S. Prokhovnik, The logic of special relativity, Cambridge university press (1967).

- Ibid, Light in Einstein’s universe, Reidel, Dordrecht, (1985).

M.C. Duffy, The ether, quantum mechanics and models of matter, Gdansk conference, (Sept.1995).

- Ibid, Ether cosmology and general relativity, Gdansk conference,(Sept 1995)

L. Kostro, Albert Einstein’s relativistic ether concept. Pre-circulated proceedings of the PIRT conference (1994).

T.E. Phipps Jr, Absolute simultaneity with and without light signals, Galilean electrodynamics 7, 43, (1996).

P. Marmet, Einstein’s theory of relativity versus classical mechanics Newton physics books, 2401 Olgivie Road, Gloucester, ON, Canada, K1J, 7N4.

    - Ibid, private communications.

H.M. Schwartz, Poincaré’s rendiconti paper on relativity Am J Phys, 39, 1287, (1971).

S. Goldberg, Henri Poincaré and Einstein’s theory of relativity, Am, J, Phys 35, 944, (1967).

J. Lévy Relativité et substratum cosmique, a book of 230 pages, Lavoisier, Cachan (1996) Tel. 01 47 40 67 00, E mail edition@Lavoisier.fr

- Ibid, Relativity and Cosmic substratum, precirculated proceedings of the PIRT. (6-9 Sept 1996). Updated in October 2002 and November 2005 in the web site www.levynewphysics.com

- Ibid, Some important questions regarding Lorentz-Poincaré’s theory and Einstein’s relativity I, Proceedings of the PIRT (1996) Late papers p. 158. Updated in October 2002 and November 2005 in the web site www.levynewphysics.com