RELATIONAL DYNAMICS ==================== PART I ====== {F.} FOREWORD ======== The purpose of this work is to provide a unified objective scientific research programme of atomic, terrestrial and celestial dynamics, which will be called Relational Dynamics ('RD'). RD aims to provide a full and accurate world-picture. The RD research programme is intended to be soundly based and fully intelligible. It aims to be descriptive, explanatory and predictive, corresponding accurately to the facts. It owes its inspiration to: - Classical Mechanics with full Galileian relativity; - to the principle of the invariance of Mass, Length and Time; - to a quantum theory based on a ballistic or particle theory of radiated electromagnetic particles (photons) composed of matter and therefore having intrinsic mass; - and to relational electrical, magnetic, and gravitational forces, which act over a distance, via fields, with any delay proportional to distance which may be empirically determined. All these elements will be critically examined. Equipped with Relational Mechanics, you will be able to do pretty much everything claimed for any and all of the competing theories, and a good deal more besides. The emphasis of this work is constantly upon objective realism: the deeper actuality of the central order of things and events (what is, and what actually occurs), rather than upon mere surface (how events might appear to variously situated "observers"). By way of illustration, consider the problem of optical illusions: a strict 'observationalist' theory would assert that _there can be no optical illusions_, as the observation itself takes priority over any intrinsic properties which the object of observation may have. Our objective realist approach asserts that in such cases, the observations can be corrected in specified ways, to provide real information on the object of observation. All observations necessarily incorporate theories. Computer modelling of physical states, processes and events overcome some of the most profound problems in theoretical and practical physics; it is now possible for practical purposes to observe and examine states, processes and events without altering them by the means of examination; and we therefore have superb opportunities to compare our theoretical models with experimental results. The Car-Parrinello method of molecular modelling - utilizing classical principles very similar to Relational Dynamics - is a case in point. Using Car-Parrinello techniques to model silicon atoms, for example, the exact melting-point of silicon can be predicted. I hope to acknowledge any ideas which I know to be due to others, not least to provide a context for readers to understand the ideas better. As is everyone, I am fallible, so I apologize for any errors of fact or interpretation. As Karl Popper says, human knowledge ineluctably proceeds by means of conjectures and refutations. {F0} SOME INTRODUCTORY IDEAS ======================= "A simple concept should not be abandoned in favor of a more complex one until the hard experimental evidence is overwhelming." - Alan D. Krisch. "ALL THIS IS A DREAM. Still, examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature, and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency." - Michael Faraday. "When ... mathematicians were laying down more and more elegant roads in the wrong direction, Faraday spent his time exploring the country to find the right direction." - Wightman. "The Principle of Relativity in its widest sense is contained in the statement; 'The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of Absolute Motion'; or, shorter BUT LESS PRECISE: 'There is no Absolute Motion.'" - Albert Einstein. "We can reach a satisfactory theory only if we give up the aether-hypothesis. Then the electromagnetic fields constituting light appear, no longer as states of a hypothetical medium, but as subsistent structures (selbstandige Gebilde) which are sent out from the light-source exactly as in Newton's emission-theory." - Albert Einstein. "The only conclusion which .. appears possible to me is that the aether does not exist ..; the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others; .. only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature.." - Walter Ritz. "Classical mechanics ... is everywhere exactly 'right' where its concepts can be applied." - Werner von Heisenberg. "..I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way." - Albert Einstein. I advance Relational Dynamics as that more realistic way. {F0} A Problem Situation: is there a loss of support for Scientific inquiry? ======================================================================= I admire the heroic intellectual achievements of so many of the self - educated philosophers, scientists and technologists over the centuries. I would like that tradition to continue, and to be renewed. I am also more interested in real science than in mathematical or linguistic byways. I want us to have the best available theories to choose from, whether new or not. Many science writers have commented on the loss of understanding of - and the consequent decline in support for - the sciences. Such a lack of support is both regrettable and for the most part avoidable. More unfortunate is the loss of contact with common-sense and rationality, which has made many of the theoretical and philosophical positions taken by some scientists very difficult if not impossible for others to understand, thence to decide rationally whether or not to accept. The scientific enterprise necessarily relates to our exploration of the rationally understandable and consistent regularities of a self-ordering, emergent and non-deterministic cosmos. The quite erroneous, unnecessary and unhelpful acceptance of ill-formed, unintelligible or unfounded philosophical ideas; an outmoded positivism; a mistaken determinism; and an erroneous and avoidable subjectivism and non-realism in quantum physics, are often mentioned as regrettable. Some popular science writers like John Gribbin have even described most of what they now consider science as "nonsense." Unsurprisingly, many people are increasingly reluctant to engage in, finance or support what they are told is "nonsense." The lack of support for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project as of 1994 is a case in point. (Half a century ago, some National-Socialist ideologues argued quite absurdly against the ideas of Einstein and others, as "Jewish physics", supposedly based on "dogma" rather than pragmatic experiment. (This is even more absurd in the light of the inductivist character of Einstein's SR). Actually, Newton ("Hypotheses non fingo") would have been considered Jewish under National-Socialism. Our interest should be with the content and accuracy of the scientific theories themselves, rather than with any attributes of race, creed, politics or colour of the theories' originators. There is one - human - science, the result of the independent as well as interactive scientific activities of human individuals, of all the races, creeds and colours of humankind). I was much influenced by Popper's discussion of the Newtonian and Euclidean foundations of Kantian ethics. The years between 1895 and 1905 were a time of extraordinarily chaotic - indeed revolutionary - change in science. It is perhaps not coincidental that the breakdown of the classical liberal international order, and the outbreaks of barbarism in the 20th Century, occurred after science and cosmology had been increasingly removed from the realm of commonsense "classical" science and a readily intelligible world-picture. There sometimes seems to have been an inclination to view classical theory as 'conservative', to be distinguished from supposedly 'progressive' concepts and opposed on that basis. Mach's ideas seem to have attracted such support (after all, Engels espoused positivist methodology). But Science is not politics. I hope that Science will continue to be able to provide support for the humanitarian and rationalist principles of the Enlightenment. (And I am also all for liberalism, and for free institutions and the open society). {F1} A note on linguistic usage: Popper's anti-essentialist advice ============================================================= We should not take too seriously problems about words and their meanings. "What must be taken seriously are questions of fact, and assertions about facts; theories and hypotheses; the problems they solve; and the problems they raise." (Karl Popper, in his autobiography "Unended Quest" [1976], p. 19). However, a preliminary difficulty we now have in discussing some of these matters is that the same scientific terminology is sometimes being used to refer to, define or describe quite different ideas and physical realities; this is the problem of the "incommensurability of terms", so well described by Imre Lakatos in his magnificent work, "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes" [1978]. For example: it is not commonly appreciated that mass, length and time in any theory of relativistic simultaneity such as Einstein's are not determinate, intrinsic dimensional qualities, but are treated as entirely dependent on their relationship to a hypothetical observer or observers: there would have to be multiple (differing) properties at a single point. Objects would have to be indefinitely many different dimensions and masses at once, as well as experiencing differently elapsing time-rates: that is an inevitable consequence of giving "observed appearances" primacy over the realism of objective, intrinsic properties. {F2} The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes ================================================= In Popper's basic system of scientific method, the working sequence is (1) p1 -> (2) tt -> (3) dtp -> (4) ee -> (5) p2 where p1 is a first problem; tt is a tentative theory to solve it; ; dtp is the deduction of (testable) propositions; ee is the testing of the deduced propositions by various means, including observation and experiment, to find and eliminate any errors; and p2 is the residual or resulting theoretical problem(s) after preferences have been established between competing theories; this procedure may be further reiterated as required. Good definitions read "from right to left", as Bryan Magee has made clear. The sentence "A photon is an emitted electromagnetic particle with an energy equal to Planck's constant (h) multiplied by frequency (v) in Hz." is the scientist's effort to answer the question; "What shall we call an emitted electromagnetic particle with an energy equal to Planck's constant (h) multiplied by frequency (v) in Hz.?" rather than an answer to the essentialist question - "What is a photon?" For instance; in Classical Mechanics, 'simultaneous' is the commonsense idea - "this event here and that event there occur at the same instant in time both here and there." Positivists and operationalists believed that it was not possible to measure "absolute simultaneity", so they argued that the concept should not be used in scientific theories. Such preferences for "words, concepts and definitions" (rather than problems and theories and evidence) has been effectively criticized by Popper and others. What we seek is analogous to the idea of accuracy in engineering: the description "exactly six centimetres in radius, with a precise mass of ten kilogrammes, moving at just sixty kilometres per second " is inherently metaphysical, attainable by actual objects only approximately, albeit now with fantastic precision! Helping us to avoid some mathematical by-ways, we now have the advantage of being able to use very capable electronic computers and software to carry out complex calculations and modelling for us, at great speed. The range and quality of scientific theories, instruments and methodologies available to us is vast, and growing. The resources of information technology are increasing exponentially. Thus we should be better able to achieve the creation of objective theories which are accurate, understandable, explanatory, predictive and more capable of solving scientific problems. While our first concern should always be with the content and accuracy of the theories themselves, the reasons given for their acceptance may often help us to find contextual sources of error. As Leibniz made clear, the same facts can be described by an indefinitely large number of different explanations. Neither can theories be proved by confirming instances: for any theory describes indefinitely many possible test situations. To understand why theories have been advanced and accepted requires some historical reconstruction of the scientific problem-situations of the time; this should include an understanding of the problems which scientists were trying to solve, which in turn requires some knowledge of the language usage as well as the theoretical background, experimental, testing and measuring equipment, procedural methodologies and philosophical ideas and priorities and resources in use at the time. This leads on quite naturally to Imre Lakatos' Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Lakatos, [1978]); a 'basic programme' of physics and metaphysics, with a 'protective belt' of secondary, auxiliary or ad hoc theories; and an acceptance of the idea of (as-yet) unsolved or open problems. The programme is selected for its positive heuristic of descriptive, explanatory and predictive capabilities. A "balance-sheet" approach to the comparison of research programmes is recommended. Assets and liabilities correspond with corroborations and anomalies; profit and loss is the gain or loss to be had in using the research programme, when compared to the costs of other programmes. When evaluating corroboration and anomalies, there is a falsificationist weighting, giving emphasis to any refuting, negative instances and results. To say it again; units of measurement are metaphysical; the description "six centimetres in length" is attainable physically only by approximation. It is also impossible to over-emphasize the constant necessity of dimensional analysis (in terms of mass [M], length [L] and time [T]) of experimental problem-situations and their data. Further and unnecessary difficulties are created when attempts are made to define standard units of length only in terms of the frequencies or wavelengths of light, or mass in terms of electronvolts, or time by "the observed position of hands on clocks", rather than comparing a variety of cross-referring and interlocked measures of length, time and mass standards using different physical principles. For example: a measuring-rod which is one metre long when horizontal can be expected to shorten slightly when positioned vertically (due to gravitational compression). We can say either (a) the rod is shorter; or (b) vertical metres are different from horizontal metres. I propose to follow course (a). Likewise, although some positivists said that it was meaningless to talk of empty space (since it did not have an independent material existence, so that all objects had to be unseparated or contiguous), I choose to work with a concept of empty space within which can be described relative coordinate systems using the metaphysical concept of a perfectly rigid non-rotating cubic grid. {F3} Contemporary problem-situations in physics ========================================== Among the problem-situations which I found interesting were:- the lack of a satisfactory integrated unified realist physical theory; the wave/particle paradoxes in diffraction and interference; the apparent conflict between the two postulates of Einstein's [1905] SR theory (an attempt to place a constant velocity of light in a theoretical system which apparently denied such a possibility); the compounded absurdities of "Big-Bang" cosmology and much of the pretentious subjectivist "Quantum Mechanics" liturgy; the inconsistencies between SR, the [1916] GR theory and quantum mechanics; the differing and contradictory statements and interpretations of these theories in scientific textbooks and discussions, which made more difficult the discovery of a rational cosmology; the - to me, logically unacceptable - determinist implications of SR and GR (which represented the universe as an unchanging four-dimensional Parmenidean block); and (as a spacefaring enthusiast) the possible obstacle a supposed "light-speed" limitation would constitute to the prospects for space travel, even if only because it was erroneously thought to be an obstacle. There are also marvellous opportunities for further discoveries, to find out more about what is really causing some of the natural phenomena presently attributed to "relativistic effects." The emerging science and technology of microelectronics, nanotechnology and photonic devices can use better theories. Energy generation technologies will also benefit from the revision of atomic and nuclear structural theory, as well as electrodynamics. {F4} The "Great Divide" ================== The problems which required a new theory toward the turn of the 20th Century did NOT originate with Classical Mechanics, which at that time did not include a fully satisfactory ballistic theory of electromagnetic radiation or light. In the Continental electromagnetics research programme there were Weber's, Riemann's, Neumann's and Helmholtz's brilliant unified electrodynamics theories, based on the principles of Classical Mechanics and charged particles with forces acting at a distance:- Stationary particles interact by electrostatic and magnetostatic forces; Steadily moving charges create currents; Accelerating charges emit radiation. The problems arose in the wave/particle paradoxes, and in the foundations of James Clerk Maxwell's beautiful electrodynamics theory, which posited an aether for the complex mechanical propagation of electromagnetic forces and waves of radiation at a finite velocity (the 'c' of Weber's theory, incidentally). When Hughes' and Hertz's discovery of "electromagnetic waves" shifted scientific attention to Maxwell's theory, positivist philosophers and scientific researchers demanded evidence for the aether intrinsically necessary to Maxwell's theory, and experiments were devised so as to try to provide it. In a little-remarked paper, Schwarzschild [1903] had shown that Maxwell's equations can also be expressed in the form of a set of equations of motion of a system of particles, thus anticipating the 'wave-mechanics' of de Broglie and Schrodinger by several decades. All that is needed, in addition to this, for the development of modern 'wave mechanics', is a form of the statistically-based Heisenberg 'indeterminacy relation.' Schwartzchild showed that the equations of a beam of electromagnetic waves, as deduced from Maxwell's theory, can be recast in the form of the Lagrangian equations for a stream of particles. A moment's thought should show that all wave theories in fact derive from the study of particles of various kinds - elementary particles, atoms, molecules - interacting either by means of forces acting over a distance, or by direct contact. Most importantly: in [1912], Leigh Page, professor of mathematical physics at Yale, proved that the complete set of Maxwell's equations can be derived without any further assumptions by applying Voight's [1887] Doppler equations for converging or diverging propagated spherical forces - acting over a distance with a delay proportional to the velocity 'c' - to Coulomb's Law. Voight's equations (removed by Lorentz from their physical context and only tardily acknowledged) later became known as the 'Lorentz transformations.' {F5} Classical Mechanics =================== In the 19th Century, the basic scientific system of theoretical kinematics and dynamics (Classical Mechanics) was widely-known to be descriptive, explanatory and predictive. It provided a readily understandable and immensely powerful system of discovery and cosmology, which encouraged exploration, discovery and _the investigation of anomalies_, as well as confidence in a rationally consistent universe - a cosmos rather than a chaos. Most scientists using Classical Mechanics had as the purpose of their activity the description, explanation and further exploration of the real universe, rather than the elaboration of abstract mathematical equations, or instrumental theories which were not intended to be accurate descriptions or explanatory accounts of reality. Newton's system of mechanics is described by Popper as consisting of Euclid's geometry, with the addition of time, mass-points and directed forces. The axiomatized deductive nature of Euclidean geometry is quite readily understandable. The basic dimensions of length, mass and time correspond with everyone's experience of the everyday world. The sensory order of human consciousness incorporates this model of reality. This may be why Newton believed space itself to be "the sensorium of God" (the sensorium is the space of consciousness within which the mind and brain synthesise the pictures of imagination and experience, richly impregnated with the mind's inherent and chosen theories). For as long as Euclid's was thought to be the only possible self-consistent and true geometry, physical reality was necessarily presumed to conform to it. It was only with the development of the non-Euclidean geometries of Riemann and others that the question arose as to which geometry might most nearly or exactly ("truthfully") correspond with physical reality. This issue -- whether geometries are decideable is still controversial. While it had been - albeit mistakenly - believed that Classical Mechanics gave a closed or determinist "mechanistic" description of the universe (which of itself motivated some to question it), Popper and others have argued convincingly that Newtonian physics is itself NOT determinist ("The Open Universe", Volume 2 of "The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery" publ. Hutchinson [1982]). {F6} The best possible scientific tool-kits. ======================================= We should always continue to evaluate, test and re-test existing theories in our efforts to discover better ones. The great stores of experimental results which corroborate Classical Mechanics are reliable and have stood up to extensive tests. Classical Mechanics rests upon fantastically strong and deep foundations. These foundations are incorporated into Relational Dynamics. Since our research programme predicts that discrepancies and unexpected results will be explained upon further research, by the discovery of previously undiscovered properties and quantities, it actually encourages the investigation of discrepancies, anomalies, unsolved problems. Such a procedure is quite different from attempts to escape theoretical refutation by "shelving" problems while asserting that "advances in understanding will in time resolve problems anyway", which seems to be what has happened to the problem of electron orbits and definite states in quantum mechanics. There is plenty of work in this programme to engage eager physicists! {F7} Recommended Reading. ==================== I could not have developed Relational Dynamics without these books having been written (although I have to point out that the authors are frequently at variance with my viewpoints). R.A. Waldron's "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light: A Critical Review" (Frederick Muller, 1977) is brilliant - required reading! Alfred O'Rahilly's "Electromagnetics: A Fundamental Approach" (Longmans, 1938 and Dover Press, 1965), a basic text for Galileian Relativity, is also excellent for its exposition of the work of Ritz and Weber, and its emophasis on dimensional analysis, as well as being top-flight philosophy of science. Petr Beckmann's "Einstein plus 2" (Golem Press, 1987) is a very interesting - competing - theory to mine, but also working in a Galileian framework. Eric J. Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" (Simon & Schuster, 1991) is an extraordinarily rich and interesting work of physics, cosmology and philosophy. T.W.B. Kibble's excellent "Classical Mechanics" Third Edition, Longman Scientific and Technical, [1985] is strongly recommended as a basic text. William K. Berkson's superlative "Fields of Force" (Routledge, Kegan Paul, 1974) is most illuminating on the physical and philosophical issues and problem-situations of different research programmes and cosmologies, especially Faraday's, Maxwell's and Einstein's. Abraham Pais' "Subtle is the Lord... : the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein" (Oxford University Press, 1982) is definitive biography. A.P. French's "Special Relativity" is a fine explication of his subject albeit by a 'believer', which (exceptionally) takes the trouble to discuss some of its problems. He has also written a text on Classical Mechanics. All of Karl Popper's marvellous works: and All of Imre Lakatos' scintillating works. {E0} Electromagnetic theory: "Waves in an Aether"; or Particles and Forces? ====================================================================== In the scientific study of electromagnetics and optics there has been a long-standing debate between "particle" and "wave" theorists. Pythagoras seems to have introduced the idea of light as consisting of a stream of particles emanating from seen objects and entering the eye. A landmark was the publication by Abu Ali Mohamed Ibn Al Hasan Ign al Haytham of Baghdad (343-417 AH), of seven books on optics [Alhazen, @ 378 AH]. He reintroduced the idea of light as a stream of particles, and greatly developed scientific methodology, and his ideas have been influential for hundreds of years. The "particle" tradition was furthered by Descartes, Fermat and Newton. The entirety of geometric optics can be correctly derived - without recourse to wave theories - by starting with Fermat's principle. By the second quarter of the 19th century, however, "particle" theories of light were losing favour, due to the ideas of Thomas Young, Augustin Fresnel and others; a particle theory was thought to be unable to account for effects such as interference, diffraction and polarization. The experimental results of Lebedev and others for light pressure were exactly half those required to corroborate an unsophisticated material particle theory where all the particle energy is linear momentum, and should perhaps have suggested a spin component for angular momentum. Still, by 1825, Fresnel's work especially had resulted in "wave" theories becoming widely accepted. "Particle" theories lost yet more support as a result of Foucault, Fizeau and Breguet's [1850] experiment (suggested by Arago) which confirmed a lower velocity of light in water, the opposite result from that expected by some "particle" theorists, who were explaining refraction in terms of the attraction of "light-particles" at the boundary towards the optically denser medium. Fizeau, in [1859], measured by indirect means the increased velocity of light in moving media, raising some most interesting questions, to which Einstein attributed the inspiration for his SR. These physicists all seem to have assumed that light in transparent media moved at a constant speed, rather than intermittently, from electron to electron or atom to atom with consequent time delays of deceleration (capture) and acceleration (re-emission). It was not then understood that all matter consists of tiny particles amid comparatively vast volumes of empty space. The scientific study of electromagnetic radiation (light, radio etc.) in the 19th century had led to the work of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Heinrich Hertz and James Clerk Maxwell, which represented electromagnetic radiation as "waves in an aether." According to Oliver Lodge, such an aether would have to fill all of space completely; be absolutely cold; be absolutely transparent and undispersive; be devoid of viscosity; and be the sole vehicle of electromagnetic radiation. It would seem that many scientists came to think of the "Absolute Reference Frame" of some interpretations of Classical Mechanics as identical to or coextensive with the "aether at rest" of Maxwell's and Fresnel's theory. {E1} Problems in measuring the velocity of light experimentally ========================================================== Measuring the velocity of light is in practice much more difficult than most physics textbooks acknowledge. (I do not mean by this the alleged obstacle to accurate measurement mistakenly suggested by some subjectivist or operationalist "uncertainty" interpretations of quantum physics). Theories of light are a vast subject area, interlinked to almost every area of science, and there are many unsolved problems and uncertainties. (David Park writes in Collier's Encyclopaedia, Vol. 14, p. 626, that to do justice to theories of light would almost be to write a history of physics: certainly, a particle theory of light and Galilean Relativity necessitates a profound rethinking and revision of much of contemporary physics). Students of electromagnetic science will find it most interesting to discover the scarcity of experimental studies of the radial velocity of propagation and cessation of gravitational, electrostatic and magnetostatic forces. As the combat pilot's cockpit maxim has it: 'Never assume: *CHECK*!!!' Consider the extinction theorem of Ewald and Oseen as it relates to the velocity of light. On passing through a gas, liquid or transparent solid, the the theory of absorption and emission (e.g. QED) states that photons are absorbed by the matching charges, then re-emitted through the empty space between them at standard in-vacuo lightspeed, 299 792.485 + or - .0012 km/second (although there may be effects from the propagated electrostatic actions and interference from secondary sources). The reduced mean velocity is due to time taken to absorb and re-emit the photons. The velocity of a photon from a star when measured after reradiation from our atmosphere is necessarily the velocity of re-emittance relative to the atmosphere. According to Relational Dynamics, any velocity in excess of c relative to the absorbing medium WILL NOT be re-transmitted, although the velocity of re-emittance relative to the re-emitting or re-radiating source (taking note of any source recoil) can be constant at c, 299 792.485 + or - .0012 km/second. Likewise, the journey time and frequency on arrival here of starlight will depend on the interactions undergone on the way here. The nature of absorption and reemission raises further and interesting issues. I remember seeing an amusing Open University broadcast on Special Relativity which purported to show that light from fast electrons showed no velocity addition when measured over a fixed distance with an oscilloscope outside the electron chamber: the light was actually shown to have had to pass through a transparent window in the electron chamber, air, the first measuring point (a Kerr shutter, I recall), and another metre of air before reaching the second measuring point! Unsurprisingly, the velocity measured was the velocity of light emitted from the first shutter, through air, to the second shutter... Any measurement of the velocity of light which includes optical interaction (absorption and re-emission or force interaction) with the measuring apparatus or intervening dispersants is most problematical. The propagation of light through a medium (even a fully transparent one) is a continuous process of interaction (absorption of the incident light and its reemission as secondary radiation by the medium). As Ewald and Oseen point out, only a very small thickness of matter brings about such a replacement; for visible light, less than 10^-5 cm. of glass - or less than 0.1 mm. of air at atmospheric pressure - is enough to remove any trace of the original source. It is as well to consider this issue carefully when evaluating experiments which use transparent glass mirrors or reflective polished surfaces. This relates to the evaluation of photon interactions as either absorption and re-emission, elastic collisions or inelastic collisions. {E2} The search for the "Luminiferous Aether" ======================================== Since the Earth was considered to be in motion around the Sun, if there was an aether it was thought that there could, perhaps should be a detectable "aether wind." Fresnel had suggested a partial "aether wind" in [1818], while Stokes had suggested in [1845] and [1846] that an aether would be motionless at the Earth's surface. Measuring the speed of light for aether effects was therefore considered to be a test between the various theories. (It is - unavoidably - part of the background situation that the context of the disputes between science and religion had also entered many peoples' thinking: for had it not been argued that the absence of current physical evidence for the existence of God had undercut religious belief?) In his [1905] Relativity paper, Einstein referred to 'unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relatively to the "light medium" (aether)'. From 1850 to 1872, Fizeau, Respighi, Hoek, Airy and Mascart had all sought for evidence of the effects of the Earth's orbital velocity on terrestrial optical phenomena, as had Albert A. Michelson in his experiments. In 1931, Einstein gave a banquet speech in Pasadena, in which he addressed Michelson - the 'Master of Light' who was then 80 years old - with these words:- "It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvellous experimental work paved the way for the development of the Theory of Relativity. You discovered an insidious defect in the ether theory of light, as it then existed, and stimulated the ideas of H.A. Lorentz and Fitzgerald, out of which the Special theory of Relativity developed. Without your work this theory would today be scarcely more than an interesting speculation; it was your verifications which first set the theory on a real basis." (Jaffe, [1960]). (Einstein was usually most reluctant to acknowledge the key role played by the Michelson-Morley experiment - perhaps because it could be equally well predicted, described and explained by Walter Ritz's ballistic theory. Just before Ritz died, he and Einstein co-wrote and published an account of their agreements and disagreements concerning their rival relativity theories (W. Ritz and A. Einstein, Phys. Zeitschrift 10, 323, [1909])). Einstein's generous compliment to Michelson may be contrasted with the view of Weyl and others, that in their opinion, the problem was to do with Classical Mechanics, not with electrodynamics. Minkowski in his [1908] lecture described an "electromagnetic image of the world ... discovered by Lorentz and further revealed by Einstein, which now lies open in the full light of day." (This was the influential reductionist idea that all matter consisted of positive protons and negative electrons, which was only falsified by the discovery of the positron and the mass-content of the photon). Michelson himself resolutely continued to believe that he had proven Stokes' theory, and in an "Absolute Reference Frame" as well. Although he eventually conceded that it seemed that Einstein could be right, he continued with experiments to show an aether right through until 1931, in part because "he found it fun", which seems a good enough reason. More recently, Paul Dirac [1951] has argued the possibility of a revised aether theory, as have Imre Lakatos and others. The most useful aether theory would seem to be Larmor's, which asserts that only consequential properties of an aether can be ascertained. {E3} Some different methods for measuring the velocity of light ========================================================== Measurements of light velocity can be classified into several methods: Direct method: along a measured distance, in vacuo, without any interposed absorption and re-emittance from any medium or part of the measuring equipment. This might be done using two parallel synchronized coherent beams (S & S') split from one variable light source in free space; and two or more photoelectric receptors a known distance apart, each of which intersects one beam. It is possible that the first photoreceptor may have to be some distance from the second beam to be sure that it does not affect it in any way. ------------------------------------- V A C U U M S- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| S' - - -| | |<----------- L ----------->| Photoreceptors connected to an interval-timing oscilloscope ------------------------------------- There are problematical semi-direct methods (with some interposed absorption and re-emittance), such as systems using rotating mirrors or Kerr-effect photocells. There are problematical fully indirect methods such as Michelson's, Lloyd's etc., (measuring comparative frequency and wavelength changes, interference fringe shifts, phase shifts and other effects). {A0} The idea of an "Absolute Reference Frame" ========================================= Most scientists in the late 19th Century had accepted a version of Classical Mechanics which included the concept of an "Absolute Reference Frame" co-extensive with the "aether at rest" of Maxwell's theory, as a privileged coordinate system; an infinite unmoving three-dimensional Cartesian space with unique qualities, within which all the movements of matter occurred in a single dimension of time with a universal instantaneous present. When attempts by Albert A. Michelson and others to find evidence for an aether were held to be unsuccessful, it was widely (if mistakenly) believed that this was also a failure to find evidence for an "Absolute Reference Frame" (also mistakenly believed by some to be essential to Classical Mechanics), and that the reliability of both classical electromagnetics and Classical Mechanics were therefore in doubt, requiring new theories to replace them. A number of difficult alternative possibilities were canvassed: [1] Creation of a fully Galileian electrodynamics and optics, with light as particles (Ritz); [2] Modification of the fixed standards of measurement due to aether flow compressing the electron fields of their constituent matter in the line of motion, and abandoning Newtonian mechanics (Lorentz); or:- [3] Retention of Lorentz's equations, but without the aether, therefore treating light as particles but with a modified relativistic mechanics incorporating the Lorentz transformations by reason of the supposedly constant velocity of light in all frames (Einstein). The failure to detect the Earth's movement through an aether, or any change in the velocity of light within an coordinate system which remains stationary relative to the light source, was and is in fact _a striking success_ for a comprehensive theory of relational mechanics, and a ballistic theory of light as particles emitted at a velocity (excluding any effects of external forces) which is constant relative to its most recent source. It is remarkable that this was not more obvious. As the saying goes, there is sometimes more to the obvious than is obvious... {A1} Michelson's [1881] and (with Morley) [1887] tests of Aether theories ==================================================================== - A | S | B * ===/==/=| >-> G| | -- O A coherent light ray from a source S within the experimental apparatus was divided by a half-silvered mirror G at 45 degrees to the ray, so that two equal length light paths were created. The apparatus was located in a horizontal plane, with the arm B in line with the earth's motion. The mirror at A was set to show no interference fringes at O. The entire apparatus was then rotated on a vertical axis through ninety degrees until the arm A was in line with the earth's motion. No significant shifts of interference fringes were observed: light on a path moving in the line of the Earth's motion round the Sun was found to retain approximately the same frequency as light from the same source but moving on the path at a right angle to the line of motion, indicating that the path lengths and velocity were unchanged. The results were the same as would have been expected if the experimental apparatus had been stationary. (It is interesting that in this experiment, any frequency shift would have been interpreted as a difference in the velocity of light, whereas when red-shifts and blue-shifts are observed from eclipsing binary star systems, that is not usually interpreted as evidence for varying velocities of light). After these experiments, some erroneously believed that Michelson had disproved the velocity addition theorem, as well as having failed to detect an "aether wind". Michelson, a lifelong aether theorist, in fact believed that his experiments had verified Stokes's theory that there was no "aether wind" at the Earth's surface, and that he had therefore falsified Fresnel's theory. {G0} Coordinate systems: Newton's Laws and Galileian Invariance ========================================================== However, it is not necessary to accept SR or GR because of the failure to find a privileged or "Absolute Reference Frame"; SR and GR are far from being the only relativity theories, as William Berkson explains in his marvellously insightful work, "Fields of Force" (RKP, [1974]). The existence of an "Absolute Reference Frame" is not essential to Newton's mechanics either. And there is a complete and fully self-consistent classical relativity theory - Galileian relativity. A coordinate system or frame of reference in which Newton's laws hold is an inertial frame; there is an infinity of inertial frames, none of which are privileged, which can all be connected by Galileian transformations, so named after Galileo Galilei, and first described by Huygens. The invariance of Newton's laws under translations (shifting the origin of the measurement system) and boosts (when the new frame of reference moves with a constant velocity) is called Galileian invariance. Classical mechanics asserts the composition of velocities, according to which, for example, an object (o) moving at a constant speed (s1) within a coordinate system (f1) which is itself moving in the same direction at speed (s2) relative to another coordinate system (f2) which is stationary appears within (f2) as an object (o) moving at a compound velocity of (s1+s2). Only Galileian transformations are fully self-consistent, without paradoxical or self-contradictory consequences. O'Rahilly's book is especially good on this. There may well be a coordinate system within which the infinite contents of the Universe move in uniform translation less than within any other; however, since we are not able to explore the entire Universe, identifying such a coordinate system or reference frame would seem to present insurmountable difficulties, for the case of uniform translation. Of course, absolute rotation is easily demonstrable by way of symmetrical forces either side of a unique rest position. {R0} Walter Ritz and Light without an "Aether" ========================================= As the 20th century opened, it would have been most useful to evolve a full re-radiating ballistic theory of the motion of light as material light rays or particle-beams within Galileian systems, to account for Michelson's result, as well as for gravitational deflection and retardation of starlight. It can hardly be over-emphasisized that this was ruled out *at that time* as having been settled as an issue, in favour of "Waves in the Aether." Pais [1982] and [1985] explains the immense difficulty Einstein had in getting the idea of photons accepted, first as an "energy quantum" and later as "momentum quanta." Theories are human inventions, and innovations and their acceptance are not predictable. Walter Ritz (a student, with Einstein, of Minkowski's in Abteilung VI of the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich until 1901, as well as studying with Voight and Lorentz) proposed a ballistic theory of light in a Galileian framework in his paper of [1908]. As Poincare emphasized, systems of mechanics are to a great extent matters of convention and convenience. Ritz decided to retain the classical Galileian principle of relativity of motion, and create appropriately modified theories of optics and electrodynamics instead. His research programme proposed that 'particles fictive' of luminous energy (very like the "virtual photons" of quantum electrodynamics) are projected (rather than propagated) with velocity c from emitting charges (Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 8, [1908]). Alfred O'Rahilly's textbook 'Electromagnetics: a discussion of fundamentals' Longman, Green and University of Cork, Cork, [1938] and Dover Press [1965]) which - as Popper has pointed out - excels in the literature criticizing non-Euclidean and incomplete relativity, discusses Weber's and Ritz's theories and compares them favourably to the various alternatives. I rather doubt that anyone reading O'Rahilly's lucid and brilliant work fairly will continue to accept credulously the arguments for non-Euclidean, incompletely relative, self-contradicting theories. It must be remembered that experimental results had not as of 1908 shown that particle beams could exhibit all known "wave effects", including reflection, refraction, interference, diffraction, frequency, transverse vibration, dispersion, polarization, pressure and Doppler effects. Ritz's theory may have been doubted for this reason; his contemporaries commonly demanded conformity with a "waves in the aether" model. Walter Ritz was one of the most original and brilliant scientific thinkers of this or any century, and his contributions to scientific progress are neglected to the considerable detriment of academic scholarship and contemporary scientific activity. Despite mortal illness and adversity, in his ten or so years of active scientific work he contributed much to mathematics and physics. Using Rydberg's constant, Ritz's combination principle [1908] was used five years afterwards by Niels Bohr in his trailblazing [1913] quantum theory of atomic structure. Ritz also devised the Ritz method for approximate mathematical solutions of variable problems. As Paul Forman writes in the American Council of Learned Societies' Dictionary of Scientific Biography (Publ. Scribner's), Ritz's work has yet to receive the critical attention and sympathetic extension it merits. O'Rahilly, Waldron and I have sought to remedy this. Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) draws extensively on Ritz's work. The usual references to alternatives to non-Galileian relativity (where they occur at all) omit mention of Ritz's work, or assert (without even troubling to describe Ritz's theory) that some experiment or other 'refuted' it. Upon closer examination, *none* of the alleged 'refutations' are anything of the sort, although a curious shifting of goalposts usually results in their hasty replacement by a newly devised "refutation" - altogether an astonishingly unscientific business... In 1908, nearly "everyone knew" that light was "waves in the aether", just as, a few decades later, nearly "everyone knew" that light consisted of quanta, upgraded to "photons" (the title appropriated from Gilbert Lewis, who intended it for something else!); and almost no-one wanted to "bring back the aether" as of only a few years later. {L0} The "Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction": W. Voight's Equation ========================================================== H.A. Lorentz was outstandingly capable as a theoretical and experimental physicist, and was by many accounts a likeable and very influential man. He thought that Michelson's experiment did not disprove Fresnel's theory, nor did he think it proved Stokes's theory either. In [1886] he devised an "aether wind" experiment predicting very small effects. In [1887] Michelson and Morley tested it and again found no "aether wind". However, the test was not carried out at high altitudes until [1897], when there was again a null result. Lorentz, in an ingenious (Minkowski said "extremely fantastical") effort to retain aether theory, accounted for Michelson's null results by theorizing that the aether, by electrostatic action on the electrons of the material structure within the apparatus, caused a physical compression of Michelson's apparatus in the direction of travel through the aether of exactly that amount which would produce the null result. Suitable equations he found in a paper by Woldemar Voight [1887] on the Doppler effect. Voight analysed the differential equations for oscillations in an incompressible elastic medium, and established a set of transformation equations for his theory of converging or diverging spherical forces - which later became known as the "Lorentz Transformations." Lorentz only reluctantly later acknowledged Voight's priority. It should be more clearly understood that if the fixed standard units of scientific measurement are also used as theoretical variables, the maintenance of scientific standards of rationality, accuracy and integrity within those theories becomes very difficult, if not impossible. There could be little or no testable evidence for Lorentz's contraction hypothesis, which is not now widely accepted. However, had the velocity of light been found to be the same regardless of source velocity, that would be prima facie evidence for something like an aether, or for a dominant-field theory like Beckmann's. {L1} Non-Euclidean Relativity: Poincare, Minkowski, Einstein and Weyl ================================================================ Michelson had published his first experimental results in the American Journal of Science, 22, in [1881]. Lorentz published his interpretation of them in [1887]; and in [1892] published his paper on Maxwell's work. G.F. Fitzgerald put forward his matter-contraction hypothesis in [1893]. In his [1895] paper "Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Koerpern", Lorentz suggested his aether-controlled contraction hypothesis, calculated according to Woldemar Voight's Doppler-effect equations for converging spherical forces, based on division by the square root of 1-(v/c)^2 where v is the velocity of convergence. Lorentz's hypothesis seemed quite successful in explaining most of the magnetic and optical experimental results of his day. He sought to combine mechanics and electromagnetic theory with Maxwell's theory of the propagation of light at a constant velocity within an aether. In Lorentz's theory, moving objects change their dimensions. Classical mechanics was discarded. Relativity of simultaneity was proposed. Lorentz was convinced (as were many people) that the aether and "absolute space" were coextensive, so that if the aether could not be detected, "the motion of a system could not be detected from within that system." His theory was intended to explain how light of a constant velocity of propagation in a stationary aether (Fresnel's and Maxwell's theory) could appear as constant in distinct coordinate systems travelling at different velocities (which was how he erroneously interpreted Michelson's result). Minkowski went on to use Lorentz's ideas in his own field-theoretical work. In [1896], in Zurich, Poincare gave a lecture to the International Congress of Mathematicians setting out his own non-Euclidean relativity theory (when Einstein was a student there). In [1897], J.J. Thomson was credited with the experimental discovery of the electron which Stoney - and then Lorentz - had predicted. In [1898] Paul Gerber had explained the Mercury precession advance by the principle of gravity as a propagated action-at-a-distance (far-action). In fact, Gerber used the observational data to calculate a velocity for gravitational propagation! Weber's followers had already explained three-quarters of the precession advance by using the gravitational form of Riemann's electrodynamic equations - all this in the middle of the 19th century! In [1901] Max Planck's epoch-making quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation as discrete quanta with symmetrical emission and absorption by accelerated electrons within the atom was published. Until then, there was perhaps some reason for thinking that discrete stepwise or discontinuous matter-energy effects were inconsistent with Classical Mechanics, although such effects were not explained by Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. When Einstein suggested in his inductivist [1905] SR that there was no aether, but that - for the velocity of light to be constant in all frames - space itself had to vary in measurement along with the objects therein on a velocity-dependent basis in accordance with Lorentz's equations and Minkowski's non-Euclidean geometry, it was in that context. In [1916], the extension to include accelerated reference frames (GR) necessitated a shift to Riemannian non-Euclidean geometry, if Einstein's postulates were to be accepted. It is best to understand the contemporaneous logical sequence this way: [1] Light consists of particles in space (Pythagoras, Alhazen, Newton, Ritz); [2] No, light is "waves in an aether" (Fresnel, Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz etc.). [3] But, is this aether stationary? (Fresnel) Or convected? (Stokes) [4] Tests show the aether cannot be detected dynamically (Michelson-Morley) [5] errm.. because of physical dimensional contraction (Fitzgerald, Lorentz) [6] The velocity of light is constant at c relative to the aether (Lorentz) [7] But (!) an undetectable aether cannot be said to exist or wave!(Einstein) [8] Thus, light has to consist of separate quanta or particles (Einstein) [9] But still with a velocity of c irrespective of source velocity (Einstein) [10] so that my dynamical equations stay the same as Lorentz's! (Einstein). Thus, a choice was offered between aether or "no-aether" theories, as well as wave or particle world-views, both non-Newtonian, but always with identical operational equations. {SG} Einstein's Special and General Theories reconsidered ==================================================== One can only marvel at the now-vast numbers of differing interpretations of Einstein's theories - surely a mark of inconsistency and incomprehension. The best single source is Einstein's own little book on SR and GR, first published in [1920]. While corroborating evidence cannot finally prove a theory true, sufficient valid counter-evidence or logical inconsistencies can prove a theory false. The best method to use in evaluating such theories is a "balance-sheet" comparative approach. Popper gives as his reason for preferring Einstein's theory as potentially or virtually better than Newton's, that it has greater content and explanatory capability, and he gives as instances the gravitational deflection and redshift of starlight. However, as Popper has himself said elsewhere, a ballistic theory of light does in fact include, explain and predict the effects of gravity on starlight (deflection and retardation); and gravity is not the only force which is able to act on photons. Popper writes in "Unended Quest" that Einstein's idea of the universe as a closed Riemannian space of finite radius has now been more or less abandoned, as has been philosophical positivism, determinism, and theoretical operationalist methodology. It is interesting that many of Einstein's "predictions" have been found to be the prior discoveries of others, attributable to other causes. His and Phillip Lenard's photo-electric theory (incorporating Planck's quantum theory) has been most valuable (it was for this specific work that Einstein's Nobel Prize was awarded). It may well be that his partial retention of Newtonian insights as to the corpuscular nature of light accounts for many of the predictions his theories make (albeit by other, rather different, theoretical means). Still, as Popper says, we should be grateful to Einstein, Lorentz etc., for providing yet another possible theoretical alternative, enabling us freely to choose and use our preferred theoretical systems creatively, as (always fallible) hypothetico-deductive systems. Why were these ideas accepted? In 1905, Einstein published three sets of papers, all concerning fundamental constants - Planck's, Boltzmann's, and the velocity of light - c; one on the photo-electric effect (the light-stimulated emission of electrons); one on Brownian movement; and on Special Relativity. It may be that the success of his explanation of Brownian motion, and his and Lenard's photo-electric theory, disposed many people favourably towards his other theoretical work. Although the validity of Einstein's ideas is not dependent on their historical origins, or their psychological appeal, but, rather, on their correspondence to the facts, an understanding of the background to his theories is useful. The theories seem to have been reworded from time to time to escape refutation by experimental evidence. It has even been said that the Special theory is not a scientific theory at all, but rather, a philosophical theory. Here are Einstein's own words: "The Principle of Relativity in its widest sense is contained in the statement: 'The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of Absolute Motion'; or, shorter but less precise: 'There is no Absolute Motion.'" This statement is fully consistent with Classical Mechanics under conditions of Galileian invariance. It can be compared to Newton's statement that there exists a space at rest but that, apart from rotation, its position cannot be found by observation of the stars or of mechanical effects. (Newton could not know of the isotropic microwave background). The problem is that Einstein's theory is incompletely relative, with its postulate of a constant velocity of light requiring a different kinematics, and consequent suggested "relativistic" velocity-dependent effects. No paradox-free interpretation of SR is possible, so that it must be excluded on logical as well as physical grounds. Einstein included some metaphysical errors from quite different contemporary contexts: the then-fashionable positivist subjectivist philosophy of Ernst Mach; operationalism (an overly-literal "observationalist" idea whereby no term could be used without specifying the operations necessary to observing it); instrumentalism (the idea that a theory need not be true, but only useful); Minkowski's field-theoretic work; and Lorentz's transformation hypothesis (removed from its context of Lorentz's idea of "aether flow" acting on matter so as to compress it in the line of motion). Popper describes SR as a relativistic reworking of Lorentz's [1895] formalism; that SR is inductivist in character; and says that there has thus far been no crucial test between them. A constant velocity of light in all systems is not a logical consequence required by the Special theory, but an a priori postulate. Where a constant velocity - relative to the aether - is found (in the wave theories of Fresnel, Stokes, Maxwell and Lorentz), the cause is the velocity of propagation within the aether. In Weber's theory, c is the derived rate of force propagation, used by Maxwell to cross-check his own theory. Einstein believed that the constant velocity of light in different systems was simply "in agreement with experience", that is to say, with experimental evidence. The constant velocity of propagation of light relative to its source was certainly in agreement with experimental evidence, but no experiments up to that time had refuted velocity addition. Nor have they since then. Indeed, Michelson's experiments had actually shown velocity addition, on a ballistic hypothesis. However, as W.G.V. Rosser amusingly points out, "it has often been suggested that a direct experimental check of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is impossible, since one would have to assume it to true to synchronize the spatially separated clocks." ("Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.", p. 133 [1964]) Statements like "Special Relativity does not apply to rotation or to accelerated frames of reference" make clear that SR is meant as instrumental. It cannot be intended to be a complete physical descriptive explanation, or to provide the sort of predictive cosmology which Classical Mechanics provides. However, absolute rotation either side of a rotational rest frame can be ascertained, by measuring the resulting centrifugal force, or by using Sagnac's experimental arrangement. This refuted the Special theory, although Paul Langevin (Comtes Rendus Acad. Sc. [1921], Vol. 173 p. 831) attempted to argue that the General theory did account for it, in that centrifugal force would supposedly not exist if all other gravitational field sources were eliminated from the universe - truly an impossible theory to test! (And is it really a "relative" question, whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, or vice-versa? Did Einstein or his expositors seriously seek to reopen the dispute between Galileo and the Inquisition?) In his theory of General Relativity, Einstein attempted to include accelerated frames of reference and all physical laws, in an effort to eliminate the concepts of different gravitational and inertial forces in favour of field theory and Riemannian space-time. He himself believed both the Special and General theories to be incorrect, and went on to work unsuccessfully for many years on a unified field theory. If Einstein's theory is reinterpreted as an explanation of how light signals travelling at finite velocity between coordinate systems moving at considerable relative velocities may result in changes in how distant events are subjectively perceived, rather than how distant events really - objectively - occur, that would be quite useful. In the same way, a drinking straw partially immersed in water may appear bent, when it is actually quite straight. {Q1} Quantum Errancy: Schrodinger, Heisenberg and the Copenhagen Diversions ====================================================================== We should also be able to achieve a generalization of Classical Mechanics to include a quantized atomic mechanics (this was Niels Bohr's original and stated objective before his going astray in 1925, as well as being a long-standing stated goal of Einstein's), to allow for the existence of the quantum of action as originating in the incremental angular and linear momentum of the material content of photons which consist of particles, while providing an understandable and invariant realist description of atomic structure and dynamics. Beckmann [1987] provides an interesting physical electrodynamic explanation for the quantization of electronic orbits, in terms of there being a necessity for integer increments in the orbital vibration of the electron. The fifty-seven-some varieties of quantum theories are often confused and muddled, shot through with physical, logical and philosophical inadequacies. While the correspondence principle (whereby any principle of quantum theory should give results consistent with Classical Mechanics when applied to macro scal systems) provides some anchorage in Classical Mechanics, neither Schrodinger's nor Heisenberg's work has consistently provided such a generalization. Relational Dynamics will allow us to ascertain, as precisely as the techniques and instrumentation of the day permit, the position, velocity, spin, momentum, charge and mass of particles, as well as their propagated forces and other properties. There is no insurmountable theoretical barrier to an increasing accuracy in doing so; the nature of the task is more nearly analogous to the improvement of the resolving capabilities of different kinds of microscopes or telescopes. We can dispense with the old idea that 'to observe' means 'to see light bouncing off' (the thematic origin of the indeterminacy principle - not being able to see anything at diameters less-than-light-wavelengths, with photons disturbing the positions). We can, for example, test the properties of the experimental situation by setting test parameters such that only specified configurations can pass through unmodified. By testing for modification only and excluding those results, we can ascertain the properties of specified configurations. We can run precise computer simulations. In his "Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery", Popper argues that the attainment of a realist quantum theory, which provides for statements which describe the objective propensities of testable situations, allows us to continue the work of science without the problematic subjectivist concepts of "complementarity", "duality", or the now-refuted "uncertainty" (or - more correctly put - "indeterminacy") principle. And we shall proceed further towards these objectives in future papers. PART II ======= {A1} A CONTINUING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAMME OF RELATIONAL MECHANICS ================================================================== Many problem-situations of modern physics and cosmology are illuminated and resolved by progressing to a revised and augmented hypothetico - deductive system of invariant relational mechanics. This can be quantized wherever appropriate, to take account of any real discontinuous or quantum effects. Quantized phenomena where they occur are produced by the properties, mechanisms and intrinsic variables of physical systems, and so are not inconsistent with Classical Mechanics. This programme will provide a clear, consistent, comprehensive, intelligible and increasingly accurate scientific cosmology, which is descriptive, explanatory and predictive. The description "relational" is intended to denote a fully relative Galileian mechanics, without "absolute velocities", so that all velocities are relative, forces are relational (acting between objects at a distance either instantly or with a delay), and conservation laws hold for mass, momentum and energy. Following Poincare, it should be noted that the selection of systems of mechanics is substantially a matter of convention. Newton's system of Classical Mechanics is described by Karl Popper as consisting of Euclid's geometry with the addition of time, mass-points and directed forces. (The first two Laws were carried forward by Newton from Descartes). As a research programme, it encourages the quest for previously undiscovered forces, events and facts. It can be further developed to a system of relational mechanics. We are greatly indebted to Walter Ritz, Alfred O'Rahilly and R.A. Waldron for their work in this regard. This paper will not of course be "the last word" on this subject; I do not believe in the idea of "final truth" anyway, and future improvements and extensions will always be possible. We advance in science, as in other areas of knowledge, by means of questions, conjectures, reflections, tests, discussion, refutations, and new conjectures. {A2} William Berkson's Cosmological tables. ====================================== William Berkson, in his excellent work "Fields of Force", has tabulated these alternative constituents of various possible "world views" or Research Programmes (p. 254, RKP, 1972); such tabulation is of great assistance in comparing and evaluating the various Research Programmes. (a) There is empty space; or there is full space. (b) There is action-at-a-distance; or there is contiguous action only. (c) Forces do not exist; or there are forces. (d) There is instantaneous force interaction; or finite force propagation. (e) Matter (and possibly fields) obey - or do not obey - Newtonian laws. (f) Position is dependent on central forces; or on non-conservative forces. (g) Matter and field are distinct; or are identified. (h) Matter is; or is not extended. (i) Space and field are distinct; or are identified. (j) There are multiple properties with point of space; or unique properties (k) Electrical particles exist; or do not exist. (For the original table, and a fascinating discussion of how various scientific world-views include these constituents, the reader is recommended to Berkson's splendid book). D N B F K M W H J L E W B | R M e e o a e a e e J o i a e | e e s w s r l x b l T r n l c | l c c t c a v w e m h e s d k | a h a o o d i e r h o n t r m | t a r n v a n l . o m t e o a | i n t . i y . l . l s z i n n | o i e . t . . . . t o . n . n | n c s . c . . . . z n . . . . | a s . . h . . . . . . . . . . | l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . (a)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | X | X | | | | X | | | | | X | X | X ii X | | | X | X | X | | X | X | X | X | | | (b)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | X | X | | | | X | X | | | | X | X | ii X | | | X | X | X | | | X | X | X | | | X (c)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i X | | | | X | | | | | | X | | | ii | X | X | X | | X | X | X | X | X | | X | X | X (d)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i X | X | X | | | | X | X | | | | | | ? - G ii | | | X | X | X | | | X | X | X | X?| X | X E M (e)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | X | X | | X | X | X | X | X | | | X | X | X ii X | | | X?| | | | | | X | X | | | (f)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | X | X | | | | | X | | | | X | | ? ii | | | X | | X | X | | X | X | | | ? | (g)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | | | | | X | | X | X | X | | X | X | X ii X | | | X | X | | | | | | X | | | (h)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i X | X | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X ii | | X | | | | | | | | | | | (i)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | | | | X | X | | X | X | X?| | X | X | X ii X | | | X?| | | | | | | X | | | (j)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | | | | | | | | | | X | | | ii X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | | X | X | X (k)------------------------------------------------------------------------ i | | X | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X ii | | | X | X | X | | | | | | | | (*)------------------------------------------------------------------------ {A3} Waldron's Table of Corroboration of Theories of Light ===================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Experiment Lorentz/Einstein | Ballistic Theory | Reradiant Ballistic --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arago Agrees Agrees Agrees Hoek Agrees Agrees Agrees Fizeau Agrees Agrees Disagrees Aberration Agrees Agrees Disagrees de Sitter Binaries Agrees Agrees No check Michelson/Morley Agrees Agrees Agrees Majorana 1 Agrees Agrees Disagrees Majorana 2 Agrees Agrees Disagrees Sagnac Agrees Agrees Agrees Michelson Agrees Agrees Disagrees Kantor Disagrees Disagrees Agrees James/Sternberg K Agrees Agrees Disagrees Babcock/Bergman K Agrees Agrees Disagrees Beckmann/Mandics K Agrees Agrees Disagrees Beckmann/Mandics 1 Agrees Agrees Disagrees Beckmann/Mandics 2 Agrees Agrees Disagrees Sadeh Agrees Agrees No check Alvager (Alvager) Agrees Disagrees No check Alvager (Waldron) Disagrees Agrees No check --------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.A. Waldron's Table of Speed-of-Light Experiments (p. 122, Waldron [1977]) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In nature, the Cosmos is not compartmentalised into the small, the everyday and the large; extending Bohr's correspondence principle, whereby quantum-level events when scaled-up should conform with Classical Mechanics, an integrated hypothetico-deductive descriptive and explanatory theoretical sub-atomic, atomic, terrestrial and celestial physics and cosmology should therefore be possible. It is scientifically worthwhile to integrate the following into a theoretical relational mechanics:- a comprehensive theory of atomic structure; a theory of electromagnetic radiation as made up of emitted electromagnetically charged material particles, and with relational magnetostatic and electrostatic forces acting at a distance; a propensity theory of particle physics utilizing "hidden variables". This should achieve a reliable and accurate integrated (and where appropriate, quantized) atomic, terrestrial and celestial mechanics, to provide clarity, rationality, common-sense, and exploratory capability in our scientific activities. No doubt we can also work to refine the various present theories, to provide ourselves with 'triangulated', cross-referencing checks, and to maintain novelty of explanation. In the critical rational tradition, honest and fair criticism and discussion is a part of this procedure. Relational mechanics shows that either SR or GR can be replaced by a more accurate and more reliable relational theory, which contains the real successes of Newton's and Einstein's theories, while predicting exciting new discoveries. The 2.7 degree Kelvin background radiation tells us much about the disposition of the universe. D.W. Sciama writes that this has the (Planck) spectrum we would expect if it had come into thermal equilibrium with matter at a definite temperature. Intensity is the same in all directions to a precision of better than one part in a thousand: the most accurate measurement ever made in cosmology. In some respects, it serves as an 'Absolute Reference Frame.' For we can measure 'colourshift' for any motion relative to it. In particular, it tells us the Universe is very uniform on a large scale, since non-uniformities would disturb the evenness of the background. It has recently been reported that there is an averaged colour-shift of a few thousandth of a degree, indicating that our galaxy is moving relative to the background. Also, the universe may be uniformly patterned on a very large scale. The existence and character of this cosmic background does not however require our acceptance of a singular point-source or "Big-Bang" hypothesis. The cosmology proposed by Relational Dynamics describes rather a physical order where all matter and energy states, forces and events exist and occur within an evolving infinite and eternal Universe, the contents of which are locateable by means of Galileian-related infinite Euclidean three-dimensional reference frames or coordinate systems; a universe of infinitely extended uniform space, and one uniform dimension of time; with a past of indeterminate duration; and with a universal instantaneous present elapsing unidirectionally forward at a constant rate. The future is indeterminate, open. Within this universe occur conserved causal matter-energy events in accordance with causality; objective propensities; chance events; and the purposive volitional acts of living beings, including ourselves. Matter emits material electromagnetic radiation, which is reconcentrated by gravitational and electrostatic forces. For more than three centuries, the straightforward principles of Classical Mechanics were used by scientists of all races, creeds and colours around the world, to predict, discover and explain billions on billions of events in the universe, with marvellous success. Problematically, they were so successful that Classical Mechanics was sometimes regarded as unquestioned and unquestionable truth, rather than as an extraordinarily accurate and successful expandable system of hypotheses, a research programme originated by Newton and others, which can be used deductively to provide wonderfully accurate descriptions, explanations and predictions of reality. People seemed to loose the ability to defend it against rival theories, so that when unexpected anomalies were encountered, doubts arose as to the entire theory. However, when Classical and Relational Dynamics are used in an appropriate "anomaly-seeking" way, any unpredicted anomaly can be welcomed as indicating a possible previously undiscovered quantity, force or effect, or a requirement for an additional auxiliary theory, rather than requiring the abandonment of the entire theoretical system. Possible counterinstances are actively sought out, and are frequently shown to be further corroborating instances. As Popper has argued, complete determinism is logically and practically impossible in an open universe which includes causation, objective propensities, chance, and purpose, along with incomplete knowledge of initial conditions. No system can include a completely accurate representation of itself. Neither Classical Mechanics or any other testable scientific theory can "explain everything." Any finite number of observations can be accommodated by an indefinitely large number of explanations; and any theory predicts an indefinitely large number of instances. {X0} Some Problems for Classical & Relational Dynamics; and some solutions ====================================================================== "The Principle of Relativity" (publ. Methuen, [1923]) by Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski and Weyl is recommended reading for clear and original statements of the arguments by some of the leading theoreticians of many of the ideas. Einstein's writing style in "Relativity" [1920] is very readable. "Electromagnetics; a discussion of Fundamentals" by Alfred O'Rahilly (publ. University of Cork and Longman, Green, [1938-9]) is highly recommended for an exposition of some of Walter Ritz's work, as well as for devastating and very readable counter-arguments to erroneous and incompletely "relativistic" theories and misinterpretations. R.A. Waldron's "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light: A Critical Review" (Muller, [1977]) is essential reading. Petr Beckmann's "Einstein plus 2" (Golem Press, [1987]); Clifford M. Will's "Was Einstein Right?" (Oxford University Press, [1988]) is a good contemporary exposition of many of the arguments by a doughty (although mistaken, as I believe) defender of Einstein's GR; a book which I first read in December 1988. A.P. French's "Special Relativity" also actually addresses some of the problems with its subject. Eric J. Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" [1991] is really excellent 'heretical' scientific cosmology! On critical-rational and methodological falsificationist lines, there follows a discussion of instances most often quoted as problematical for Classical Mechanics, or as corroborating Einstein's theory; and some counter-arguments. By reason of the assymmetry of scientific method, the refutations are more important than the verifications. Following Imre Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programmes, we should use the most accurate, best-tested research programmes with a results-measured heuristic. Interestingly, the predictions of Einstein's theories often correspond closely or even exactly to the published results of previous, little-known experiments which used different theories. It is not known whether he was aware of any of them. It is quite well known that he believed his own theories to be in error, as approximations, and he welcomed efforts to refute them with evidence, and he asked that others try to find any errors, as well as to create more realistic theories. (To assist in this quest, we urgently require a permanent orbiting or lunar astronomical observatory, to facilitate more precise measurements outside the Earth's atmosphere). {X1} Mercury's Perihelion Advance ============================ While it was for a long time the strongest argument for it, this is not now considered a corroboration of Einstein's theory. There was an observed, long-standing and acknowledged anomaly between the classically predicted movement of the planet Mercury (circling the Sun in a nearly "closed" or stationary ellipse, with a small perihelion advance caused by the gravitation of the other planets) and the observed advance of the perihelion (Mercury's closest approach to the sun), a difference of 43 seconds of arc (approximately 0.012 of a degree) per century. (Ritz's, Weber's and Neumann's theories of gravity as a propagated far-action also give approximately this result). The existence of another - intraMercurial - planet, "Vulcan", was suggested as a cause, but no planet "Vulcan" was found (sorry, fellow "Star Trek" fans). However, in 1970, the American astronomer Robert Henry Dicke suggested a (partial, 10%) classical cause for the anomaly as due to the oblateness of the Sun (a flattening at the poles caused by rotation). And the force of gravitational attraction is only a uniform central force for orbits lying in the equatorial plane of the sun; Mercury's orbit lies 7 degrees off the plane of the ecliptic. The sun's equatorial rotation on its axis is 25.38 days; Mercury circles the Sun in 88 days. The sun's magnetic force and atmosphere extends far past Mercury; so does the "solar wind." There is a rotating accretion disc of particles, gas and dust extending on the plane of the ecliptic from the sun. The other planets affect Mercury's rotation. Light-pressure from sunlight acts on the planets. Most significantly; the sun's magnetic force transfers the Sun's angular momentum to Mercury; this will continue to advance Mercury's perihelion, until the Sun's angular velocity and Mercury's orbital velocity become more nearly synchronized. Compare this with Larmor precession. Since general relativity predicts an additional 45" +/-5 per century precession advance without allowing for any of these factors, it is hardly likely to be correct. The observed precession is also at variance with that calculable using special relativity, as are other anomalies within the solar system (e.g. abberances in the moon's motion). Interested readers may also want to read E. Gerjuoy, "Feasibility of a non-relativistic Explanation for the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury;" American Journal of Physics, 24:3 [1956]. Recent microwave measurements of solar system distances were reported to be .5% different from previous measurements. This indicates opportunities for further interesting discoveries. There have been no successful measurements of any velocity of propagation for gravitational force. {X2} Eddington and Cottingham's Hyades Starlight Deflection Observations =================================================================== Johann Georg von Soldner, in [1801], calculated the bending of light rays grazing the sun's disk. (Also referred to in Stanley L. Jaki, "Foundation of Physics" 8, [1978]). A hundred years later, Einstein repeated the prediction that starlight passing by the Sun would be deflected by the sun's gravity, so that the apparent distance between stars either side of the Sun when viewed during an eclipse would be smaller. According to Will, a deflection of 0.875 seconds of arc for gravitational deflection only was calculated by von Soldner, using Classical Mechanics and a hypothetical light velocity of around 300,000 km. per second. Einstein's special relativity predicted .83 on Newtonian grounds (Einstein [1920]); his general relativity 1.75; in [1919], it is asserted that Eddington and Cottingham, in only one of sixteen photographs, measured 1.98 + or - 0.12; 1.61 + or - 0.15: and six months later on November 6 that year, Frank Dyson announced further results of 1.72 + or - 0.01 and 1.82 + or - 0.15. Eddington staged a publicity coup, announcing this at the Liverpool Physical Society, causing Oliver Lodge to walk out. Similar as well as different observations have been made since that time. This evidence is now considered to be inconclusive with regard to Einstein's theory. If a ballistic theory of light is accepted, so that light has mass and is therefore subject to gravity, then the Eddington eclipse observations of [1919], rather than requiring acceptance of Einstein's 'curved-space' theory, provided further data to calculate the properties of starlight from the Hyades, and the forces governing its travel, as well as the characteristics of the Sun. The moon's gravity also deflects light, as was shown by Warren Marrison, January 24, [1925]. The sun's corona extends past Mercury's orbital path; the sun's chromosphere extends 10,000 km from the sun's surface. A gas-lens effect therefore deflects starlight passing through it. This is complicated by extreme acoustic effects imparted to the chromosphere by events on the sun's surface. The "solar wind" of particles (mostly protons) extends outward indefinitely. The sun's intense magnetic and electrical forces can cause deflection of light (the Zeeman and Stark effects). There may also be a "diffractive" as well as a gravitational deflection. And the cooling of Earth's atmosphere during the eclipse period must affect measurements by altering the atmosphere's refractive index. {X3} Gravitational Red-Shift of Fraunhofer Lines in white-dwarf Starlight ==================================================================== This evidence is also now thought to be inconclusive. Jewel, in [1879], as well as Ch. Fabry and H. Boisson in [1909] observed a red-shift of the Fraunhofer absorption lines of the order of magnitude calculable by General Relativity (they ascribed it to the effect of pressure in the absorbing layer). Einstein predicted a "red-shift" of the Fraunhofer absorption lines in the spectrum of starlight received from high-density "white dwarf" stars, which he theorised was caused by a strong gravitational effect slowing down the atomic clock frequencies of the emitting atoms, and therefore the frequencies of emitted starlight. That would not necessarily be a "relativistic" effect. In [1925], W. S. Adams of the Mount Wilson observatory confirmed an observed shift of the spectral lines from the "white dwarf" star Sirius B. However, with a ballistic theory of light, this "red-shift" is predicted as a gravitationally - induced energy loss, or velocity loss, with a consequent frequency reduction. As with the previous example, the effect could as well support the argument that light rays have mass, and could have been extrapolated from the work of Newton, von Soldner, Ritz and others. Escape velocity for the Sun is 617 km/second. Escape velocity for the "white dwarf" star Sirius B is calculated to be 7000 km/second. When the escape velocity is greater than c, this has the effect of the "Schwartzschild radius." {X4} "E = MC^2" and Nuclear Energy ============================= It is sometimes said by those knowing no better, that the "E = mc squared" mass-energy equivalence thesis - and the actuality of atomic energy - somehow "prove" Einstein's theory, as if explosions could prove theories. However, as Popper, O'Rahilly, Waldron and others have shown, the "E = mc squared" equation was and is in fact fully derivable from Classical Mechanics. Much more misleading is the idea that matter is conceptually reducible to energy. The sub-atomic particle constituents of the nucleus (all undiscovered until the 1930's, and therefore unknown to Einstein as of 1905 or 1916) are released in nuclear fusion and fission reactions as high-velocity and therefore high-energy particles of various kinds. About a half of one percent of reaction material is translated to electromagnetic radiation in fusion explosions; rather less than that in fission explosions. Even the release of orbiting electrons liberates considerable energy (the angular momentum of the electron around the nucleus). Technically, all that is necessary for nuclear energy is an understanding of the idea of chain reactions, and suitably selected and arranged materials. The existence of varying possible energy relationships between invariant mass and variable angular and translational velocity does not require acceptance of the erroneous idea that mass and energy are therefore entirely equivalent and entirely interchangeable. Extensive research on the fusion interactions between protons (with an energy equivalent to .6 MeV) and lithium nuclei at STP (forming a beryllium nucleus, which decays into two alpha particles with an energy equivalent of 16.8 MeV) will illuminate this issue further. E = mc^2 derived classically ============================ ------------------------- A | | B ------------------------- l A hollow cylinder of length l and mass M is at rest. A short flash of radiation is emitted from A and is absorbed by B, imparting a momentum Y to it. A at emission experiences an impulse Y, the tube recoils through x and stops when the radiation is absorbed at B. Then, if m is the mass of the radiation which moves through l-x, Yt = Mx = m(l-x). First suppose the velocity is c relative to the "aether", i.e. l-x = ct. Therefore Y = mc. Next suppose the velocity is c relative to A, i.e. l = ct. Hence Y = mc/(1+m/M) = mc, since m/M is negligible. In either case, since Y = W/c, we have W = mc^2. {X5} Stellar red-shift ================= The astronomer Edwin Hubble found a correlation between the "red-shift" of starlight from nebulae and their brightness (and therefore, it is proposed, their likely distance). Nebular "red-shift" - interpreted as a Doppler-shift - is now used as a supporting argument for a hypothesized recession of the distant stars themselves (the fanciful and much too credulously accepted "big-bang" and "expanding universe" hypotheses). There are, however, many other and additional possible explanations for the "red-shift" of starlight, including light ray interaction with interstellar matter; photon-photon interactions (See "Non-velocity redshifts and photon-photon interaction" by J.C. Pecker, A.P. Roberts and J-P. Vigier in Nature 237, [1972] pp. 227-9); energy loss due to traversing the Penzias and Wilson background radiation; and even the possible energy loss of light rays over timespans of millions of years. (Just for the record, Paul Dirac advanced an interesting hypothesis of the evolution of matter, that the more distant (thus older) stars were molecularly different, and their light is red-shifted as compared with the newer light from the nearer stars. Early observations even supported a theory of energy loss - hence a frequency drop - over time). A "big bang" cosmological theory (implying a past point origin of the universe, and finite contents) cannot possibly be correct for a universe of infinite extent with indefinitely extensive contents of indestructible matter. Only a positivist could accept an argument that an empty universe is equivalent to a nonexistent universe. Apart from the absurd initial assumption (an empty universe within which something suddenly happens acausally at just one point!), there are many other considerations which make the "big bang" theory intellectually utterly unsatisfactory: the requirement for entirely different - even inexplicable - "singularity" laws of physics at a starting point, for instance. The distance of only a few stars is known within an accuracy of 2%, all of them closer than three parsecs. There was no "big bang." The work of Hannes Alfven, Eric J. Lerner. Grote Reber and their colleagues is of great and ongoing interest here. I think that the idea of an evolving, continuous-process, infinite and eternal open universe with emergent properties is truer and more worthy of study, as well as being more exciting and interesting. No entropic "heat-death" in this our RD universe! Gravitational and electrostatic forces reconcentrate the photons into new aggregations of matter and thence into new stars. {X6} High-Energy Particle Interactions ================================= In the 'Sixties, I spent many happy months on the Fourth Floor of the Royal Fort Physics Building at Bristol University, viewing projections of many thousands of synchronized trimetrogon 3-view CERN bubble-chamber event Schlieren photographs (we were then looking for pi-mesons), and this instilled a lasting skepticism as to the often-dogmatic assertions made by some particle physicists; we should always remember that all observations are themselves inevitably theory-impregnated. My experience also helped me to acquire the skills to visualize and interpret 3-D images of the particle interactions for myself. Waldron and Beckmann provide the theory to describe the interactions between electrons in a fully relational manner. The self-induced electromagnetic mass is velocity-dependent. The effects of accelerated high-energy particle interactions is sometimes adduced in support of the thesis of "relativistic" high-energy particles. The reason for this is that some interactions of high-velocity particles with other particles and with magnetic force show very high energy levels. By way of comparison, nuclear energy is released from the nucleus when high-energy particles strike the nucleus. No-one (yet) asserts that the nuclear energy released is due to "relativistic" high-energy particles or "relativistic" nuclei. Some alternative explanations include: particles are travelling at "superluminary" velocities; particles have high spin energy; internal component forces are being released; the particles are accelerated by the addition of inertial masses. Circular-path ring accelerators pose interesting questions; for if Special Relativity cannot apply (because of acceleration or Absolute Rotation), how then could there be "relativistic" effects? This is another area where revised theories should assist in valuable new discoveries. The Large Hadron Collider has proton-proton impact velocities of > 1.98c. {X7} Direct Measurement of the speed of light from moving sources ============================================================ V A C U U M Pulsing accelerated twin-beam light source. S >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| S'>- - - - - -| | |<------ 3 m ------>| Photoreceptors 3 m. apart connected to a dual-trace oscilloscope Free-electron lasers work by accelerating a beam of electrons into a specially configured region of magnetic force, which causes the electrons to change direction and emit light. Careful design can produce a laser effect at a wide range of frequencies from microwave through ultraviolet. If this lasing light is created and measured in vacuo, by the above described experimental arrangement, without dispersion, we might be able to show velocity addition. Further research into Cerenkov radiation (and its reverse form) should also be illuminating. Velocity addition is easily shown in a classical context by means of a sealed and evacuated cylinder, within which a light beam shines intermittently North to South onto an internal detector, which enables velocity to be calculated between emission and detection. An indicator light on the exterior of the container is lit when the N-S velocity is c. If we then travel due North away from the cylinder, while observing the lit indicator, we are surely entitled to add our velocity to the indicated velocity of the beam inside the container, are we not? {X8} Variable (Eclipsing) Binary Star systems ======================================== I think this class of natural astronomical phenomenon is one of the most beautiful illustrative examples of so many of the scientific issues we are discussing. It was advanced by de Sitter [1913] to argue against velocity addition in the emitted starlight. ^ | | A*-----------x-----------*B V V | ^ | | rotational | | barycentre | | | | v=c+V v'=c-V | | | | pn=pc x v pn'=pc x v'| | | | | | v | v' | | V = speed of rotation: c = 3 x 10^8 km/second: v = ray velocity: pn=photon count = frequency: pc = pn at c: A binary pair star system of two identical stars A and B rotates around its barycentre at an angular velocity of 30 km/second. At a distance of 26 parsecs, the difference in signal arrival if that velocity difference were maintained would be six days. If the rotation period is 12 days, then in six days star B has moved to the position of star A. As explained by Jerry B. Marion's excellent textbook "Physics and the Physical Universe" (J. Wiley and Sons, [1971]), a variation in light velocity would cause each of the two stars to be apparently in two positions (because light from each star's different positions arrives continuously irrespective of velocity). There is a spectroscopically observed doppler red shift from star A, while there is a corresponding blue shift from star B. (It is interesting to note that in the Michelson-Morley and other experiments, this would have been considered as evidencing a velocity difference in the light sources). Normal light intensity ___ _____________ _____________ _____ | | | | | | | | | | | | It has been asserted that the graph of binary star systems' observed light intensity over time is always of this kind. Actual astronomical observations falsify that assertion. The observed eclipse effect only occurs when light from the further star is blocked by the nearer star. We are then observing these stars in the plane of the ecliptic. The gas disc in the plane of the ecliptic absorbs the light from each star, and re-emits it, frequency-shifted, at an identical velocity. This was discussed by J. G. Fox (Am. J. Phys., 30, 297 [1962] and 33, 1 [1965]). We were thereafter [1975] asked to believe that, although all previous arguments based on eclipsing binary stars falsifying ballistic theories were in fact wrong, an argument based on x-ray emissions should now be accepted... Ho hum... {X9} Transverse Doppler Effect ========================= This is a complex and interesting area, which has not been accounted for entirely to my satisfaction. Alfred O'Rahilly's book has an interesting discussion of this effect, as does Petr Beckmann's [1989]. Voight's equation could be appropriate in diverging or convering spherically propagating light sources. Ives and Stillwell produced a collimated beam of fast-moving hydrogen atoms and molecules. A spectrograph received light from the beam nearly end-on, and from a mirror. The difference between the mean of the displaced lines and the undisplaced line (from atoms not in the beam) were measured. Lines of atomic and molecular hydrogen were used. Velocities from 4 x 10^-3 c to 7 x 10^-3 c were used. The variation reported was in accordance with Voight's equation. This result has been subject to various interpretations, quite possibly with more to come; according to R.W.Ditchburn the transverse Doppler effect has not been observed for light. R.A. Waldron provides a full ballistic interpretation of Ives and Stillwell. Interestingly, Ives did not regard his work as confirming Einstein's theory. {X10} Accelerated electrons under magnetic force ========================================== 'Electromagnetic mass increase.' If the mass of an accelerated electron subject to a magnetic force actually increases, this should be measurable in a reference frame co-moving with the electron (i.e. the electron's rest-frame). What actually happens is described by Berkson as follows: "When a charged particle is travelling, it produces a magnetic field. When we attempt to speed up or slow down the particle, the particle cuts its own magnetic lines of force, which causes a force to be exerted upon the particle. As can be recalled from Faraday's work, self-induction always opposes the change in the current - now the motion of the charged particle. Thus self-induction resists any accelerations, just as if the particle has a greater mass, and the extra mass becomes greater as the particle goes faster, since the force thereby created is more intense. The mass in the longitudinal and transverse directions is different, as the configuration of the lines of force is different. The idea can be taken further: the effect is not merely confined to self-induction, but the mutual induction of the various parts of the electron; in fact, the main part of the effect is due to the mutual influence of the infinitesimal currents resulting from the motion of each bit of charge on the electron. The intensity of the effect of mutual induction depends on how close currents are together. In fact, by assuming the electron is bigger or smaller - and thus that the currents created by its motion are more or less densely distributed - differing amounts of the effective inertial mass of the electron can be ascribed to the electromagnetic effects of induction. In fact, by choosing the proper radius for the electron, the _entire_ mass can be ascribed to the inductive effects!" - 'Fields of Force', p. 287. =========================================================================== TITLE: A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAMME OF RELATIONAL MECHANICS [ T3 ] =========================================================================== ========================================================================= TITLE: A Scientific Research Programme of Relational Dynamics -- [T3] ========================================================================= TEXT: The basis of Relational Dynamics is the single principle, that the laws of physics have the same form in all frames of reference in uniform translation, and are the same everywhere. It extends Classical Mechanics into the realms presently occupied by Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Dimensional Analysis of Measure Ratios: Mass = M. Length = L. Time = T. [1] MATTER IN INFINITE SPACE: Material objects having extension exist in a space which is without intrinsic properties, and which exists to infinity in every direction. [2] UNIFORM TIME WITH UNIVERSAL SIMULTANEITY: The elapsing of time is uniform and unidirectionally forward, with an instantaneous present time which occurs at the same moment -- simultaneously -- everywhere. Signal intervals can be recalculated to achieve corrected accurate predictive and retrodictive data. [3] EQUIVALENT GALILEAN RELATIVITY: All forces, material coordinate positions and velocities are relational; and all co-ordinate systems or frames of reference in uniform motion relative to one another are Galileian systems. There is no privileged or "absolute" reference frame. There is full addition of velocities across co-ordinate systems or reference frames. [4] GENERALIZATION OF THE LAWS OF MECHANICS: All the laws of mechanics have the same form in every inertial frame of reference or coordinate system. [5] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: INERTIA: The stasis or movement of anything does not change unless and until a force acts upon it. [6] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: ACTION: A change in movement of anything is proportional to the force acting upon it, and is made in the direction of the force which acts upon it. (f = ma = ML/T^2; Force = mass times acceleration). [7] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: REACTION: For every action, there is an equal reaction in the opposite direction. (f1 = -f2). [8] RELATIONAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE: The relational gravitational attraction between massy objects is proportional to their masses, and is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between their centres of mass. If gravitational force should prove to be propagated at a finite rate, and objects be moving radially relative to each other, then the additional velocity-dependent modification for propagated spherical forces, Woldemar Voight's [1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz Transformations") would be required, as a first approximation to non-linear equations for delayed interaction over a distance. [9] RELATIONAL ELECTRIC FORCE: The relational electric attraction or repulsion between charged objects is inverse-square proportional to the distance between them. If "changes in electric force prove to be propagated at a finite rate, and objects be moving relative to each other, then the additional velocity-dependent modification for propagated spherical forces -- Woldemar Voight's [1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz Transformations") -- are required, as a good first approximation to non-linear equations for delayed interaction over a distance via a field of force. Coulomb's Law and Voight's equations yield Maxwell's equations without further assumptions, as proved by Leigh Page, Yale Professor of Mathematical Physics [1912] and [1913]. Electrodynamics is fully deriveable from electrostatics via Classical Mechanics. A. O'Rahilly, "Electromagnetics", Longmans & U. Cork, [1938] & Dover [1965] R.A. Waldron, "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light", F. Muller [1977] R.A. Waldron, "Electric Forces", The Radio and Electronic Engineer, Vol. 51 No. 11/12, pp. 553 to 560, November/December [1981]. Leigh Page, "The Derivation of Electrodynamics from Electrostatics", Yale University, [1912] and [1913]. [10] RELATIONAL MAGNETIC FORCE: The relational magnetic attraction or repulsion between north and south magnets is inverse-square proportional to the distance between them. If changes in magnetic force prove to be propagated at a finite rate, and objects be moving radially relative to each other, then the additional velocity-dependent modification for propagated spherical forces, Woldemar Voight's [1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz Transformations") would be required, as a first approximation to non-linear equations for delayed interaction over a distance via fileds of force. (The [static] lines of magnetic force follow from the force interactions as described by Poisson's equations). A. O'Rahilly, "Electromagnetics", Longmans & U. Cork, [1938]; Dover [1965] R.A. Waldron, "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light", F. Muller [1977] R.A. Waldron, "Electric Forces", The Radio and Electronic Engineer, Vol. 51 No. 11/12, pp. 553 to 560, November/December [1981]. [11] QUANTIZED MASS AND ENERGY VALUE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION: Electromagnetic structures which are radiated and absorbed ('photons') have intrinsic mass, and this mass occurs in in multiples of a minimum mass. This mass, when in linear translation and with up to three axes of classical rotation, ('spins') as well as three degrees of vibration, gives rise to quantum effects. Such electromagnetic structures ('photons') are made from the same material as other forms of matter - negatively charged microparticles (which we can call electrinos); positively-charged microparticles, (which we may call positrinos). There are also neutral (perhaps bound-pair) microparticles, (presently called neutrinos). In free space the velocity of emittance of a radiated photon _relative to its source_ is constant at L/T = 299,792.485 + or - .0012 km/second. 'c'. E = hv, where E is the energy value of the photon; v is its frequency; and h is Planck's constant, which has the measure-ratio of ML^2/T, and is presently calculated as 6.6262 x 10^-34 Joules/second. There is accordingly a lower as well as an upper limit to photon mass. Relevant equations may be found in R.A. Waldron, [1977] and [1982]. These quantized electromagnetic structures, in conjunction with Beckmann's [1987] theory of stable electron orbits, provide the basis for developing the quantized dynamics of particle systems, including atoms and molecules. (See the Carr-Parrinello method). R.A. Waldron, "The Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light", F. Muller [1977] R.A. Waldron, "The Spinning Photon", Speculations in Science and Technology, Elsevier Sequoia S.A., 5 April [1982]. P. Beckmann, "Einstein plus Two", Golem Press [1987]. [12] CONSERVATION LAWS: There is full conservation of mass; full conservation of energy over time; and full conservation of momentum. Mass is invariant with respect to relative velocities, as are also length and time. ========================================================================== [ Copyright Anthony Hugh Hollick, Bristol, England. February 28 [2000] ] ========================================================================== It may assist understanding to think about RD like this: [A] Take Classical Mechanics: (Start with T.W.B. Kibble's fine text): [B] Add relational electric and magnetic and gravitational forces: [C] Add a velocity of force propagation ('c'), which delays far-action: [D] Add a full ballistic ('particle' or 'photon') theory of EM radiation. "Classical Mechanics is everywhere exatly 'right' wherever its concepts can be applied." -- Werner Heisenberg. (That is, everywhere!) ----------- * * * * * ----------- ============================================================================ [ Copyright Anthony Hollick and The Rainbow Bridge Foundation [1990-2000 ] ================================< E O T >=================================== | Anduril@STARGATE.uk.net * Anthony Hugh (Tony) Hollick | - <*> -------------------------* * * *------------------------- <*> - | Rainbow Bridge Foundation * * Centre for Liberal Studies | - <*> -------------------------* * * *------------------------- <*> - | 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd: * Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9501894 | ============================================================================