The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 A Critical Review of the Evidence
Authors: Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University)
Comments: PDF 12 pages, 7 figures
Subj-class: General Physics
The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation speed of light in vacuum for any observer, and which amounts to a presumed absence of any preferred frame. The postulates appear to be directly linked to relativistic effects which emerge from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is based upon the concept of a flat spacetime ontology, and which then lead to the General Theory of Relativity with its curved spacetime model for gravity. While the relativistic effects are well established experimentally it is now known that numerous experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, have always shown that the postulates themselves are false, namely that there is a detectable local preferred frame of reference. This critique briefly reviews the experimental evidence regarding the failure of the postulates, and the implications for our understanding of fundamental physics, and in particular for our understanding of gravity. A new theory of gravity is seen to be necessary, and this results in an explanation of the `dark matter' effect entailing the discovery that the fine structure constant is a 2nd gravitational constant.
wisp said:This work looks professional and Reginald T. Cahill has referenced some interesting work on Dalton Miller and Roland De Witte (recently deceased), which I fully agree with - namely a sidereal variation in the speed of light.
PeteSF said:Check out the http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html page. Remember, this is not a run-of-the-mill crackpot site, this is a serious academic website at an accredited University.
ZapperZ said:What makes you agree with those but not these:
1. "Tests of Relativity Using a Cryogenic Optical Resonator", C. Braxmaier et al., PRL v.88, p.010401 (2002).
2. "Tests of Lorentz Invariance using a Microwave Resonator", P. Wolf et al., PRL v.90, p.060403 (2003).
3. "New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics", J.A. Lipa et al., v.90, p.060403 (2003).
4. Muller et al., PRL v.91, p.020401 (2003).
5. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410742
Zz.
wisp said:ZapperZ
It is possible to for Lorentz Symmetry to be upheld 100%, even when the one-way speed of light is only constant relative to a preferred reference fame.
The above experiments seem to imply that Lorentz Violation is a test of the constancy of the speed of light, which it is not. However, there link is strong to the two-way speed of light measurements, but not for the one-way.
Garth said:The experiment needs to be replicated under stricter conditions. In particular it needs to be in a high vacuum isolated from any other field effects and vibrations.
Garth said:Zz - In a carefully constructed laboratory experiment?
Garth
Garth said:The experiment needs to be replicated under stricter conditions. In particular it needs to be in a high vacuum isolated from any other field effects and vibrations.
ZapperZ said:How do you propose to achieve isolation from "other field effects" such as gravity, and how high of a vacuum would suffice?
Zz.
ZapperZ said:What makes you agree with those but not these:
1. "Tests of Relativity Using a Cryogenic Optical Resonator", C. Braxmaier et al., PRL v.88, p.010401 (2002).
2. "Tests of Lorentz Invariance using a Microwave Resonator", P. Wolf et al., PRL v.90, p.060403 (2003).
3. "New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics", J.A. Lipa et al., v.90, p.060403 (2003).
4. Muller et al., PRL v.91, p.020401 (2003).
5. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410742
Zz.
Cahill hasn't ignored or rejected the results of any modern published experiment including those listed here by Zz; neither has he contradicted any of them. What he has reported (which you guys have failed to notice much less even begin to refute) is that all published (valid) experimental data (both the modern and the not-so-modern) are consistent with one particular locally preferred frame (first identified by Miller) with anisotropies that are proportional to (n-1) where n is the refractive index of the interferometric medium. Virtually all of the modern experiments, including those listed here by Zz, were performed in a high-vacuum where n=1.DrChinese said:Face it, Cahill is trying to tell us that one of the most fundamental concepts of relativity is wrong without himself performing a single experiment to support the charge; and he ignores or rejects all modern published experiments (i.e. in the last 50+ years) which contradict him.
I see...so all of these experiments that purport to test for Lorentz invariance can't possibly be valid if the EM radiation measured is absorbed by matter at any time during the measurement process?pervect said:Relativity predicts that there will be anisotropies in the measured velocity of EM radiation when EM radiation interacts with matter, because the matter will absorb the EM radiation, drift for a bit with some velocity, then re-emit the EM radiation. The result is a different average propagation velocity than 'c'. The less matter, the less effect.
This does not impact in any way shape or form the fact that the velocity of EM radiation when it has not been absorbed is equal to 'c'.
What has Newton got to do with any of this?pervect said:So the results above are consistent with relativity, and since the relativistic behavior in the limit as the media approaches a vacuum will be different than the Newtonian limit, the results should not be consistent with Newtonian physics.
In short, yet another proof of relativity is apparently being miscontrued as an objection to it.
Aether said:I see...so all of these experiments that purport to test for Lorentz invariance can't possibly be valid if the EM radiation measured is absorbed by matter at any time during the measurement process?
That's right, but the issue is complicated by the fact that the absolute state of motion of the emitter and receiver may affect our measurements of time as well as of the distance between the two.pervect said:The basic issues is: how long it takes light to go from point A to point B when nothing (like having a wall in the way, for instance) interferes with the progress of the light. More specifically, one is interested in whether this time (the time it takes light to go from A to B) depends in any way on any absolute "state of motion" of the emitter and receiver.
Not necessarily. It can be an effective way to sterilize one's experiment and eliminate all traces of a locally preferred frame, but one must take care not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Are you familiar with the story of how the CMB was discovered? At first it was assumed to be noise, and steps were taken to try and eliminate it; Penzias & Wilson would have been so happy to have found an easy way to quench that pesky hiss: "Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson were trying to find the source of excess noise in their antenna, where pigeons were roosting. They spent hours searching for and removing the pigeon dung. Still the noise remained, and was later identified with the Big Bang."pervect said:Because the interest is in how long it takes light to go from point A to point B in the absence of other disturbing effects, other disturbing effects (like matter, which can absorb the light and re-emit it after a time delay) are routinely eliminated.
This is just good science.
Clocks and rods are typically made from atoms which are fastened together by EM forces. If a locally preferred frame were to simply affect clocks and rods in identical proportion to the way it affects EM radiation propagating through a vacuum, then local Lorentz invariance would be the result. This is a different interpretation for local Lorentz invariance than is offered by SR.pervect said:Objecting that "But if you put a wall in the way, the light will never get there", and "your theory didn't cover what happens when you build walls between the emitter and source" is silly, though I suppose it might momentarily impress people who either didn't know anything about the topic, or had some sort of personal axe to grind.
Cahill's locally preferred frame has a magnitude of 417±40km/s in the direction of (α, δ)=(17.5h, 65˚). In terms of the test theory of Mansouri & Sexl (R. Mansouri & R. Sexl, Gen. Rel. and Grav., Vol. 8, No. 7, (1997), pp. 497-513; Vol. 8, No. 7, (1997), pp. 515-524; and Vol. 8, No. 10, (1997), pp. 809-81) my conjecture finds concise expression as a dependence on n of the parameters, α(n), β(n), and δ(n) of the test theory. For example: [tex]\alpha(n)=-\frac{1}{2}n[/tex], [tex]\beta(n)=-\frac{3}{2}n[/tex], and [tex]\delta(n)=2n[/tex].Aether said:Clocks and rods are typically made from atoms which are fastened together by EM forces. If a locally preferred frame were to simply affect clocks and rods in identical proportion to the way it affects EM radiation propagating through a vacuum, then local Lorentz invariance would be the result. This is a different interpretation for local Lorentz invariance than is offered by SR.
Assuming two perfectly offsetting effects (speed of light in vacuum anisotropy vs. the aberration of clocks/rods), modifying either one of these effects without modifying the other creates an imbalance that is detectable. Suppose that varying the refractive index n of the interferometric medium modifies the speed of light anisotropy in proportion to n without modifying clock/rod aberration, (n-1). Now, that's my conjecture; but it is backed-up by all of the experimental evidence gathered and reported by Cahill.
Reginald T. Cahill said:I had a quick look at some of the criticisms directed at my work. As usual they are based on a lack of understanding of the situation.
First, all experiments are being taken into account. The detection of absolute motion requires a clearer understanding of how each experiment works than has been given. Various kinds of experiments have been performed, and most bizarrely the theory for the operation of each of these is actually Newtonian physics, even though we all know that it failed over 100 years ago! The argument appears to run along the lines that if an experiment, whose analysis of operation is based upon Newtonian physics fails to detect absolute motion, then the Einstein theory must be correct. That is not logic. Unfortunately most of the recent resonant cavity experiments (essentially Michelson interferometers) use vacuum. Then several effects, each caused by absolute motion effects, actually cancel. But if one uses a gas in the device then that cancellation does not happen, and a residual effect occurs. Neither the Newtonian theory nor the Einstein theory has this situation arising. In fact ALL the experiments taken together are consistent, and they are implying that it is Lorentzian relativity which is being confirmed by all the experiments.
Reg
But isn't the trick to find a preferred frame in a vacuum??Aether said:I contacted Reginald Cahill today. This is what he had to say regarding the posts in this thread:I had a quick look at some of the criticisms directed at my work. As usual they are based on a lack of understanding of the situation.
First, all experiments are being taken into account. The detection of absolute motion requires a clearer understanding of how each experiment works than has been given. Various kinds of experiments have been performed, and most bizarrely the theory for the operation of each of these is actually Newtonian physics, even though we all know that it failed over 100 years ago! The argument appears to run along the lines that if an experiment, whose analysis of operation is based upon Newtonian physics fails to detect absolute motion, then the Einstein theory must be correct. That is not logic. Unfortunately most of the recent resonant cavity experiments (essentially Michelson interferometers) use vacuum. Then several effects, each caused by absolute motion effects, actually cancel. But if one uses a gas in the device then that cancellation does not happen, and a residual effect occurs. Neither the Newtonian theory nor the Einstein theory has this situation arising. In fact ALL the experiments taken together are consistent, and they are implying that it is Lorentzian relativity which is being confirmed by all the experiments.
Reg
That would be some trick!Garth said:But isn't the trick to find a preferred frame in a vacuum??
Apparatus?? Now we're no longer simply in a vacuum, but also on a platform assembled from atoms fastened together by EM forces where apparently "...you have introduced a 'preferred frame', that of the average centre of momentum of the ..." apparatus (which completely determines the centroid of momentum for any gas contained within it?); at least that's my conjecture. If the effect of a preferred frame on the dimensions of a rigid apparatus are precisely the same as on the dimensions of EM radiation in vacuum, then what we have here is Lorentzian relativity. The gas merely serves to unbalance this equation so that the preferred frame can be measured using the rigid apparatus.Garth said:Once you put gas into the apparatus you have introduced a 'preferred frame', that of the average centre of momentum of the gas.
In terms of the test theory of Mansouri & Sexl my conjecture finds concise expression (for gas-mode interferometry) as a dependence on n of the parameters, α(n), β(n), and δ(n) of the test theory. For example:[tex]\alpha(n)=-\frac{1}{2}n,\ \beta(n)=-\frac{3}{2}n,\ and\ \delta(n)=2n[/tex] and using Cahill's locally preferred frame having a magnitude of 417±40km/s in the direction of (α, δ)=(17.5h, 65˚).Reginald T. Cahill said:In fact ALL the experiments taken together are consistent, and they are implying that it is Lorentzian relativity which is being confirmed by all the experiments.