ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN ~instein's fame can, to some extent, be ascribed to the fact that he originated a theory which, though contrary to common sense, was in remarkable agreement with the experimental data. Ron Hatch claims there is increasingly precise data which contradicts the theory. But he does not stop there. He offers an allernative-an ether gauge theory, which offers an unparalled, common-sense explanation of the experimental data. The new theory is distinguished by: • a return to time simultaneity, even though clocks (mechanical and biological) can run at different rates • the replacement of the Lorentz transformations with gauge transfo rm ations (scaled Galilean transform ations) • a unification of the electromagnetic a nd gravitational forces • a clear explanation of th e source of in ertia • a clear and consistent explanation of the physics underlying the equivalence principle In addition to the above, a comprehensive review of the experimental record shows that the new ether gauge theory agrees with experiment better than the special theory. This releases everyone from the necessity of accepting a nonsensical theory which denies the common, ordinary sense ofelapsed time. Rather than curved space, the ether gauge theory postulates an elastic ether. This results in relatively minor modifications to the general theory mathematics-but with significant interpretational differences. :SCAI :INST 11111~1<·1 11 '11 ·,1 1ilw1I to 11'01y whi1 ' II IH', WII S Ill' ('X pe1 In l{llll 11:tt t ll'I iM' da1 : lut IHI d1w 11<·111111ivc ,lk1 s 111i 1111 ,Hon of 11 l11·wy Is di: • ll ll'1111 1h11111•,h, t'H I) 11111 • tlw '"Pl l1111111iil t (111 ,tl1 •tl I • II 111111 1< g111vi111 11 • II 1'11 •1 11 l11t•1Hu • ll (' 1('1 11 II physics p1indpl In tt<.ldi1io ·cvicw of t hat Lhc nev ~xperiment l'his release ,cccpling 1 ics Lh e cor l ime. Ralher th, 1heory post -; ults in rel 1hc general -; i11.nificanl ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN Ronald R. Hatch A KNEAT BOOK Published by the KNEAT KOMPANY 1142 Lakme Ave. Wilmington, CA 90744 ISBN 0-9632113-0-7 Copyright 1992, the Kneat Kompany No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. Table of Contents vi 1'111 ~ PROBLEM 1 I he Special Theory of Relativity 3 I ht• 'Iwin, or Clock, Paradox 12 I he Symmetry of the Lorentz 'Iransformation 26 r~1 Hl -Simultaneity of Time 26 1·hundations of the Special Theory 27 I ht· General Theory and Quantum Mechanics 32 < '11nclusion 34 AN ALTERNATIVE 35 l11ertia 37 I he Equivalence Principle 38 I he New Ether Gauge Theory 44 f'he Gauge of Gravity 51 I he Gauge of Velocity 56 I he Gauge of the Speed of Light 63 <'ornparing the Alternatives 65 <'onclusion 70 lJ NIFICATION 71 Review of Vector Derivatives 72 The Maxwell Equations in Potential Form 73 Modifying Maxwell's Potential Equations 77 lravi tational and Kinetic Forces 80 'onclusion 88 4. DOPPLER AND ABERRATION EFFECTS Clock and Doppler Effects Aberration Effects Choice of Frame An Experimental Choice Conclusion 5. FORCE AND MOTION Ampere versus Lorentz Velocity Gauge Revisited The Coulomb Force Equation Charge Increase with Velocity Toe Edwards Effect Conclusion 6. ROTATIONAL MOTION The Sagnac Effect Thomas Precession Conclusion 7. Tl IE BUILDING BLOCKS OF PHYSICS The Electron The Neutrino The Quarks, Up and Down Conclusion 89 90 92 96 I I0. THE IMPOSSIBLE AND TI-IE DIFFICULT The Impossible 'l'he Difficult <'onclusion 172 172 173 196 98 102 103 106 113 115 116 121 123 125 126 129 136 137 138 142 144 I I I CLASSICAL PROOFS OF TI-IE GENERAL TI-IEORY 197 'J'he Gravitational Redshift 198 The Deflection of Starlight by the Sun 198 I he Precession of the Perihelion of Mercury 199 The Shapiro Time-Delay Effect 199 The Expansion of the Universe 200 Naked Singularities 200 <'onclusion 201 - I~. NEW GRAVITATIONAL EXPERIMENTS 202 J J.J 111it 111 seconds. Based on this lifetime, they would only travel 0.66 kilomctcn, 011 tht• average if they traveled at the speed of light. Yet a large percentage of tlH: 111 travel more than 10 kilometers to reach the earth's surface. Clearly, their very high velocity causes them to decay at a much slower rate. But the muons once produced are in gravitational free-fall and, according to the general theory, unaccelerated. By contrast, the earth-based observer is acted on by the gravity field of the earth and by the centrifugal acceleration of the earth's rotation. If it were the unaccelerated observer whose clock runs correctly, the unaccelerated muons ought to see the earth-b;,ised lahorn101 clocks running slower, i.e. the earth would rotate through a 11111allt•1 a11,:k before the decay occurred. This is opposite to what actually h11ppt·11.., ' lht• laboratory-based observer always seems to win, whether the othe, ohM'1 w1 i1-1 accelerated or not. The advocates of the special theory have attempted to solve the philosoph1 cal paradox by recourse to experiment. This must, of necessity, fail. In summary, as far as the "Pair-of-Docs" paradox is concerned, the arguments are non-ending, as is typical ofphilosophicalquestions not subject to experimental verification. (2) The "TIC-TOC" Paradox There are only two possible resolutions of the "TIC-TOC" paradox consistent with the Lorentz transformation. Each of the two alternatives has been 22 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN proposed as a solution to the "TIC-TOC" paradox. I present first the solution proposed by Ohanian (1988). . Ohanian draws a space-time diagram similar to that of Figure 1.7 and asserts that Stella sees Torrance's clock make up for lost time as she decelerates at the end of the outbound portion of her journey and accelerates back up to her return velocity. In fact, during the acceleration phase, she sees her brother's clock exactly make up for the time lost during the outward-bound journey and also exactly compensate for the time that will be lost during the inward-bound portion of the journey. In the specific example of Stella and Torrance given above, this means that Stella would see an extra 1.8years (which occur between 1.6 years and 3.4 years on Torrance's own clock) gained as a result of the deceleration and reacceleration phase at the midpoint of her journey. In this way she can see him aging slower during her inward-bound and outward-bound journeys and yet find him the expected age when she returns. This solution does not disagree with the Lorentz transformation. But it does call upon a supplementary effect which it is claimed is caused by acceleration. It makes use of the non-simultaneity of time, which is a function of the separation of the twins and their relative velocity. Thus, when Stella slows down, she is looking less and less into Torrance's past; and, when her velocity has turned around toward him, she is looking into his future. Ohanian is claiming that, as the acceleration is applied, the time axis rotates and all of the signals 1crrancc emitted during the 1.8 year interval are received by Stella. Ohanian calls upon the non-simultaneity of time to save the symmetry feature from contradiction. The solution proposed has a certain logic which is attractive. The Lorentz transformation, as was shown above, is equivalent to a hyperbolic rotation in the plane formed by the direction of the relative velocity and the time dimension. Thus, the twins can see each other's clocks running slower because their time axes do not point in the same direction. The position of each twin can be expressed via the Lorentz transformation (hyperbolic rotation) in either of the two coordinate systems. Acceleration by changing the velocity is equivalent to a hyperbolic rotation of the coordinate system. Thus, it is appropriate that, if Stella accelerates, the coordinates of both she and her brother in her coordinate system be rotated. Since she is at the center of her coordinate system, this rotation has no effect upon her coordinates; but it has a dramatic effect upon her brother's coordinates as expressed in her coordinate system. Since Torrance does not himself accelerate, his coordinate system is not rotated; and neither his nor Stella's coordinates change as expressed in his system. (At the start or end of the journey, the acceleration has no effect on THE PROBLEM 23 each other's specific coordinates, because each is located at the center of the other's coordinates, as well as his own.) In the specific trip described above, Stella's perception of Torrance's clock, TIC, would experience a sudden 1.8 year jump in its reading. Ohanian states: Of course, such a discontinuity is unphysical, but the blame for this must be placed on the unphysical world-line of Stella-we have assumed an instantaneous change in velocity ... If we make a more reasonable assumption, with a gradual change in Stella's velocity, then we find that Turra's [Torrance's] clock does not jump but simply speeds up during the time that Stella accelerates. It is this speeding up ofTurra's [Torrance's] clock which more than compensates for the time dilation along the other parts of the world-line...and makes ·1crra [Torrance] older, no matter what reference frame is used to calculutt· the aging. Yes, the solution offered has an attractive logic. But does thl'Solutlo11 ( hn k· Can the effect be compared with reality? In fact, there are two tests that can be applied to the solution. Each ol the tests indicates that the proposed solution is invalid. First, the size of the lillll' step can be made arbitrarily large. It is a function of the distance of the object in Stella's coordinate system. IfStella is granted a very long life and travels for a very long time, Torrance's position coordinates in Stella's coordinate system become very large. However, the amount of time it takes Stella to decelerate is not a function of the total length of the journey. Thus, the amount and rate at which Stella perceives Torrance's clock gaining time as she accelerates can be made arbitrarily large. The longer the trip, the faster Torrance's clock m11st appear to run to make up for the time lost on the trip. Clearly, this dm·, 1101 correspond to any observed physical phenomenon. A second test is also easily made. The hyperbolic rotation effect (ksn ilH'd above is a general effect. It does not depend upon how Torrance and Stt'lla became separated--0nly upon their separation distance. Thus, the same effect should be observed by measuring the amount of time a distant pulsar loses or gains when an acceleration toward it is executed. The huge distances of some pulsars should lead to huge effects from very small accelerations. No such effects have ever been observed. If the effect were real, it would be easy to sec. All earth-based observers are accelerated along with the earth by the sun's gravitational field, but no acceleration effects are induced in the pulsar data. Ohanian 's solution to the "TIC-TOC" paradox does not work and cannot be made to work. He failed to follow the implications of the solution to its logical conclusion. 24 ~SCAPE FROM EINSTEIN Another solution to the "TIC-TOC" paradox has been proposed by Lucas and Hodgeson (1990). Toe Lucas-Hodgeson solution is that Stella does not see the whole picture. She is, in fact, deceived. She loses all knowledge ofwhat happened to Torrance during the "gap" interval of 1.8 years in the above example. Lucas and Hodgeson present an example where the gap represents a longer interval of time. In their example the traveling twin turns around just after he sees his apparently younger brother getting married. But, once he turns around, he sees his brother retiring and all knowledge regarding the twin from marriage to retirement is lost. Lucas and Hodgeson conclude their argument in the following words: The essence of this solution is kinematical rather than dynamical. It is the conceptual shift in the lines ofsimultaneity, not any effect of the force required to bring about the needed accelerations and decelerations, that accounts for the mistaken reckoning of the traveling twin. He changes his time-reckoning in mid-course, not by moving the hands ofhis clock, but by changing the rules for dating events on earth, and so naturally gets his calculations awry. The earth-bound twin has an uninterrupted view of what is happening to his traveling brother, and so his view of the matter is undistorted, while the view of the traveling twin is disrupted, and only seems to show, without actually doing so, that his brother must be younger than he is himself. Stephenson and Kilmister (1958) come to this same conclusion by considering three observers instead of two-triplets instead of twins. Let Astra be far removed from Stella and Torrance but moving toward them at high velocity. Let Stella be moving toward Astra at an equal velocity. Let Stella synchronize her clock as she passes Torrance (who is not moving in his reference frame). When Stella and Astra meet, let Astra set her clock to Stella's time. When Astra arrives at Torrance's location, they compare their clocks and Astra's reads a much lower elapsed time. This triplet maneuver allows Stephenson and Kilmister to obtain the same net effect as the twins without the use of accelerations. Toe gap in time occurs because, at the time of synchronization, the triplet moving away from the stationary triplet has not yet seen the time which occurs in the gap and the triplet moving toward the stationary triplet has already seen the gap. Stephenson and Kilmister state: In this example, the distant synchronization avoids the need for considering accelerated observers and introduces the characteristic lack ofsymmetry in another way, so that the paradox is impossible to formulate. THE PROBLEM 25 So Lucas and Hodgeson have solved the "TIC-TOC" paradox. Or have they? Aga in experimental evidence can be called upon to contest the solution. If 'll.:rrance is continuously broadcasting his clock readings to Stella and the Lucas-Hodgeson solution is correct, 1.8 years of signal energy has been lost in space-time. Such a solution is in violent disagreement with the law of the co nservation of energy. Toe fundamental laws of physics disagree with the proffered solution. Some relativists might prefer to see conservation ofenergy contradicted rather than the special theory. Therefore, direct evidence against 1he Lucas-Hodgeson solution will be presented in Chapter 10 using data from a Pioneer 10 experiment. The Lucas-Hodgeson solution to the "T/C-TOC" paradox does not work and cannot be made to work Energy does not get lost in space-time. Toe "TIC-TOC" paradox is subject to experimental test. And all the evidence is in disagreement with any solution compatible with the Lorentz transformation. Toe Ohanian solution allows Stella's observation of Torrance's clock to run slow but requires an unphysical clock rate increase in the received clock signal when the observer is accelerated. Toe Lucas-Hodgeson solution allows Stella's observation of Torrance's clock to run slow but requires an unphysical loss of Torrance's transmitted signal energy. Direct experimental evidence exists for a non-symmetrical transformation which allows one clock to run faster than the other and one clock to run slower than the other. The logical basis for such a transformation will be presented in Chapter 2. In Figures 1.7 to 1.9 it was shown that the ratio of the proper time of a traveling twin to the proper time ofa stationary twin was independent of the inertial frame. But that is only true at the end of the trip, after the traveling twin has rejoined the stationary twin. If the traveling twin does not turn around, the proper time ratio appears to be a function of the inertial frame chosen. But modern technology allows us to measure time and frequency over vast distances. Thus, an interplanetary probe (which does not turn around) can easily be used to check whether the Lorentz transformation correctly characterizes the time and frequency relationships between the probe and the ground communication stations. After adjusting for the gravitational and Doppler effects, the frequency which the ground receives from the probe should be lower according to the Lorentz transformation. It is. In addition, the frequency which the probe receives from the ground should be lower according to the Lorentz transformation. It is not! It is actually higher by the same amount that the signal from the probe is lower. Thus, the actual frequencies are reciprocal, not symmetrical; and simultaneity of time must hold. This also means that there is only one frame which is a valid frame for use in computing the proper time. (See Chapter 10, Pioneer 10 experiment.) 26 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN The Lorentz transformaJi.on fails the test. It must fall~nd with it the special theory ofrelativity. The Symmetry of the Lorentz Transformation The scientist, like other people, is wonderfully adept at rationalization. The Lorentz transformation actually used is normally a mixture of the two symmetrical coordinate system transformations. See, for example, Mansouri and Sexl (1977). The time equation, equation (1.12), which maps Torrance's time to Stella's, is solved for Torrance's time and gives: Tt = (1/y)Ts +f3Xt /c (1.23) But this equation is paired with equation (1.9), which maps Stella's X coordinate into Torrance's: X1 /c = yXs /c + yf3Ts (1.24) The cq11a1io11s in Ihis form allow one to speak of the time dilation when 1dn I ill/\ 10 t•qual urn ( 1.21), where y is in the denominator, and to speak of 1hc l ◄'i 11< il'nihl k11g1h con1raction when referring to equation (1.24), where y h i11 lh(' 1111111crn101. •1·1tc.· Hl Iual experimenta l results are more indicative of the non-symmetrical Iransfo, ma lion required by nature. The laboratory, as stated above, always seems lo win out in the time-dilation sense (i.e. the clock moving with respect to the laboratory is the slower clock). But, wonder of wonders, the length contraction is rarely called upon in the laboratory frame. Length contraction is virtually always called upon only when the moving system looks back at the laboratory. Thus, as far as length is concerned, the laboratory usually loses. The symmetry of the Lorentz transformation allows one to pick the direction of the transformation to match the experimental results. If expansion is needed, solve the inverse transformation for the original parameter; if contraction is needed, use the transformation directly. This makes it hard for anyone to refute the theory. Any result is covered. Non-Simultaneity of lime The non-simultaneity of time is confused by some as a statement that clocks will run at different rates as a function of their velocity. But clocks which run at different rates can still exhibit simultaneity. Clocks which run at different THE PROBLEM 7 r 11n l'x hibit non-syntonicity, i.e. they simply run at different frequencies. The 11 l.t Iions hip between clocks which run at different rates can easily be explained liy 111111 symmetrical one-to-one transformations, which simply map the rela11•·( dock rates from one system to the other. Non-simultaneity, on the other Ii rnd, means that one inertial system looks into the past of another in the pltysirn l direction opposite their relative motion and into the future in the phy:,lral direction of their relative motion. Such behavior is highly non-intui- 1h a nu illogical and is the only physical phenomenon ever claimed which iol.1l c.'.S the normal understanding of the flow of time. Nol only is non-simultaneity not required by any direct experimental evi,lt ,u·t· it creates problems in interpreting some experiments. The experi1111. 111s designed to test the Bell inequality (Shimony 1988) arc a primc (, 1111ple. In quantum mechanics the predictions of the behavior of pa11kks 111 photons in an entangled state are in opposition to predictions hm,t·d 011 a , 1.1\skal particle understanding. The quantum predictions have hccn pmwd i:c111c.•c.·t Furthermore, measurements performed on one of an entangled pail 111 particles seem to instantaneously affect the other particle, even though a 11hslantialdistance separates the two particles. But, ifsuch non-local behavior , 111 occur instantaneously and if non-simultaneity were true, a mixing ofcause 111d dfect could occur. Another observer traveling at high velocity with respect 111 lhc experiment might easily see the effect on the second particle occur he lore the measurement on the first particle which caused it. It is the famous 1I111c.• travel problem of fiction. Non-simultaneity of time becomes equivalent 1111imc travel. Non-simultaneity of time is a clear defect in the special theory. oundations of the Special Theory 'I he above arguments lead to the conclusion that the special theory is wrong. 11111 the special theory is founded upon only two postulates. Which of the two is in error? Or are both in error? Where did Einstein go wrong? Before 111t·mpting to answer these questions, a review of the state of physics at the c 1ul of the nineteenth century is in order. The discovery that light was polarized and consisted of transverse vibrations 11'(1 10 the concept of a solid ether. Only solids are capable of sustaining 111111svcrse vibrations. This led to the natural question of how the earth and 111hcr solid bodies could move through such a solid ether-a question adth c.'ssed in Chapter 2. The speed of light would, of course, be with respect to a rnord inate systern in which the ether is at rest. The velocity oflight with respect 28 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN to the ether then provides a method of determining the motion of physical bodies with respect to the ether. The earliest evidence seemed to indicate that the earth moved through the ether with no apparent resistance. The specific evidence was the aberration of starlight, which was first discovered by Bradley in 1725. The light coming from stars in directions perpendicular to the earth's orbital velocity around the sun appears to be deflected in the direction of the motion of the earth. The effect is very small but clearly observable by measuring the relative deflection ofstars in directions tangent to and perpendicular to the earth's velocity at different times of the year. The most common analogy is made to rain drops falling vertically. They appear to someone running to be falling at an angle. The tangent of the angle is proportional to the relative velocity of the falling rain and the person running. Thus, the amount of aberration can and was used to compute the apparent velocity of light, given the velocity of the earth around the sun. The argument that the aberration of light means that the ether cannot be moving with the earth has almost always been given more weight than it deserves. Sure ly no one believes or believed that the entire ether in the unive rse moved a long with the earth. If the ether is identified with the gravity held , as Beckma nn (1987, 27) proposes, clearly aberration can still occur at 1he transition regions of gravity fields or where a differential movement in the ·the r is ta king place. T he next significant evidence regarding motion relative to the ether was obtained by Fizeau in his famous experiments of 1851. He measured the velocity of light in pipes filled with moving transparent liquids. He was able to detect the difference in light velocity moving with the flow of the medium and against the flow of the medium. As a result, he found that the amount by which light was "dragged" along by the medium was determined by its index of refraction-a result predicted by Fresnel many years earlier on the basis of a partial dragging of the ether. The result played a significant role in discussions regarding the ether at that time. Because the index of refraction of air is essentially one, the result was widely interpreted as ruling out the possibility that the ether moved with the earth. This was supported by experiments performed by Lodge, which showed that the speed of light was not affected in the vicinity of spinning disks. But this conclusion was contradicted by the result of the Airy 1871 experiment, which was also predicted by Fresnel. Airy showed that filling a telescope with water did not affect the measured angle of stellar aberration. This result is compatible with either partial ether drag or total ether drag but not THE PROBLEM 29 111111pa1ible with the absence of ether drag. Ofcourse, it is also compatible with 1ht• specia l theory. 'l'he crucial experiment regarding the ether was first performed by Michel'-"1111 in 1881. The precision, however, was insufficient to be conclusive. Therel1 11 t•, Michelson collaborated with Morley and repeated the experiment in IXX<> with enough precision to be significant. It showed that the velocity of 1lgh I rela tive to the earth was no different in the direction of the earth's orbital vr lod ty than it was perpendicular to the earth's orbital velocity. This result destroyed the common understanding (based primarily on the aberration of "i la d ight) that the ether did not move along with the earth. Some, Michelson among them, interpreted the experiment to mean that, in l.irl, the earth did carry the ether along with it. Furthermore, it is clear that M 1chelson understood that the aberration of starlight did not disagree with 1hat hypothesis. In 1897 Michelson unsuccessfully attempted to measure the difference in the amount by which the speed of light was carried along with Ihe earth as a function of altitude above sea level. That attempt clearly shows ht· understood that the aberration phenomenon could be occurring at some distance above the earth's surface. It is not widely known that Michelson and Cla le in 1925 did show that the earth's rotational velocity does not carry the t·ther along with it. (I know this is not the normal interpretation.) In other words, there is an apparent difference in the velocity of light, depending on whether it is moving east (with the earth's rotational velocity) or west (against Ihe earth's rotational velocity). Beckmann and Hayden (Pool 1990) each have offered a $1000 reward to the first person who can prove that, to an earth-fixed observer, the speed of light is the same eastward as it is westward. Because physicists had become convinced that the ether was not carried a long by the earth, the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was very unsettling; and a number of attempts were made to reconcile the experiment wi th theory. The most famous adjustment was that of FitzGerald, who postula ted that material things would contract just enough in the direction of mo tion to counteract the difference in the speed of light. Lorentz came to the sa me conclusion and developed his famous transformation on the basis of length compaction. He also showed that it was consistent with the Maxwell equations. Strangely, the Michelson-Morley experiment seems to have played a minor or non-existent role with Einstein. No one has been able to pinpoint just when instein became aware of the experiment. But it was apparently quite near the same time the special theory was published. Perhaps this is best explained by Einstein's comment some years later (Shankland 1963) that he expected the 30 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN result. This would explain why, when he did become aware of it, no significant impression was made. Einstein pursued a reconciliation of theory and experiment from first principles. He was remarkably successful in the special theory. From two fundamental principles, he was able to construct the theory and to predict many unusual effects, which have been verified. These two principles or postulates are considered next. First, consider what was actually his second postulate: TIIE CONSTANCY OF TIIE SPEED OF LIGHT The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the source. This postulate has much to commend it. Even if one is a believer in an ether, he can accept this postulate. It could mean that the velocity of light is determined by the medium (ether) it is passing through. Or it could mean, as it docs in the special theory (to be compatible with the other postulate), that it is determined by the velocity of the observer. I believe that the speed oflight is constant with respect to the local medium it is passing through. Therefore, even though I disagree with the special theory interpretation of this postulate, I have no quarrel with the postulate itself. Einstein's first postulate is the postulate of relativity: POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY The laws of nature and the results of all experiments performed in a given frame of reference are independent of the translational motion of the system as a whole. This postulate had much to commend it. Historically, with the hypothesis of an ether, the reference frame in which the ether was at rest was endowed with special characteristics as far as electromagnetic effects were concerned. And the speed of light was relative to this fixed ether frame. Thus, relativity of constant translational motion did not exist in electromagnetism. Yet all the historical evidence in all other fields of physics indicated that the principle of relativity applied. Specifically, the laws of mechanics were clearly unchanged by constant relative motion (i.e. they were invariant under Galilean transformations). Einstein was astute enough (although wrong, I believe) to propose that the same held true of electromagnetism. From these two hypotheses all of the special theory flows-and it results in the Lorentz transformation-and I showed above that the Lorentz transfor- THE PROBLEM 31 111111ion cannot survive the twin paradox. One of the two postulates must, thl'rcfore, be wrong. I believe it is the postulate of relativity that is wrong. After Einstein proposed his solution, it became absurd to believe anything t lsc. Witness Bondi (1962, 53): The concept of the ether, therefore, involves the absurd consequence that by optical means one should be able to distinguish between being in a state ofuniform motion and being at rest, although it is impossible to do so by dynamical means. Yt·t the discovery of the background radiation from the creation big bang can he: used to ascribe a unique velocity to any mass (Conklin 1969). Do all mechanical experiments indicate that the laws of physics are unrhanged by relative velocity? Which of the two following statements is easier to believe: (1) The change in the rate at which a clock runs is caused by the ,1hstract concept of the relative velocity of the one observing it? (2) The change In the rate at which a mechanical clock ticks can be induced by real physical phenomena related to mass moving through an ether? When a bucket of water is spun, the parabolic shape assumed by the water 'l1rface shows that rotational velocity with respect to the distant stars can be detected by mechanical means. But at what radius of curvature docs the rotational velocity become pure translational velocity, which cannot even in principle be detected by mechanical means? At what level of precision arc you willing to say that there is no curvature in the path followed by a moving nhjcct? Einstein (1951), in his memoirs, related that he was led to the principle of relativity by considering what would happen if he pursued a beam oflight with Ihe velocity of light itself. To one moving with the speed of light, it would appear as an electromagnetic field constant in time but periodic in space. But the Maxwell equations do not allow such a solution. Therefore, Einstein postulated the relativity of electromagnetic phenomena, so that, no matter how fast he moved, the Maxwell equations could still apply. But the special theory itself does not allow mass to move with the velocity of light. Thus, the problem Einstein considered was a purely hypothetical problem. Furthermore, the concept of a mass dragging the ether with it could also clearly account for the absence of such a solution to the Maxwell equations. 32 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN The General Theory and Quantum Mechanics The structure of modern physics is still fragmented into several disjoint theories. Each of the component theories is adequate over a limited domain. However, there are problems that arise at the boundaries between the theories. The Bell inequality was cited above as an example of the special theory (non-simultaneity of time) creating a problem with quantum theory. There are other problems. A second example of the conflict of the special theory with quantum theory is the renormalization problem. The renormalization problem arises because certain integrals become infinite when the limits of the integration approach zero or infinity. Dirac (1973) says regarding this problem: One can put the calculations of the Lamb shift and of the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron into a sensible form by introducing a cutoff, by taking the upper integration limit in our integrals to be not infinite but some finite value.... One still gets effectively the same Lamb shifts and the same anomalous magnetic moment when one works with this cutoff, to the first order of accuracy. One then has a theory where the infinities are gone, a theory that is sensible mathematically. An unfortunate result is that, of course, the relativistic invariance of the theory is spoiled.... One can thus make quantum electrodynamics into a sensible mathematical theory, but only at the expense ofspoiling its relativistic invariance. I think, however, that that is a lesser evil than departing from standard rules of mathematics and neglecting infinite quantities. Dirac did go on to state, however, that something must be wrong with the quantum mechanics, not with the special theory. I, of course, think the special theory is the culprit. A similar problem between the general theory (the way it incorporates the special theory) and quantum theory is described by Smolin (1987): While it appears that the basic principles of quantum mechanics can be applied meaningfully to certain special situations in which gravitational interactions are relevant, ... all of these successful applications depend on recourse to a preferred time coordinate ... In more general circumstances, ... the standard quantization procedures become ambiguous.... This is a serious problem which goes to the foundations of quantum field theory and which rests ultimately, on the conflict between the very different roles time plays in quantum mechanics and general relativity. THE PROBLEM 33 Quantum theory, as represented by the "standard model," has predicted the magnetic moment of the electron to ten digits. Yet its boundary with classical physics remains undefined, and it conflicts with Einstein's special theory at several points. It also conflicts with the general theory. The conflict is not just with the role time plays, as described above. The quantum theory endows the vacuum with so much energy in its ''vacuum fluctuations" that space should exhibit, according to Abbott (1983), a curvature at least46orders ofmagnitudc greater than that observed. Abbott goes on to state: If the vacuum energy density, or equivalently the cosmological constant, were as large as theories of elementary particles suggest, the universe in which we live would be dramatically different, with properties we would find both bizarre and unsettling. Whal has gone wrong with our theories? We do not know the answer to this ()lll'.Sl1011 111 present. Indeed, a comparison of our theoretical anc.l cxpt·r111w11t11I understanding of the cosmological constant teatls to one ot thr 11u 1~1 intriguing and frustrating mysteries in particle physics 11ml n·lnllvlty today. In a more recent article (Schwarzschild 1990), it is claimed that the rn\11m logical constant is 120 orders of magnitude too small. Guth and Stcinhanlt (1989) state: Our inability to explain the extreme smallness of the vacuum energy density, or equivalently the cosmological constant, is regarded by many particle theorists as one of the most important problems in physics. This "cosmological constant problem" seems to indicate that even a state as simple as the vacuum has properties that we do not yet understand. But, though there is conflict, there are borrowed concepts and synergism between the theories. The general theory has incorporated the special theory into its local (infinitesimal) structure. The quantum theory has been constructed to maintain Lorentz covariance. If the Lorentz transformation of thc special theory is wrong, it must impact these other theories as well. It is appropriate to quote McCausland (1988) at this point: The abandoning of special relativity would involve a scientific revolution; like other scientific revolutions, it might cause chaos for a time, but it might also lead to an enormously stimulating period ofscientific research. Scientists should not shrink from grasping such an opportunity. A quote from Joseph Ford (admittedly, in a different context) also seems appropriate: 34 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN But to accept the future, we must renounce much of the past, a formidable challenge indeed. For as Leo Tolstoy poignantly recognized, even brilliant scientists can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truths if they be such as to contradict principles learned as children, taught as professors, and revered throughout life as sacred ancestral treasures. (Ford 1989) Conclusion What is the conclusion? Even the strongest advocate of the special theory will admit to its non-intuitive character. I am convinced, and I hope I have begun to convince the reader, from the mathematical and empirical evidence that the special theory is not only non-intuitive, it is also non-sense. But Kuhn (1970) has argued, and Dingle's experience tends to corroborate him, that the classical refutation of a theory does not occur. He states: ...a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature ... Thus, I cannot expect the criticism of the special theory to be accepted without an alternative. An alternative which is both rational and intuitive is presented in the next chapter. 2 AN ALTERNATIVE Either Ether or Aether One leg of the three-legged stool used to represent modern physics was removed in Chapter 1. That leg was Einstein's special theory of relativity. In Ihis chapter a new leg, an ether gauge theory, is inserted as a replacement. In adclition, some significant reshaping is performed on another leg-Einstein's general theory of relativity. Physics, in the last century, has suffered an increasing process of abstraction. This is, I believe, a severe problem. The elimination of the ether illustrates the abstraction process. In the nineteenth century the ether was the substance through which electromagnetic waves propagated. This ether, or electromagnetic medium, had to be a solid, since only solids are capable of sustaining transverse waves. The polarization of light proved that it consisted of transverse waves. However, solids also sustain longitudinal pressure waves (e.g. sound waves in material solids), as well as the shear waves. The complete absence ofany pressure waves within the ether constituted a severe problem to all the proposed ether theories. The problem was solved by an abstraction process. Eliminate the ether and define in its place an electromagnetic vector field which does not require a physical medium to propagate. This abstraction process is equivalent to saying that the mathematics is the reality-the physical process involved is unknown and so ignored. This abstraction process is very dangerous. The same mathe- 36 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN matical equation may be used to describe many different physical processes. lyndall (1966) has stated: Ask your imagination ifit will accept a vibrating multiple proportiona numerical ratio in a state of oscillation. While the ether was eliminated as the carrier of electromagnetic energy, it has been impossible to retain the vacuum as a featureless absence of matter. In effect, the ''vacuum" has become the new ether. Whittaker (1951, preface) has said: As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as a result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary to refer to the interplanetary spaces as ''vacuous"; the vacuum being conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum electrodynamics, the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point" oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations of electric charge and current, and of a "polarization" corresponding to a dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name ''vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical word "aether" may filly be retained. Since Whittaker wrote these words, the vacuum has continued to acquire additional characteristics and fields. The Higgs field (the source of mass, according to quantum theory) constitutes a prime example. Pauli's (1958, vi) view of the ether also illustrates the move to abstract mathematical properties: ... the theory of special relativity was the first step away from naive visualization. The concept of the state of motion of the "luminiferous aether", as the hypothetical medium was called earlier, had to be given up, not only because it turned out to be unobservable, but because it became superfluous as an element of mathematical formalism, the group theoretical properties of which would only be disturbed by it. In this chapter I return to the solid ether concept of the nineteenth century-an ether with mechanical characteristics analogous to the mechanical characteristics of ordinary material objects. This "naive visualization" of the ether has a number of arguments in its favor. AN ALTERNATIVE 37 In the first chapter Holton was quoted as saying that, during a transformation stage from one paradigm to another, people are forced to accept notions which are usually regarded as paradoxical, ridiculous, or outrageous. The notion of a mechanical solid ether may qualify as a ridiculous and outrageous concept to some people. It is a concept which has been scoffed at and regarded as naive ever since Einstein developed the special theory. 'Iwo arguments which show that a solid ether is not as ridiculous as we have been led to believe are presented next. The two arguments are followed by a basic outline of a new ether gauge theory of physics. The gauge, or scale, of physics is determined in this theory by the ether density. The ether density is, in turn, a function of both the gravitational potential and velocity through the ether. The gravitational force arises from the gravitational gradient of ether density and the acceleration force from the velocity gradient of ether density. Because the ether and its characteristics are fundamental to the theory, it is presented in detail in this chapter. The fundamental gauge concepts arc also presented in this chapter. This is sufficient for a basic understanding of the new theory. There are, of course, a number of interrelated concepts to he developed. Several of the peripheral concepts arc simply stated in this chap1cr. They are reconsidered, together with supporting arguments, ln subscqucn1 chapters. The chapter ends by showing that the velocity gauge results dircclly from the general theory and the equivalence principle. Inertia A first argument in favor of a naive ether concept involves the characterization of inertia. Some have espoused the Machian concept that inertia is caused by the effect of the distant stars. But, if causal effects are limited to the speed of light, this cannot be the case-inertia has to be a local phenomenon, since accelerations are instantaneously resisted. (Only if the distant stars affect the local environment, whether called vacuum or ether, can they affect the inertia.) No time delay occurs in the action or reaction of inertia. It is instantaneous and, therefore, a local phenomenon. Yet the special theory also suffers the same instant-action-at-a-distance problem, compounded by the fact that the local environment must simultaneously act differently for two different observers in relative motion. Overcoming inertia involves the transfer of energy (or mass). If an increase in velocity causes an increase in mass, the increased mass energy represents the energy 38 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN transferred to the particle by accelerating it. But the special theory treats the velocity as relative; and, therefore, the energy must be relative. The problem can be illustrated by another visit with the twins, Stella and Torrance, and their sister Astra. Let Stella and Torrance move away from Astra in opposite directions at one-half the speed oflight. After some time, let Astra be accelerated to the same speed and in the same direction as Stella. This means that Astra's local environment must cause her mass to decrease for Stella (the relative velocity between Astra and Stella is decreased), while at the same time causing her mass to increase for Torrance (the relative velocity between Astra and Torrance is increased). Furthermore, this simultaneous increase and decrease in Astra's mass must occur instantaneously for each observer, no matter how far away they are. Instantaneous action at enormous distances seems to be required if no ether exists. If this is the alternative to a naive belief in a mechanical ether, I prefer to be considered naive. The Equivalence Principle The second argument for an ether involves the equivalence principle. Eins1ci11's development of the general theory was motivated in part by a desire to ta kc mlva ntage of the indistinguishability of the force of acceleration and the force of gravity (at least in small enough regions of space). This equivalence principle has no fundamental physical basis in Einstein's theories. In fact, the relationship has fundamental incompatibilities. C.WF. Everitt (1991) has stated regarding the equivalence principle: The more you think about it, the stranger it is. In the context of Einstein's relativity theories, Everitt is correct. The equivalence principle equates an apple to an orange. Gravitational Time Dilation The general theory describes the gravitational effect upon a clock. It allows us to define for every point in space a unique value of the time dilation, or rate at which a clock would run compared to the rate of an identical clock outside the gravitational potential. The scalar value of time dilation by which a clock in a gravity field runs slow can be computed directly from the value of the gravitational potential at the same point. The one-to-one relationship between the clock rates is given by: AN ALTERNATIVE 3< to = Ygtg whcrc: t0 is the time of the clock outside the gravity field lg is the time of the clock in the gravity field Yg is the time dilation factor for a gravity field (2.1) The gravitational time dilation factor is given by: y g = -r- 2cp 1/V 1 +~ C = _r-zaM 1/V 1-~ (2.2) whcre: cp is the gravitational potential c is the speed of light G is Newton's gravitational constant Mis the mass which is the source of the gravity field r is the distance from the center of the gravitational mnss Let's call equation (2.2) the apple equation. TIH.'rt· :i1c 1wo i111pn11.,111 t haracteristics of this apple equation. First, it is an ahsohrlc t'q 11:i Iinn, I i- Ih1,:1o rs one and only one value of time dilation, Yg, applicable to cm h poi111 111 •,p,11 ,:, Second, there is no reason to interpret this as anything olhl't th:111 11w 1nl1· iii which a clock runs in a gravity field. In other words, non-simultaneity ot Iirttl' 1s neither needed nor implied. There is a lot of fuzzy thinking and several misconceptions regarding the equivalence principle. In order to clarify the equivalence principle, it is desirable to explore the relationship between time dilation and acceleration. 'I he gravitational acceleration per unit mass is: g = GM (2.3) r2 But, J f (-) oo (g) ctr = R 00 R GM r2 ctr = GM R = -cp (2.4) From the above, it is clear that the gravitational time dilation, Yg, is a function or the spatial integral of the gravitational acceleration, i.e. the potential per unit mass. More light on the role which acceleration plays can be obtained with a little review. The acceleration can be expressed as the force per unit mass: F/m = a (2.5) Energy is the force times distance: Elm = ad (2.6) 40 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN Toking the derivative of equation (2.6) shows that the acceleration can be defined as the spatial derivative of the energy per unit mass. The gravitational time dilation is a function of the spatial integral of the acceleration or, in other words, a function of the gravitational potential energy per unit mass. A common misconception is that the gravitational time dilation is caused by the gravitational acceleration. It is not. The misconception is fostered by the fact that, in any given gravity field, there is a one-to-one mapping between the acceleration and the potential, i.e.

M l'.INSTEIN words, a single unique reference frame musl hc 101111<1 where equation (2.10) holds and where the velocity time-dilation f'a c1or can he put in one-to-one equivalence with the gravitational time-dilation factor. And, in addition, the time dilation due to velocity must be interpreted as a clock effect, not as an intrinsic time effect. There are several physical indications that the reference frame required by the equivalence principle is the reference frame stationary with respect to the gravity field. For example, if the gravitational acceleration is used to accelerate a clock, an automatic equivalence must hold. If a clock is allowed to fall from infinity to a point in the gravity field, its integrated acceleration or velocity is precisely equal to the integrated gravitational acceleration or gravitational potential. In other words, the kinetic energy is equal to the decreased potential energy. The particular velocity which the clock will attain at each point under such a free-fall is equal to its escape velocity at that point. The escape velocity is clearly a velocity with respect to the gravity field. Furthermore, the escape velocity is actually the escape speed, a scalar, since the direction of the velocity does not affect its escape from the gravity field (as long as it does not collide with the gravitating body). Thus, the square of the escape speed is equal to twice the gravitational potential at each point in space. This single example clearly shows that the equivalence principle demands that the velocity reference frame must be identified with the gravity field. Not only must the reference frame be the gravity field, the velocity of light must also be with respect to the gravity field. Beckmann (1987, 27) has previously proposed that the velocity of light is with respect to the gravity field. Another benefit arises when the velocity reference frame is defined with respect to the gravity field. Specifically, it becomes apparent that such a definition establishes an absolute energy frame ofreference. The fact that each point in space has a gravitational potential associated with it and also a kinetic energy, which is required in order to escape the local gravity field, clearly implies the existence of an absolute energy scale. The existence of an absolute energy scale associated with the gravity field is illustrated by the launching ofspacecraft. Most space scientists know that it takes more energy to launch a spacecraft westward than it does to launch one eastward. The reason is that to launch a spacecraft westward one has to counteract and overcome the spin velocity of the earth. But, when launching eastward, one can take advantage of the earth's rotational velocity, which the spacecraft already possesses. This is another way of saying that the velocity which is important is the velocity with respect to the gravity field. This dependence on the local gravity field is underlined by the observation that the AN ALTERNATIVP 43 launch energy required is not affected by the earth's orbital velocity around the sun. In other words, the amount of energy required to launch a spacecraft eas tward at noon is the same as the amount of energy required to launch the sa me spacecraft eastward at midnight. Thus, the velocity with respect to the solar gravity field is of no local importance. With an absolute energy frame of reference, the conservation of energy is easy to ensure. Equivalence Impact on the General Theory The above exampie ofequivalence also reveals another significant difference between the two mechanisms of time dilation. Specifically, the time dilation induced by energy changes is of opposite sign for the two mechanisms. A decrease in the gravitational potential energy causes a time dilation. Exactly the same time dilation is caused by an equal increase in the kinetic energy. In the prior example of a clock falling from infinity, the clock will run slower due to the decrease in gravitational potential and will run yet slower by the same factor due to the velocity (increase in kinetic energy) which it acquires. This is illustrated in inverse fashion by clocks located at sea-level on the surface of the earth. A clock at the equator will run slow compared to a clock at the north pole because of its velocity. But the velocity effect is exactly counteracted by the equatorial bulge caused by the centrifugal force. The increased radial distance from the center causes an increase in the gravitational potential, and this potential increase results in a clock which runs just enough faster to counteract the velocity-induced time dilation. A spinning disk induces a radial outward force and a slower clock. A gravitational field induces a radial inward force and also a slower clock. Although the principle of equivalence played a major role in Einstein's development of the general theory, it is not difficult to show an incompatibility between the general theory and the equivalence principle. According to the general theory, gravity can be aliased into the geometry. In other words, according to the general theory, the curvature of Minkowski space is eliminated for a particle in free-fall. The particle then is supposed to behave as if it were unaccelerated in a flat Minkowski space. But an unaccelerated clock in a flat Minkowski space should run at a constant rate. This contradicts experiment. Clocks in free-fall in an elliptic orbit do not run at a constant rate. While the curvature of the three spatial dimensions may cancel to yield an effective flat space, the clock effects do not cancel-they add. The GPS (Global Positioning System) system demonstrates that a clock in an elliptic orbit near perigee, where the kinetic energy is higher and the potential energy is lower, will run slow by the sum of the two effects. 44 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN The fix of the general theory is to allow curvature in three-dimensional space or, better yet, a gradient of ether compaction. If kinetic energy causes an ether-density expansion (have you noticed that the special theory uses length contraction only when the moving particle looks back at the lab?), acceleration will induce a gradient of ether compaction or space curvature opposite to that of the gravity field. Thus, in free-fall the particle will travel in flat space. But the flat space is Euclidean, not Minkowski. The change in the general theory is required anyway to rid it of its false reliance upon a special theory which does not work. In conclusion, the equivalence principle tells us several things. First, the special theory cannot be correct with its relativity of velocity and non-simultaneity of time. The replacement theory must be much closer to the general theory, and the corresponding phenomena must have a common physical basis. Second, the general theory must be modified to remove the corrupting influence of the special theory which it incorporated. A replacement theory based upon gauge or scale effects due to the compaction ofan elastic ether is a rational solution. It is now time to describe the basic characteristics of that solution. The New Ether Gauge Theory Defining the Ether The polarization of light shows that light involves transverse vibrations, i.e. vibrations of shear strain. Shear waves can only occur in solids; therefore, the ether must be a solid. But normal solids have two kinds of wave-propagation phenomena. The first is a transverse wave, corresponding to a moving shear pattern of strain. Light is an example of such a transverse wave. The second kind of wave which can exist in a solid is a longitudinal compressive wave, corresponding to a moving pattern ofvolume strain. Compressive strain waves can occur in both solids and gases. Sound waves are compressive volume strain waves in ordinary matter. The thorniest problem with which any proposed ether has to deal is the absence ofany compressional (longitudinal) ether waves in nature. Green and Cauchy approached this problem head on. Green's model of the ether (Whittaker, 1951, 139-142) eliminated the longitudinal wave by assuming a very large resistance of the ether to volume distortion as compared to its resistance to shape distortion (similar to Jell-O). Thus, the velocity of the longitudinal wave approached infinity, and little energy was lost to longitudinal vibrations. AN ALTERNATIVE 45 LAME'S MOOULUS ). = -a .M 3 -2 µ .µ 0 =_t\' I 1 2¥ ~\-=1_= 8 µ 3 e µ. 2 YOUNG'S 4 µ. POISSON'S MOOULUS --- - ~-------------------------------- RATIO E 2 µ. 0 er 0 -1 -2 µ. 1 ·2 l =~\ I I = -2/J,. I I .µ I r .1;, -0 I I µI 4-¥I - t VOI.UME MODULUS K t MODIFIED CAUCHY MACCALLAUGH MODEL MODEL Figure 2.1 Elastic Modulus Relationships :1\-+= = t GREEN MODEL Cauchy's contractile or labile ether (Whittaker, 1951, 145-148) was an ether with a negative compressibility such that the velocity of the longitudinal wave was zero. Hence, no energy was lost to longitudinal vibrations. Both of these models had problems conforming to the known characteristics for reflection and refraction of light. In my first attempt at an ether model, I used a coefficient ofvolume elasticity (minus one-third the shear modulus) which caused the velocity of the compressive wave to be the same as the transverse wave. I hoped to show that they degenerated into one and the same wave. To avoid the instability of the compression which Cauchy encountered with his negative compressibility, I set the shear modulus negative rather than the volume modulus. Having an ether which was stable in compression was important, because I was also looking for an ether which would account for gravitational phenomena, as well as for light phenomena. Unfortunately, the negative shear modulus rather 1han negative volume modulus simply made the ether unstable in shear instead of volume. It was only after the discovery of how electromagnetic and gravita1ional phenomena fit together that I found a compatible set of ether elasticity characteristics. This ether is probably best described as a modified MacCal- laugh ether. 46 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN MacCallaugh (Whittaker, 1951, 142-145) simply postulated by fiat an ether which was elastic to rotations only. (MacCallaugh's ether was distinguished by the fact that it did properly account for the refraction and reflection of light.) Ifwe change MacCallaugh's ether slightly so that the ether is elastic in shear while Poisson's ratio is zero, some surprising characteristics are obtained. Using the relationships between the elastic moduli, I have plotted in Figure 2.1 the value of each of the elastic moduli as a function of the shear modulus,µ. The modified MacCallaugh ether is identified as the point where Poisson's ratio is zero and Lame's modulus is zero. The volume modulus and Young's modulus are not zero, because volume strain and linear strain create shear strain. The volume modulus is two-thirds the value of the shear modulus, and Young's modulus is twice the shear modulus. These two values differ from MacCallaugh's original ether. The value of zero for Poisson's ratio is very significant. Normal elastic materials have a value for the Poisson ratio ofabout one-fourth. Poisson's ratio can be thought of as an interaction ratio-a measure of how much a force in one direction results in a strain in orthogonal directions. Because Poisson's ratio is normally around one-fourth, classical physics assumes that both shear strains and volume strains lead to wave-energy radiation. But such energy radiation depends on the orthogonal interaction of stress and strain. Pure shear strains or pure volume strains do not cause wave-energy radiation if Poisso n's ratio is zero. The Physics of the Ether The ether can be thought of as a kind of superelastic solid material. Like superconductivity, it has no resistive or dissipative force. In addition, forces maintain their dimensional nature-Poisson's ratio is zero. This means that rotational (shear) oscillations of the ether would not propagate. They would simply remain in place and oscillate. In similar fashion, compressive oscillations of the ether would not propagate. They also would remain in place and oscillate. In fact, a combined shear and compressive oscillation would also stay in place and oscillate, if the two oscillations are out of phase. These oscillating patterns in the ether are illustrated in Figure 2.2. The combined out-of-phase standing-wave pattern of shear and volume oscillations is labeled as a "B" (for beginning) particle. (1) Electromagnetic Radiation Propagation of wave motion in an ether where Poisson's ratio is zero can only occur when the shear and compressive oscillations are in phase. This is shown in Figure 2.3. This pattern is, of course, identified with electromagnetic AN ALTERNATIV 47 0 010 010 010!0 0 0 0 0 0 OIO!O UNDISTURBED ETHER . . . o\o o\o o/o . 0/Q . -------...----- . ; o\_O 0/o o\O O;o STANDING WAVE OF TWIST o:o O O O O O 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 STANDING WAVE OF COMPACTION 'B' PARTICLE STANDING WAVE OF TWIST AND COMPACTION COMPACTION AND TWIST EXTREMUM OCCUR AT DIFFERENT POINTS Figure 2.2 Standing Waves in the Ether 48 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 UNDISTURBED ETHER 00 0/0 0\0 t---- 00 00 0/1-0 0 \. 0 00 LIGHT WAVE MOVING RIGHT 00 00 00 0\.0 00 00 00 .:..--- o \,o LIGHT WAVE MOVING LEFT COMPACTION AND TWIST EXTREMUM OCCUR AT THE SAME POINTS Figure 2.3 Light Waves in the Ether AN ALTERNATIVE 49 radiation or, assuming the appropriate frequency, light. Because the twist (shear) is in phase with the compression and expansion, each time a compressio n-expansion cycle occurs there is a resultant net movement of the entire strain energy pattern. (2) Matter In a later chapter, composite structures of the standing-wave "B" particles will be used to form the basic building blocks of matter-the electrons, neutrinos, and quarks. This in large measure explains the wave nature of particles which was first postulated by De Broglie. (3) Mass and Energy Just as electromagnetic radiation has an energy and effective mass associated with it, so the standing-wave pattern has an energy associated with it. This standing-wave energy appears as the rest mass of the particle. The mass of the particle arises from the product of the compressive and expansive strains, such that the particle has a net decrease of ether density within its structure. This net decrease in ether density within the particle structure causes the external density to be increased. The external density compression can be identified with the particle's gravitational potential field. (4) Force of Gravity When two particles are each compressing the external ether density, it ls easy to show that less total external compression will result as they are brought together. This is the source of the gravity force. (5) Primary Reference Frame Clearly, when a particle is moved, the external compacted ether pattern must move with the particle. This has several characteristics which need discussion. First, the movement of the particle must cause a flow of the ether-density pattern-the gravity field of a particle moves with the particle. But a flow of ether density (moving gravity field) causes particles embedded within it to move as well. Particles can move in a solid ether only because they are themselves oscillating patterns of ether disturbance. Thus, when a particle moves, the disturbance pattern moves. The ether itself moves only a limited amount as the density pattern moves. Furthermore, just as the disturbance pattern associated with particles is carried along by a gravity field (moving density pattern), so also the oscillating density pattern associated with light is carried along so that the effective speed oflight is relative to the ether-density flow. In other words, the primary reference frame is always associated with the gravity field. As stated earlier, I am not the first to suggest this. Beckmann has 50 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN previously published this concept. However, here it is developed as an inherent characteristic of the modified MacCallaugh ether. (6) Increase of Mass with Velocity Another result of movement of a particle through a gravity field is an apparent additional decrease in the internal ether density of the particle and an associated increase in the external density. This decreased internal density increases its mass and its own gravity field by causing an increase in the external density of the ether. Since the reaction time of the ether is related to the speed of light, one would expect that this change in internal ether density would be a function of the ratio of the velocity to the speed of light. This is precisely what is found. (7) Radiation Before pursuing the effects of motion further, another potential misunder- standing must be addressed. The moving pattern of oscillating volume and rotational stress and strain, pictured in Figure 2.3, was identified above as electromagnetic radiation-or, assuming the proper frequencies, light waves. Yet I have identified a volume compression of the ether field with gravitation. Does Figure 2.3 show electromagnetic radiation or gravitational radiation? Clearly, volume strain cannot be identified with the electric potential, since it can only result in attractive forces-a characteristic of a gravity field. Electric and magnetic phenomena exhibit both attractive and repulsive forces. I claim (the detailed arguments must be postponed until the next chapter) that what is normally identified as electromagnetic radiation is gravitokinetic or gravitational radiation. (8) The Nature of Fields An electric field is actually an oscillating gravity field. A magnetic field is actually an oscillating twist or rotational field. Since twist is caused by motion, I label the twist field as a kinetic field. Thus, a magnetic field is an oscillating kinetic field. The polarity and the attractive or repulsive characteristics of the electric and magnetic fields are related to the direction of the phase movement of the oscillations. The electric field is identified with a standing wave of oscillating compressive strain. The magnetic field is identified with a standing wave of oscillating twist. The phase of the oscillations is caused by an underlying rotation of the standing-wave structure, e.g. the electron. The force results from the fact that the net ether compression is changed when the separation distance is changed. In other words, the ether distortion from the combined fields is reduced with the appropriate movement. AN ALTERNATIVE 51 (9) Measuring Time and Distance With an elastic ether, a return to the concept ofan absolute Euclidean space with an independent universal time dimension is practical. It is this absolute space-time continuum in which the ether is embedded. However, because of gravitational and velocity compaction of the ether, measurements of time and distance will be a function of location and velocity. Compaction of the ether causes measuring sticks to be compacted and causes the velocity of light to change. Our time measurements are, when reduced to their underlying basics, a measure of how long light takes to travel a specified distance. Because distance and light speed vary with ether density, so also time measurements will vary with local ether density. Thus, although time itself is universal in its now, the perceived physical flow of time is a function of ether density. This picture of space and time represents a return to reality (cause always precedes effect), and a departure from the abstraction process which has created so many problems over the last century. The Gauge of Gravity As stated at thestartofthischapter, the scale, or gauge, of phys tr, 1.., ,1-.-. 11111nl 10 be proportional to the ether density. Since, as was argued ahow Iw111 Ihi' ether characteristics, the gravitational potential is proportional 10 lh(.' (.' lhcr density, the gravitational potential must affect the scale of physics. In tlH' development that follows, the similarity between the general theory and the ether gauge theory will be exploited to determine the specific gauge changes which occur as a function of gravitational potential. There are three fundamental parameters in physics-length, mass, and time. If the local gauge, or scale, of these three fundamental parameters changes for any reason, within that local region no observable effects can be expected. In other words, since our measurement standards are based upon physical phenomena, as the physical phenomena change, the measurement standards will change as well. Thus, all of the local physics will appear to be unchanged. Einstein obtained the general theory by moving from a flat Euclidean geometry to a curved Riemannian geometry. The similarity between an elastic ether with a variable scale (a function of the ether density) and the general th eory with its space curvature is not particularly obvious; in fact, they are very similar. An observer in three-dimensional space generally has no trouble seeing the curvature of a two-dimensional surface which is embedded within that threedimensional space. The observer has the advantage ofan external view. There 52 ESCAPE FROM EINSTEIN are methods, though, by which observers can determine the curvature of a space (surface) even when they are confined within that space. Three methods of determining the curvature of a spherical two-dimensional surface, using only internal measurements, are described below. The first method is to measure how much the circumference of a circle deviates from the value it would have in flat space. Figure 2.4 shows that, on a spherical surface, the circumference will be smaller than it would be on a flat surface. This is because the true radius in the higher-order space (in which the curved space is embedded) is shorter than the value measured in the curved space. A second method involves the measurement of the separation distance between two straight lines (geodesics) as a function of distance from where they cross. On a flat space the separation distance varies as a constant ratio of the distance along the lines. Figure 2.5 shows that the lines of longitude on a spherical surface first separate and then reconverge. A third method is to measure the amount by which the direction ofa vector will rotate as it is carried along a closed path in a "parallel transport" fashion. On a flat space the vector will always point in the same direction as it is carried without rotation. Parallel transport means to carry the vector such that no rotation occurs relative to the flat plane which is instantaneously r .,------.i ~ ....___ _ --- --- --- Radius to Circumference Ratio Figure 2.4 Distance between Crossing Lines Figure 2.5 --i i_, Parallel 'Iransport Figure 2.6 AN ALTERNATIVE 53 tangent to the surface. Figure 2.6 shows that on a spherical surface the vector orientation after a round trip will depend upon the path followed. These internal methods for determining the curvature ofa two-dimensional surface via measurements on that surface can be extended to higher dimensional spaces. But are these methods reliable? Is it always clear that real curvature is involved? Let us inflate a spherical rubber balloon and inscribe it with a spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude. Now, at one of the poles let's make a pinhole and stretch the circular edge of the pinhole to a larger and larger radius until the rubber becomes a flat plane with the pole opposite where the pinhole was made at the same scale it had when the balloon was inflated. If the inscribed coordinate system is used for the measurement metric, every test described above will indicate that the surface is curved-even though it is now flat. Thus, an elastic gauge or scale is equivalent, as far as internal measurements are concerned, with a curved space. (This is illustrated by all the flat maps that have been made of the earth's surface.) But you might argue that the metric in the above example is rather arbitrary. Not necessarily. On the rubber balloon stretched out as a sheet in the at>ovc example, an internal observer might use the wavelengths of internal sou nd waves or the transverse vibrations of the surface as his length mcas ur~mcn1. In like manner, thefrequencyofthevibrations could be used as his time source. But these parameters are local functions of the amount of stretch of the balloon membrane and will largely reflect the metric previously inscribed on the balloon surface. Let's distinguish this elastic curvature from true curvature. There are differences between true curvature of space and elastic curvature. 'Irue curvature can exist only if it is embedded within a higher dimensional space, while elastic curvature can exist within an elastic medium embedded within a space of the same dimensions. In other words, the general theory requires five dimensions in order to allow space curvature of the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. By contrast, the ether gauge theory requires only three-dimensional Euclidean space in which to embed the three-dimensional elastic medium with its elastic curvature. With true curvature one can follow a straight line (geodesic) and, without turning around, arrive back at one's starting point (a hyperspherical surface). But in elastically curved space such a trip is impossible. Of more significance, the integral of true curvature simply gives the net change in direction, while the integral of elastic curvature gives the change in density of the medium. 4 ES( 'APE FIH>M HIN STEIN It is worth mentioning briefly that, altho ugh the genera l theory is essentially compatible with the ether gauge theory, there are some significa nt differences. For example, the general theory associates mass and energy with space curvature. The new gauge theory makes a subtle but significant distinctio n. Mass or localized energy causes a decrease of ether density within the local particle structure and an associated increase in the external density. The relaxation of the external density with distance from the particle or energy concentration causes the ether density gradient, which is the equivalent of space curvature. The distinction above has very significant implications. In the general theory, any form of energy must cause space curvature. Thus, the tremendous energy which quantum theory embeds within the vacuum should cause a space curvature many tens-of-orders of magnitude greater than that actually observed. The new ether gauge theory has no such problem. Since the quantum vacuum energy is not localized but homogenous, it may create a change in the ether density; but a uniform change in ether density creates no gradient of ether density and, hence, no true curvature or elastic curvature of space. Because of the near equivalence between true curvature and elastic curvature, it is not difficult to transfer some of the general theory results directly into their ether gauge equivalent effects. The space curvature caused by a spherically symmetric mass was obtained by Schwarzschild in 1916. The equivalent elastic scale or gauge of time and distance can be obtained directly from the metric coefficients which Schwarzschild obtained. To complete the gravity gauge description, the mass scale change must be determined as well. The mass scale change can be obtained heuristically by the requirement that the rest-mass energy decrease sufficiently to cause gravitational attraction. As far as I am aware, Bowler (1976, 67-69) was the first to show that the general theory was essentially equivalent to a gauge transformation. He obtained the same gauge transformation given below. From the Schwarzschild metric, the length scale is decreased as the gravitational potential is decreased. From elasticity considerations, length must be proportional to the ether density. Thus, in terms of local lengths, the ether density is constant. The time-scale change is also obtained directly from the Schwarzschild metric. It increases (is dilated) as the gravitational potential is decreased. The time dilation can be related to an increase in the reaction time of a denser ether. The mass increases as the third power of the ether density. Since the mass is proportional to the amount of ether excluded from the internal structure of the particle, this also seems intuitive. A table of gauge changes can now be presented. In the table, a superscript plus indicates that the parameter is increased by the scale factor. In the case AN ALTERNATIVE 55 111gr .1v11y gauge change, the scale factor is "the inverse of the square root of 11111 plus the quantity two times the (negative) gravitational potential divided liy the speed of light squared." Or, in equation form: Yg = 1/Vl + 2cp/c2 (2.11) where: y is the scale factor-the subscriptg is used to denote a gravity-induced effect