-
The Mexican Kleptocracy: July 1989
April 19, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Mexican Kleptocracy
April 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Black Plight: In Conflict With Unions
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
An Assist from the Press
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Capitol Ideas
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
Capitol Ideas
Can We Do Without Relativity?
The author introduces his new book, Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?
SOMETHING TELLS ME THAT MY NEW BOOK — Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? — is unlikely to be reviewed. So I shall say something about it here. I have been working on it on and off for years, and it is based on the original work of a good friend of mine, Petr Beckmann. A Czech immigrant who taught electrical engineering at the University of Colorado, he wrote a brilliant book called Einstein Plus Two. But it was also difficult — written in the language of mathematical physics. I interviewed him at length, and told him I would write a simpler version. Then, too soon, he died (in 1993). I was able to finish the book with the help of Howard Hayden, who taught physics at the University of Connecticut and who became convinced that Beckmann’s criticisms of relativity were right.
Most people know little about relativity theory, but we recognize that it was highly influential and that Einstein’s theory somehow rewrote the laws of physics. It is divided into two parts, the special theory (1905) and the more difficult general theory (1916). The generally accepted view is that the special theory has been proven over and over again, while the general theory perhaps can be questioned and retested. In Beckmann’s theory, this is more or less reversed. The general theory gives the right answers but by a complicated and roundabout route. Meanwhile a simpler path lay at hand. But the special theory may have to be discarded because the logical consequences of its postulates do not correspond to experimental results.
Here’s one way of looking at the subject. We’ve all heard of the equation E = mc2, saying that the energy of a body is proportional to its mass. It was derived by Einstein using relativity theory. Less well known is that it was derived by him again later, without relativity. He called the later version his “elementary derivation.” Relativity wasn’t necessary to derive the most famous equation in physics.
Beckmann extends that way of looking at the issue across the board. The physical facts that seem to demand relativity can be explained by classical physics. That is the argument of my book. It is written without math and in plain English; only a few technical terms need to be explained.
It was the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, conducted in Cleveland, Ohio, that led to the theory of relativity. If you don’t know about that key experiment, then you will after reading my book. (The claim that this experiment led to relativity has lately been challenged, but for decades it was the standard view and I believe it should be still. The dispute does not affect Beckmann’s more basic revision of relativity.)
Light is a wave form and so it was widely assumed in the 1880s that there must be a medium for it to wave in. It was called the ether, and it was believed to fill all of space uniformly. As the earth orbited the sun, its passage through the ether should have been detected by the instrument that Albert Michelson had perfected, the interferometer. But no such effect was observed.
Einstein responded with the theory of relativity, positing that the speed of light is a constant and that the ether didn’t exist at all. This would explain the Michelson-Morley null result, but then came the general theory, the observed bending of starlight passing close by the sun and the slowing of light as it enters a denser gravitational field. With the general theory Einstein allowed that the constant velocity of light “cannot claim any unlimited validity.” Light rays crossing a gravitational field “undergo deflection.”
Having reviewed the evidence, Beckmann argued in the 1980s that the earlier assumption of a uniform ether was the underlying error. He argued that the ether, or luminiferous medium, really does exist, but is equivalent to the local gravitational field. This field accompanies the earth as it orbits the sun, so the relative motion of earth and ether that Michelson looked for was not to be expected.
But the earth also rotates on its axis, and it rotates through its gravitational field, much as a woman’s hoop skirt will not rotate around with her body as she does a pirouette (assume a circular waist and minimal friction). If so, then the effect that Michelson-Morley expected to see would be there, just four orders of magnitude smaller than anticipated. This is because the rotational velocity of the earth is much smaller than its orbital velocity.
If the earth rotates through the ether (gravitational field), then there should be a difference in the speed of light east to west and west to east. Beckmann and Hayden offered a $2,000 reward to the first person who could cite any experiment showing there is no such east-west difference. The offer was published in Science magazine in 1990 but there were no takers.
The east-west, west-east speed differential is now quite well established. It is the same distance either way, so the time should be the same, too, if light speed is a constant. But when atomic clocks were flown around the world in opposite directions, “the clock that flew toward the east had recorded slightly less time,” Stephen Hawking wrote in The Universe in a Nutshell. I devote a chapter to the experiment demonstrating this. The time differences are small enough that atomic clocks are needed to detect them.
Readers of Easy Einstein books may have learned that, in Einstein’s theory, time is dilated and space contracted in reference frames that are in motion with respect to the observer. Has this been observed? Short, stubby spaceships are frequently depicted by artists, but no such contraction has ever been seen experimentally. They represent the triumph of theory over observation.
“Time dilation” has not been observed either. What has been observed is that clocks slow down when they move through the gravitational field. When they are moved up to a higher altitude, where the field is thinner, they speed up, much as a jet encounters less resistance (and consumes less fuel) at a greater height. It is not motion with respect to the observer that affects time, but motion with respect to the gravitational field that affects clocks.
All this gives us a very different and much simpler way of looking at what is going on. There is just the one, universal time-the time that Newton accepted and that we all have known.
TOWARD THE END OF MY BOOK I note that in 1916 Einstein himself restored an ether that seems indistinguishable from Beckmann’s. But he become uncomfortable with referring to his new understanding of space as “ether” because he had abolished it in the special theory and then apparently brought it back (although with a different meaning) in the general theory.
About the Author
Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Tom Bethell
More Articles From Capitol Ideas
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/17/can-we-do-without-relativity
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Of Wizards and Weapons
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tim| 9.17.09 @ 8:34AM
Mr. Bethell asks a fascinating question. I wonder, does this imply that travel near the speed of light in an interstellar vehicle would not result in the so-called "twin's paradox" ? And is it possible to exceed lightspeed if we are discarding the whole infinite mass thing?
I'm gonna buy the book and find out.
Tim| 9.17.09 @ 9:54AM
As a layman, I understand your point CDC, but I certainly appreciate the Phd's trying to make it accessible to me.
John Singel| 9.17.09 @ 10:20AM
The East/West time dilation difference in orbiting or flown clocks noted in Bethell's article is not a function of Special Relativity, but rather of General Realtivity. The amounts observed agree within experimental error to the GR predicted values. There is a clear expalnation of the relevant physics in Wheeler and aylor's excellent book "Exploring Black Holes." See especially the Kerr metric for the equatorial plane of a rotating spherical object on page F-2.
Vern Crisler | 9.17.09 @ 10:53AM
I'll probably read the book. It seems to me, however, that granted the truth of Relativity, all that Einstein really proved was that the speed of light is a constant during the present day.
The idea that it was a constant in the past, or that it will be in the future, is a metaphysical assumption.
John Singel| 9.17.09 @ 11:22AM
Actually Einstein assumed the constancy of the speed of light, which in turn led to the equations of Special Relativity which have been verified via numerous experiments. Re you other point, a number of observations have been performed using gravitational lensing of distant quasars which demonstrate that various physical constants, including c, have changed by at most one part in a billion or so in the life of the Universe. These experiments are consistent with no change at all.
Tim| 9.17.09 @ 11:30AM
"A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
-Attributed to various, including Stephen Hawking.
ccc| 9.17.09 @ 11:36AM
Yes, it is an assumption that the speed of light is a constant today, tomorrow and yesterday.
In science Typicality is an essential assumption and is always employed unless evidence of anomalies is discovered to show that in some situation things are different. Without this assumption science becomes impracticable.
Relativity is an excellent example of this. Newtonian physics applied for all known bodies in motion, anomalies at high speed and near high gravity were discovered, relativity was developed to explain this. Another example is there is evidence that the speed of light did not hold in the first moments of the universe, to explain this the current theory is expansion.
james wilson| 9.17.09 @ 1:00PM
Einstein likely saw the famous equation first written by an Italian industrialist and amateur physicist published in one of two Italian journals in 1903. No doubt relativity was not on the mind of the industrialist.
cvb| 9.17.09 @ 1:14PM
PhDs trying to make things understandable to the non-expert is a laudable and much appreciated endeavor.
Bothell is not in that category. Looking at some of his other science pursuits, he is what would generally be considered a crank. Latching on to fringe ideas and using persuasive writing rather than evidence and experiment to convince laymen of his pet theories.
David Govett| 9.17.09 @ 2:15PM
Apropos "turtles all the way down," whence down? That implies a sub-turtle center of gravity, does it not?
L. Ross| 9.17.09 @ 2:31PM
I gotta say, Tom Bethel has his work cut out for him. Challenging one of the two reigning theories describing the physical universe (which has been proven correct every time it has been tested) is a gutsy move. Even though I know I couldn't follow the math if it was included, the fact that it isn't included indicates to me that Tom couldn't follow it either. If he can't follow the math, I don't trust him.
By the way, it's turtles all the way down to the really big turtle.
Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 5:50PM
Math World | The American Spectator : Can We Do Without Relativity? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Vern Crisler| 9.17.09 @ 6:58PM
John said, “[A] number of observations have been performed using gravitational lensing of distant quasars which demonstrate that various physical constants, including c, have changed by at most one part in a billion or so in the life of the Universe. These experiments are consistent with no change at all.”
Gravitational bending at the PRESENT time is used as proof of relativity.
ccc said, “Yes, it is an assumption that the speed of light is a constant today, tomorrow and yesterday. In science Typicality is an essential assumption and is always employed unless evidence of anomalies is discovered to show that in some situation things are different. Without this assumption science becomes impracticable.”
Uniformity is a metaphysical idea and affects scientific conclusions. To claim that it’s an absolute or scientific assumption is the sort of thinking that refused until the 1980s to recognize the existence of mass extinction events in the geological record. The “present is the key to the past” turned out to be more like “the present is the key to the past twenty five years.”
“Another example is there is evidence that the speed of light did not hold in the first moments of the universe, to explain this the current theory is expansion.”
Presumably you are referring to superluminal expansion involved in the Big Bang – which does appear to contradict the view that light was a constant in the past.
Inflationists get around this by telling us that only space is expanding at speeds greater than light, not matter, thus not contradicting Relativity. Others find the immobility of matter in an expanding universe to be an incredible assumption.
Again, metaphysical ideas have consequences.
Russell Seitz| 9.17.09 @ 9:54PM
Tom should really try to catch up with Godel - doing so might compel him to realize that his station has missed every scientific train in the last 25 years.
He shouldn't be allowed to throw conservatism on the tracks to serve as a speed bump -- this makes two TAS pitches by and for Discovery Institute Fellows in as many days.
S.C.| 9.17.09 @ 10:47PM
Years ago I read an article by Mr. Bethell where there was talk that doing the Michelson-Morley experiment in orbit, where the gravitational field is more attenuated. Has there been any serious effort put into getting the experiment done, either on the shuttle or on the ISS?
ccc| 9.17.09 @ 11:21PM
vern
Uniformity and typicality are essential assumptions for scientific research. I assume that the opposite charges attract, a body in motion will remain in motion, and thermal energy will diffuse in America and Australia, today and a million years from now.
If I am presented with evidence or anomalies, such as a disappearence in the fossil record, geological connections between distant continants, an oddprecession in the orbit of mercury, or an inexplicable deceleration of a deep space probe then I will revise my theory.
How are you supposed to make a prediction or explanation of anything if you assume none of what you know will be relevent for any other time? Might as well quit the whole endeavor with such a futilistic attitude.
S.C.| 9.18.09 @ 12:51AM
It's been about 20 years since I heard this, so I might be misremembering it, but I seem to recall from physics class that time dilation effects have been observed in subatomic particles accelerated to nearly the speed of light, that is, they decay at a slower rate than particles at rest. How is that explained without relativity?
vj asok| 9.18.09 @ 10:13AM
A cry for help?
Russell Seitz| 9.18.09 @ 2:58PM
L. Ross:
Tom may pursue his metaphysically correct take all the way down to dark turtles as strange attractors in the luminiferous aether.
Margie| 9.18.09 @ 3:30PM
Isn't everything "relative" to Liberals, anyhow?
PJVarley| 11.29.09 @ 10:49PM
Yes, That's Probably So. Could it be because they learn from experience?
Tommy Phame | 9.18.09 @ 11:12PM
Well, I think it might be for an interesting read. Hey, anybody bold enough to challenge Einstein must have something interesting to say and a witty way to say it.
Fraser McLeod| 9.19.09 @ 7:49AM
I am very much a conservative, but this trend to rubbishing well established science (witness the hysteria around evolution) is almost too much to bear. The general theory of revolution is an astonishing piece of work and predicts everything discussed in this article. This new theory that has been posited is ludicrous and doesn't belong in a serious publication such as this.
JWM| 11.6.09 @ 3:10PM
Amen - if that is the right word to use! - Fraser.
Jim O'Brien| 9.19.09 @ 1:39PM
I'll put my money on Einstein, thank you. However, stretching the imagination a bit, it seems possible that time is an illusion created by infinite dimensions of space.
jones| 9.19.09 @ 2:31PM
>The general theory of revolution is an astonishing piece of work and
I confess, I have not heard of this theory!
Jim Maughan | 9.19.09 @ 5:04PM
What would anyone expect from from an evolution and global warming denier. Bethel is just too dishonest to reveal his religious /creationist agenda.
I expect his derives his views on jurisprudence from the old testament. Stoning all 'round!!
* gratuitous goober on Irv Kristol's grave*
Ron| 9.20.09 @ 12:07AM
I knew that sooner or later a global warming person would show to counter my view that we have been in an ice age since year 1300. I think we must find out the real nature of gravity before anything else is possible. Carver Mead says we have no clue. I think we understand all these things about as well as a dog understands algebra.
Margie| 9.20.09 @ 1:23PM
Ron,
Indeed. Perhaps the brainiacs should consider this~
"Be careful, do not turn to evil,
For you have preferred this to affliction.
Behold, God is exalted in His power;
Who is a teacher like Him?
Who has appointed Him His way,
And who has said, `You have done wrong'?
Remember that you should exalt His work,
Of which men have sung.
All men have seen it;
Man beholds from afar.
Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him;
The number of His years is unsearchable.
For He draws up the drops of water,
They distill rain from the mist,
Which the clouds pour down,
They drip upon man abundantly.
Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds,
The thundering of His pavilion?
Behold, He spreads His lightning about Him,
And He covers the depths of the sea.
For by these He judges peoples;
He gives food in abundance.
He covers His hands with the lightning,
And commands it to strike the mark.
Its noise declares His presence;
The cattle also, concerning what is coming up.
At this also my heart trembles,
And leaps from its place.
Listen closely to the thunder of His voice,
And the rumbling that goes out from His mouth. Under the whole heaven He lets it loose,
And His lightning to the ends of the earth.
After it, a voice roars;
He thunders with His majestic voice,
And He does not restrain the lightnings when His voice is heard.
God thunders with His voice wondrously,
Doing great things which we cannot comprehend.
For to the snow He says, `Fall on the earth,'
And to the downpour and the rain, `Be strong.'
He seals the hand of every man,
That all men may know His work.
Then the beast goes into its lair
And remains in its den. Out of the south comes the storm,
And out of the north the cold.
From the breath of God ice is made,
And the expanse of the waters is frozen.
Also with moisture He loads the thick cloud;
He disperses the cloud of His lightning.
It changes direction, turning around by His guidance,
That it may do whatever He commands it
On the face of the inhabited earth.
Whether for correction, or for His world,
Or for lovingkindness, He causes it to happen.
Listen to this, O Job,
Stand and consider the wonders of God.
Do you know how God establishes them,
And makes the lightning of His cloud to shine?
Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds,
The wonders of one perfect in knowledge,
You whose garments are hot
When the land is still because of the south wind?
Can you, with Him, spread out the skies,
Strong as a molten mirror?
Teach us what we shall say to Him;
We cannot arrange our case because of darkness.
Shall it be told Him that I would speak? Or should a man say that he would be swallowed up?
Now men do not see the light which is bright in the skies;
But the wind has passed and cleared them.
Out of the north comes golden splendor;
Around God is awesome majesty.
The Almighty--we cannot find Him;
He is exalted in power
And He will not do violence to justice and abundant righteousness.
Therefore men fear Him;
He does not regard any who are wise of heart."
Job, from chapters 36 & 37
sam| 9.20.09 @ 7:28AM
'"Time dilation" has not been observed either. What has been observed is that clocks slow down when they move through the gravitational field. When they are moved up to a higher altitude, where the field is thinner, they speed up, much as a jet encounters less resistance (and consumes less fuel) at a greater height. It is not motion with respect to the observer that affects time, but motion with respect to the gravitational field that affects clocks.'
Uh, if I'm not mistaken, you're missing the fundamental point. "Clocks" are doing duty for any physical process in the presence of a gravitational field--they all slow down.
Leon| 9.20.09 @ 3:47PM
Relativity is the emancipation of the observer from it's environment. Special relativity is just a simpler case of the general theory.
Actually when you grasp the idea it would be disturbing for most people if relativity wasn't the case. The speed of light being constant, and as a result the different speed of clocks, are just a consequence of this. Newton emancipated us from our absolute position in space. Einstein did this for the absolute klok. Al it says is that your point of view is in no way special to anybody elses (exept God). How could it be otherwice? So, sorry for the author, but this book can at best confuse the issue. By the way, the twin-example is always used for explaning special relativity. Forget that, that is complete nonsense. One brother stays younger, but not because of special relativity. I never understood why this is always used. It completely confuses people who otherwise would get it.
Steve Schaper| 9.22.09 @ 12:19PM
Light speed is not a constant -now-. It is dependent upon the 'density' of the medium. Put something long party-way into a mass of water to see this. Of course there are many other such instances, including Cerenkov radiation, 'freezing' the speed of light down to feet per second, and the Pioneer Anomaly.
Other evidences of 'gravitational bending' can also be simply due to light passing through a denser medium. The solar corona, gas near galazy clusters denser than in the deep void, etc.
If experimental data can be explained by more than one theory, that experiment is not designed to differentiate the accuracy of the theories with regards to each other. Just as Einstein was also able to derive the same results from Newtonian physics.
People *really* need to read Kuhn and Jaki, or they won't be able to distinguish between academic social inertia and actual scientific tests.
Pingback| 11.6.09 @ 2:04PM
Absolutely Clueless About Relativity » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 8:44AM
Bethell Questions Einstein, Not Kidding | The Intersection | Discover Magazine links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.10.09 @ 8:46AM
Conservative Dustup Over Relativity Denialism | The Intersection | Discover Magazine links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.11.09 @ 12:54PM
SELF DEVELOPMENT BLOG » Conservative Dustup Over Relativity Denialism | The Intersect links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
the aether| 11.16.09 @ 11:25AM
This is scary.
" It is not motion with respect to the observer that affects time, but motion with respect to the gravitational field that affects clocks."
You can't discount a theory that has been proved time and time again by asking a 3rd grade level question that you THINK contradicts the theory. Check out the Muon decay problem.
Pingback| 11.20.09 @ 2:23PM
Are the GOP and/or Conservatives Anti-Science? « The American Catholic links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
rthgfthfyh| 3.29.10 @ 1:04AM
Einstein is really, absolutely wrong. Relativity is a optical illusion, mirage. Absolute things really exist, for example - apple is always apple, not a banana.