Member

The conventional optical laws take for granted that the one-way phase velocity
of light in a refractive medium at rest in the Earth frame is C/n. But if one assumes the
existence of a fundamental reference frame and of an aether non-entrained by the motion of
celestial bodies, then Hoek's experiment shows that this velocity must be equal to C/n − V/n2
in the direction of the Earth absolute motion, and C/n + V/n2 in the opposite direction,
where V is the absolute speed of the Earth frame. It is important to draw the consequences
of this data and to check whether it complies with well established laws of physics. Such an
anisotropy implies that, according to non-entrained aether theory (NEAT), the ratio of the
speed of light in vacuo to the speed of light in refractive media (i,e, the optical index) must vary
as a function of the orientation of the light signal. This is indeed what the calculation shows.
Therefore, if NEAT is exact, except for some orientations, n is not the optical index in refractive
media moving relative to the fundamental frame. However, as we shall see, NEAT does
not preclude the fact that the Snell-Descartes' law sini=nsinr applies to a high degree of
accuracy whatever the orientation of the light signal. Thus, even if it exists, the anisotropy
remains unapparent. It is worth noting that, while resorting to assumptions quite different
from special relativity, non-entrained aether theory accounts for well established experimental
results. Moreover, as will be checked, a thorough analysis of Fizeau's experiment in light of
Hoek's studies establishes the need for an aether drift, providing a strong argument in support
of aether theory.

Even though the concept has evolved and if the designation as aether is improperly

regarded as outdated, nobody today considers that the vacuum is empty. However, the

nature and the properties of the substratum, which permeates the entire universe, remain

for the most part unspecified. For example, divergent opinions are put forward by

physicists about a possible dragging of the aether by the translational motion of celestial

bodies due to gravitation. We show in this text that such a hypothesis is inconsistent with

well established experimental data which, on the contrary, lend support to non-entrained

aether theory based on Lorentz contraction. A revaluation of the aether drift to which the

Earth is subjected is carried out.

In agreement with Michelson-Morley experiments performed in vacuum, we show that, assuming the existence of a fundamental aether frame and of a length contraction affecting the material bodies in the direction of the Earth absolute velocity, the light signals, traveling along the arms of the interferometer arrive in phase whatever their orientation, a result which responds to an objection opposed to the non-entrained aether theory. This result constitutes a strong argument in support of length contraction and of the existence of a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies.

Assuming the existence of a preferred aether frame and the anisotropy of the one-way speed of light in platforms different from the aether frame, we derive the space and time transformations relative to bodies moving in any direction of space and not only in the direction of the common x-axis of the co-ordinate systems under consideration. Taking for granted length contraction and clock retardation, we show that the experimental space-time transformations result from measurement distortions due to the fact that the length of the rods and the frequency of the clocks, used for the measure, do not have a constant value as a result of their motion through the aether, and because the standard synchronization procedures are affected by a synchronism discrepancy effect. When the motion of bodies is aligned along the common x-axis, the transformations assume the same mathematical form as the conventional transformations. However, their meaning is quite different because they have been derived on the basis of very different assumptions, and they arise from the measurement distortions mentioned above. Therefore they conceal hidden variables which are the true transformations.

Introduction

This third volume of Ether Space-Time & Cosmology,
like the preceding ones, presents works by physicists recognized for their
creativity and experience. The subjects covered by them deal with various
aspects of the aether concept and its relationship with different fields of
fundamental physics, such as quantum theory, dark energy and dark matter, and
critical study of the basic assumptions of relativity, among others. This
latter study, which was initiated and partly discussed in the first volumes, is
of the utmost importance for the development of physics. It is necessary to set
the record straight about this point, over which there is still no consensus
among physicists.                             

The
rejection of the aether by Einstein in 1905 has had a tremendous influence on
the teaching and research in physics from the beginning of the century to the
present time. The fact that Einstein reversed his position in 1916 has been
almost completely ignored by the physics community. Yet numerous quotations
from Einstein show no reservations about his new conviction, for example:

        According to the general theory of
relativity, space without ether is unthinkable.          

There
is no doubt that the existence of physical variables, such as permeability and
permittivity, would not have any rational explanation if the vacuum was
deprived of aether. This is also the case for physical processes such as the
Casimir effect and the ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. It is commonly
admitted today that the vacuum contains a large amount of energy; how could
this be possible without the existence of a medium supporting this energy? This
simple fact makes it incomprehensible the denial of the aether by a significant
part of the physics community, an entirely ambiguous attitude, since, although
the properties assigned to the vacuum require a substratum, this substratum is
negated, such that the role and the investigations it deserves are not granted
to it. Ignorance of this physical reality, which pervades the entire universe,
can only have serious consequences for the development of science. It certainly
explains a large part of the difficulties encountered by physics in recent
decades, despite its successes.

There
are numerous unresolved problems in contemporary physics. The failure to
recognize the role of the aether is ignoring a key parameter involved in
physical interactions and is source of error. It is comparable to ignoring the
action of a magnetic field on iron. Its influence may be relatively weak on certain processes occurring at low
absolute speeds where the gamma factor is near unity, but it becomes
substantial as speeds reach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Several
experimental and theoretical studies, today, lend support to the existence of a
preferred aether frame. In this case, there is no doubt that many physical laws
will be revised once the aether is officially recognized, because, due to the
fact that meter sticks contract and clocks do not tick at the same rate as a
function of their absolute speed, the information they provide varies and they
do not allow a reliable assessment of physical data, a fact to be considered
especially for processes occurring at high absolute velocities.

Among
the many unsolved problems, modern physics is faced with enigmas that
conventional theories cannot explain and which bring their contradictions into
relief.

Although quantum theory does not officially
recognize the ether and therefore does not provide a thorough analysis of all
its aspects, it nevertheless deduces from its equations, that the vacuum should
contain an enormous amount of energy per cm^3 a fact which is untenable and
inconsistent with general relativity. No satisfactory way to make these two theories mutually compatible has
been found.

The
big bang theory faces a number of unresolved difficulties. Explanations for the
dark energy, the physical entity which seems to accelerate the expansion of the
universe by its antigravitational effect, have given rise to various theories;
most have recourse to the old but revived ad hoc hypothesis known as
cosmological constant, whose meaning is not elucidated. Moreover, all attempts
made to relate dark energy to the energy of the vacuum have failed, because the
calculations based on quantum field theory attribute to this energy a value
incommensurable with any value that might explain the accelerating expansion (10^120 times greater). And even though it has eminent defenders, no
explanation of dark mass has been accepted by all as yet.

We
do not know with any certainty today what dark matter consists of, and we have
even less idea what dark energy is. Their very existence is disputed by several
authors.

Although
their common goal was to unify relativity and quantum theory, string theories
differ in the number of dimensions they attribute to space-time, which, in any
case, is much higher than the number 4 assumed by relativity. In one of them,
the number is 26 dimensions, an assumption that is difficult to justify without
any experimental basis to support it.

String
theory and superstring theory cannot be made compatible with a positive
cosmological constant and the accelerated expansion of the universe without
extreme complications. These theories are challenged today by loop quantum
theory, which assumes a quantified space-time in contrast to the space-time
continuum of general relativity

The
?Ether space-time and cosmology? program is intended to seek solutions, based
mainly on aether theory, to solve the difficulties encountered by physics
today. Contrary to what is often believed, this project is not in disagreement
with the ideas of eminent founders of modern physics, such as Dirac or Bell.

Of
course the nature of the aether is difficult to describe, and today there are a
number of hypotheses about its composition and properties; but we are convinced
that research into the aether will be one of the main objectives of 21^stcentury physics, which will enable us to solve a number of paradoxes that now
obstruct its progress. Actually some have already been resolved.

I
wish to express my gratitude to Michael Duffy for the decisive role he has
played in promoting the development of new theories to address the problems
facing modern physics.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Joseph
Levy

The laws of physics dealing with mass and energy are reviewed in the light of the assumption
of a fundamental aether frame, relative to which clocks slow down and meter
sticks contract, as a function of their speed with respect to this frame. The existence of
such a privileged aether frame and of an aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial
bodies rely today on weighty theoretical and experimental arguments [1A,1B,1F,1G]
and [14-17]. The real physical processes affecting rods and clocks are supported by
their ability to rationally account for the apparent isotropy of the speed of light. However,
the dimension of the rods and the ticking of the clocks being dependent on their
absolute velocity, give a distorted view of reality: the physical data are subjected to alterations
and need to be corrected. As a result of these corrections, they assume a different
mathematical form, which reflects their real value. In the text which follows we
propose to highlight the corrected form of the basic laws dealing with mass and energy.
This concerns the mass-energy equivalence law and the variation of mass with speed.
The real proper mass of moving bodies is shown to vary as a function of their absolute
speed, and the kinetic energy is shown not to be observer dependent. The compatibility
of special relativity with mass-energy conservation is discussed, and the mass, is
shown not to be an intrinsic property of matter, it depends on the presence of the
aether. In the appendices, we show by which mechanisms the standard measurement
procedures alter the physical data

Assuming a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies, one can provide a rational explanation of the experimental processes affecting the measurement of time when clocks are in motion. Contrary to special relativity, aether theory does not assume that the time itself is affected by motion; the reading displayed by the moving clocks results from two facts:

1. Due to their movement through the aether, they tick at a slower rate than in the aether frame.
2. The usual synchronization procedures generate a synchronism discrepancy effect.

These facts give rise to an alteration of the measurement of time which, as we shall show, exactly explains the experimental results. In particular, they enable to solve an apparent paradox that special relativity cannot explain (see chapter 4). When the measurement distortions are corrected, the time proves to be the same in all co-ordinate systems moving away from one another with rectilinear uniform motion. These considerations strongly support the existence of a privileged aether frame. The consequences concern special relativity (SR) as well as general relativity (GR) which is an extension of SR. We should note that Einstein himself became conscious of the necessity of the aether from 1916, in contrast with conventional relativity. Yet the model of aether presented here differs from Einsein's in that it assumes the existence of an aether drift, in agreement with the discoveries of G.F. Smoot and his co-workers listed in Smoot's Nobel Lecture, December 8th 2006. Although it makes reference to previous studies, this text remains self-sufficient.

In the light of recent experimental and theoretical data, we go back to the studies tackled in previous publications and develop some of their consequences. Some of their main aspects will be studied in further detail. Yet this text remains self- sufficient. The questions asked following these studies will be answered. The consistency of these developments in addition to the experimental results, enable to strongly support the existence of a preferred aether frame and of the anisotropy of the one-way speed of light in the Earth frame. The theory demonstrates that the apparent invariance of the speed of light results from the systematic measurement distortions entailed by length contraction, clock retardation and the synchronization procedures with light signals or by slow clock transport. Contrary to what is often believed, these two methods have been demonstrated to be equivalent by several authors. The compatibility of the relativity principle with the existence of a preferred aether frame and with mass-energy conservation is discussed and the relation existing between the aether and inertial mass is investigated. The experimental space-time transformations connect co-ordinates altered by the systematic measurement distortions. Once these distortions are corrected, the hidden variables they conceal are disclosed. The theory sheds light on several points of physics which had not found a satisfactory explanation before.

This paper completes and comments on some aspects of our previous publications. In ref [1], we have derived a set of space-time transformations referred to as the extended space-time transformations. These transformations, which assume the existence of a preferred aether frame and the variability of the one-way speed of light in the other frames, are compared to the Lorentz-Poincar? transformations. We demonstrate that the extended transformations can be converted into a set of equations that have a similar mathematical form to the Lorentz-Poincar? transformations, but which differ from them in that they connect reference frames whose co-ordinates are altered by the systematic unavoidable measurement distortions due to length contraction and clock retardation and by the usual synchronization procedures, a fact that the conventional approaches of relativity do not show. As a result, we confirm that the relativity principle is not a fundamental principle of physics [i.e, it does not rigorously apply in the physical world when the true co-ordinates are used]. It is contingent but seems to apply provided that the distorted coordinates are used. The apparent invariance of the speed of light also results from the measurement distortions. The space-time transformations relating experimental data, therefore, conceal hidden variables which deserved to be disclosed for a deeper understanding of physics.

After a long-lasting absence, the aether concept reappears today supported by strong theoretical and experimental arguments, and its importance for the development of physics deserves to be emphasized. We should bear in mind that, although the fact is often passed over in silence in the universities, Einstein himself rallied to the aether since 1916. In his little book ?Sidelights in relativity? he expressed his belief in the aether in the following terms:

?According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities, in this sense, therefore an aether exists??

But disparities exist among physicists about the nature of the aether, and one of the purposes of 21st century physics and of this project, whose credit is to be ascribed in the first place to the generous efforts of Dr. Michael C. Duffy, will be to disclose its properties. The approaches which are presented in these volumes are divided into two currents which follow and develop the ideas of Einstein and Poincar?, and a third current which departs somewhat from them. But many physicists regard the theories of Einstein and Poincar? as practically equivalent, and the choice of one point of view rather than the other is qualified as philosophical preference. We shall examine this opinion and give, in this brief introduction, an outline of their justifications and of their specificities.

We study the case of two rockets which meet at a point O of an ?inertial co-ordinate system' S, and are scheduled to move at constant speed, in opposite directions, toward two targets placed at equal distances from point O. At the instant they meet, the clocks inside the rockets are set to zero. When they reach the targets the rockets meet two clocks A and B whose reading is identical. This question which was tackled in ref [1] is studied here in depth. Assuming the existence of a preferred aether frame in which the one-way speed of light is isotropic, and the anisotropy of this speed in the other frames, we show that, if the equal reading of the clocks A and B results from an exact synchronization, the clocks inside the rockets will display different readings when they reach A and B in contradiction with the relativity principle. Conversely, if the clocks A and B, which display an equal reading, have been synchronized by means of the Einstein-Poincar? procedure, the inboard clocks will also display the same reading, a fact which seems in agreement with the relativity principle. But this synchronization method presupposes the invariance of the one-way speed of light, in contradiction with the assumptions made, and, therefore, introduces a measurement error. This demonstrates that if we assume the existence of an aether frame, the apparent relativity principle is not a fundamental principle; it depends on an arbitrary synchronization. In any case, this is an example of an experimental measurement which can be explained by aether theory without the assumption of the invariance of the one-way speed of light in all ?inertial frames'.

Due to their conviction that the laws of nature must be identical in any inertial frame, the physicists of the beginning of the twentieth century were led to extend the relativity of Galileo to the electromagnetism of Maxwell, but this seemed to imply the abondonment of universal time and absolute simultaneity.

In a previous paper* we have criticised, from a logical viewpoint, the criteria intended to demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity and we have proposed replacing them by other criteria. According to these, the relativity of simulteneity was called into question.

We propose here a rigorous experimental method intended to verify the simultaneity of two events. By means of this device, we demonstrate that one can define an absolute simultaneity. The method also permits an exact synchronization of clocks. We then demonstrate that the relativity of time of Einstein's theory must be discarded. On the other hand, the relativity principle appears as an approximation only, valid for bodies moving at low speeds relative to one another.

On the contrary, the slowing of the clocks moving with respect to the ether can be maintained. But this does not mean that Lorentz's theory can be retained without change.