Einstein
and Poincaré
Einstein
and Poincaré
the physical vacuum
(paperback,
184 pages; ISBN 0-9732911-3-3)
Valeri V. Dvoeglazov (ed.)
Seminal contributions to the development of modern physics were made by two figures, Einstein and Poincaré, in the early years of the 20th century. Both are associated with the mathematical development of relativity. However, their ideas have also influenced modern researchers working to understand the role of the physical vacuum. This collection of essays represents a milestone in the development of a theory of plenum in physics.
Editorial Introduction
This book is dedicated to significant contributions made to physics by Poincaré and Einstein 100 years ago [1,2] (see also [3]). As we celebrate the International Year of Physics, we might ask: Is Physics in good health? Everyone has his own answer to this simple question. Consequently, we decided to publish this book under the intriguing title “Einstein and Poincaré: the physical vacuum.” The reader may be puzzled by the choice of theme, which would seem to have been fully studied years ago. We fully sympathize with him: it was and is indeed astonishing for us that after more than 100 years of research the topic is still full of surprises. In a way, it has a life of its own. The highly respected authors of this volume appear to have agreed with us in presenting their thoughtful pieces of research. These are Profs. Vigier, Duffy, Selleri, Kholmetskii, Barbosa, Sidharth, Munera, Onoochin and Weber, Pierseaux, Cahill, Krasnoholovets, Martin and Roscoe. Special thanks to them all! While their papers speak for themselves, I feel compelled to say few words for myself.
The posthumous paper by Vigier opens the volume. The unification of the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions and the Dirac “aether” concept [4] have always been the main concerns of this notable scientist. His intuition is impressive indeed.
The Duffy paper presents an historical review following from a comparison of the original Lorentz-Poincaré [5] and EinsteinMinkowski traditions to modern ideas (the extensive list of references supports our statement made in the previous paragraphs). Particular attention has been given to the recent works of Cavalleri, Dmitriev and Winterberg (“vortexsponge ether analogue”), e.g., Ref. [6], who for various reasons were not able to contribute to this volume, and to the concept of the Dirac ether. Recalling Dirac’s ideas, Duffy repeats: “Dirac regarded electric potential and velocity field as physically real,” an idea closely akin to Vigier’s works. Moreover, Duffy several times stresses that the “physical vacuum” is nothing more than the development of the old idea of ether (“...many modern theorists ... use alternative expressions, such as vacuum field, physical vacuum, or cosmological plenum rather than the obvious term”). Unfortunately, there are almost no insights into the obvious relations between the ether concept and the recently discovered “dark matter” and “dark energy.” Finally, an important point brought up by Duffy is that several theorists state that ether drift in the Michelson-Morley-Miller-type experiment is in principle unobservable, and suggest different experiments.
The Selleri paper continues the book, a culmination of many years of research. The most attractive part for us personally is the part where he discusses the class of equivalent transformations with e1, the synchronization parameter. “...Clock synchronization in inertial systems is conventional and the choice of the invariance of the one way velocity of light made in [special relativity] is only based on simplicity,” see the Eq. (5.1) of his paper. Thus, as opposed to the general opinion, the special relativity does not reject the ether; it is simply unobservable within this class of theories. This is the most important point! Next, Selleri discusses the wellknown twin paradox, and Einstein’s misunderstandings in its explanation. In my personal opinion, the twin paradox can be explained within the SRT too, provided that we agree which of the twins turns around.
The Kholmetskii paper discusses the question of the experimental distinguishability of special relativity (SRT) [1] and Lorentz ether theories [5], since for “many years two alternative physical theories were considered to be mathematically equivalent each other.” The paper contains some statements which are difficult to agree with (for instance, the author thinks that “SRT is not, in general, a consequence of the GRP [general relativity principle]”; “FitzgeraldLorentz contraction is not observable,” etc.). However, the main idea of “covariant ether theories” may be quite valid (I would still suggest that the author not make a distinction between “physical” and “measurable,” as no one else does).
L.C. Barbosa tries to find a new interpretation of the Hubble’s constant basing his insights on light dispersion in the interstellar ether. “Based on this idea, the model of the universe is static, lacking expansion” (precisely what “Apeiron” signifies). Unfortunately, the next paper by B.G. Sidharth frequently refers to previous papers by the same author. As a result, the reader must work hard to understand his paper. On the other hand, the zeropoint field (ZPF) may indeed be a good candidate for both dark matter and ether. Thus, the reader may certainly find grain of truth in it.
H. Múnera then argues that no evidence of the LorentzFitzgerald contraction exists. However, careful analysis of the MichelsonMorleyMiller (MMM) experiment and an impressive list of references diminishes the significance of any possible debatable points. I paid particular attention to the discussion of the statement: “reflection from the mirrors in motion would necessarily lead to a negative result in the MMM experiment” in view of another, not very old paper [7].
V. Onoochin and S. von Weber also consider the contraction of bodies in motion. They believe that certain terms have been omitted in explanations of the MMM experiment.
Y. Pierseaux puts forward a more complex question. Is “the image by the Lorentz transformation of a spherical light wave, emitted by a moving source,” also spherical or ellipsoidal? The answer to the question may have fargoing consequences, because it is normally assumed that light propagates in any reference frame with the same velocity c. It is helpful to recall Einstein’s and Poincaré’s viewpoints on this subject.
The Head of the School of Physics at Flinders University (Australia), R. T. Cahill states categorically: “So the Einstein postulates have had an enormous negative influence on the development of physics, and it could be argued that they have resulted essentially in a 100year period of stagnation of physics, despite many other exciting and valid developments....” It is difficult to agree with him, but it is also difficult to agree with editors who do not permit criticisms of the explanation of the MMM experiment. Let us be free, at least, in science.
Some new concepts are introduced into physics by V. Krasnoholovets. I should point out that he is not a physicist by training. We should be open to consider multidisciplinary studies undertaken by scientists trained in different fields.
The Martin paper is written in an “old-fashioned style.” “A gas, composed of particles moving in all directions, is assumed to pervade the entire Universe...” Yet some of the insights into relations between thermodynamics and gravitation would appear be useful, at least for future developments.
Lastly, D. Roscoe continues the quest for the “massive photon” [8]. After long (and perhaps unnecessarily complicated) calculations he seeks to prove that “[the Maxwell field] cannot exist in isolation, but must always be associated with an additional massive vector field.” I believe the reader can place some credence in this statement, as it is closely linked with my own research [9].
For my part I can say the following. I agree with Duffy that it is not helpful to use a lot of words to denote the same thing in science. My own preference lies with papers on gauge fields [10] (some day I shall comment on them more extensively). Secondly, the theoretical possibility of additional scalar and/or 4vector fields in fundamental physics (the Maxwelllike electrodynamics) and astrophysics has been proven [11]. This is not the final word.
* * * * *
Therefore, in the hope of some success with this book, and in view of the above, we extend a call for papers for future regular issues of the Apeiron Journal. We intend to continue our policy of publishing highquality papers on the problems of modern gauge theories, gravitation and cosmology.
In conclusion, we again remind the reader that in recent years we have been able to see that new breaches have appeared in the fortress of modern physics (just think about the “compatibility” of modern SRT with modern astrophysics—more on this another time). Even though the presentday education system prepares ever more new defenders, it is inevitable that a new beautiful edifice of Physics will be built. And this is something from which we all stand to gain. Finally, we extend our special thanks to our publisher, our authors, our referees, and our friends.
Bibliography
[1] A. Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Ann. der
Physik, 17, 891-921 (1905).
[2] H. Poincaré, Sur la dynamique de l’electron, Comp. Rend. (Paris), 140,
1504-1508 (1905); Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, 21, 129-75 (1906). See also the
historical discussion in R. Toretti, Relativity and Geometry. (Pergamon Press,
Oxford-New York, 1983).
[3] A. Logunov, “On the Articles by Henri Poincaré” in: On the Dynamics of the
Electron (Moscow U. P., 1988), also in (JINR P.D., Dubna, 1995), also in
Hadronic J. 19:109-184 (1996); E. Gianetto, Henri Poincaré and the Rise of
Special Relativity, Hadronic J. Suppl., 10:365-433 (1995); A. A. Typakin, On the
History of the Special Relativity Concept, Hadronic J. 19:185-204 (1996), V. A.
Atsyukovskii, Efirnyj Veter (collection of articles) (Energoatomizdat, Moskva,
1993), http://www.atsuk.dart.ru/offline/ether wind.htm.
[4] P. A. M. Dirac, Is there an ether?, Nature, 168, 906-907 (1951); Quantum
Mechanics and the Aether, Sci. Mon. March, 142-146 (1954); A New Classical
Theory of Electrons, Proc. Roy. Soc. A209 291-296 (1951).
[5] H. Lorentz, The Theory of Electrons and its Applications to the Phenomena of
Light and Radiation Heat (Columbia U. P., New York, 1909) and (Dover, New York,
1952); the analysis is in W. A. Rodrigues Jr. and J. Tiomno, Einstein’s Special
Relativity Versus Lorentz’s Aether Theory, CBPF-NF-018/84, Rio de Janeiro, 1984.
[6] V. P. Dmitriev, Mechanical Analogy for the Wave-Particle: Helix on a Vortex
Filament, Apeiron, 8, No. 2 (2001); Mechanical Interpretation of the
Klein-Gordon Equation, ibid. 8, No. 3 (2001); Towards a Mechanical Analogy of a
Quantum Particle: Turbulent Ad-vection of a Fluid Discontinuity and Schroedinger
Mechanics, ibid. 7, 161-172 (2000), http://redshift.vif.com/journal archives.htm;
H. Marmanis, Analogy Between the Navier-Stokes Equations and Maxwell’s
Equations: Application to Turbulence, Phys. Fluids, 10, 1428-1437 (1998);
Turbulence, Electromagnetism and Quantum Mechanics: A Common Perspective, in
Photon: Old Problems in Light of New Ideas. Ed. V. Dvoeglazov (Nova Science
Pubs., Huntington, 2000), pp. 286-296.
[7] B. N. Bolotovsky and S. N. Stolyarov, Light Reflection from the Moving
Mirror and Re-lated Problems, Uspehi Fiz. Nauk, 159, 155 (1989).
[8] N. Cufaro Petroni and J. P. Vigier, Dirac’s Ether in Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics, Found. Phys., 13, 253-286 (1983); J. P. Vigier, Evidence for Nonzero
Mass Photons with a Vacuum Induced Dissipative Redshift Mechanism, IEEE Trans.
Plasma Sci. 18, 64-72 (1990).
[9] V. V. Dvoeglazov, Antisymmetric Tensor Fields, 4-Potentials and Indefinite
Metrics, Hadronic J. Suppl., 18, 239-260 (2003), physics/0402094.
[10] Some authors have introduced so-called “background fields” instead of the
“vacuum” or “aether” fields in their papers. I prefer the following: J.
Barcelos-Neto and S. Rabello, Mass Generation for Gauge Fields in the Salam-Weinberg
Theory Without Higgs, Z. Phys. C74:715-719 (1997); E.Harikumar and M. Sivakumar,
Duality and Massive Gauge Invariant Theories, Phys. Rev. D57: 3794 (1998).
[11] V. V. Dvoeglazov, Generalized Maxwell and Weyl Equations for Massless
Particles, Rev. Mex. Fis. Supl. 1, 49:99-103 (2003), math-ph/0102001.
Jean-Pierre Vigier
Interactions of Internal Inertial and Phase Space Motions of
Extended Particle Elements Moving in Dirac’s Real “Aether”
Model
M. C. Duffy
The Ether Concept in Modern Physics
F. Selleri
Absolute Velocity Resolution of the Clock Paradox
Alexander L. Kholmetskii
Empty Space-Time and the General Relativity Principle
L.C. Barbosa
Temporal Light Dispersion in Intergalactic Space
B.G. Sidharth
The Mysterious Dark Energy
Héctor A. Múnera
The Evidence for Length Contraction at the Turn of the 20th
Century: Non-existent
Vladimir Onoochin and Stefan von Weber
On the Size of Moving Rigid Bodies Determined from Conditions
of Equilibrium of Ions in a Crystalline Lattice
Yves Pierseaux
Einstein’s Spherical Wavefronts versus Poincaré’s Ellipsoidal
Wavefronts
Reginald T. Cahill
The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 A Critical Review of the
Evidence
Volodymyr Krasnoholovets
The Tessellattice of Mother-Space as a Source and Generator
of Matter
and Physical Laws
Adolphe Martin
Gravitation in a Gaseous Ether
D. F. Roscoe
Maxwell’s Equations: New Light on Old Problems
Valeri V. Dvoeglazov is a professor in the Faculty of Physics at University of Zacatecas, Mexico. He holds a degree in physics and education from the Saratov University and a Ph.D. from the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research at Dubna, both in Russia. A present and past member of several professional associations, he is currently an honorary professor at Albert Schweizer International University and Institute for Basic Research. He serves as an editor with a number of technical journals, including Hadronic Journal, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Apeiron, Electromagnetic Phenomena, and the “Contemporary Fundamental Physics” and “Relativity, Gravitation, and Cosmology” series published by Nova Science.