Footnotes
[1] I have in mind his speech on
"Kant's Critique and Cosmology" at the
150th. anniversary of Kant's death (Popper 1965, pp. 175
ff., now also contained in the introduction to the
German translation).
[2] Dr. Elie Zahar has
kindly pointed out to me that my description does not
take into account the Riemann-Christoffel curvature
of space which has nothing to do with the choice of
the coordinates. I admit that I am making use of a
simplification which is, however, necessary because
otherwise my arguments, too, would become
unintelligible. The following text will show that, as
long as the concept of curved space-in whatever
version-is based not on empirical
assumptions, but on mathematical inference,
my arguments against it remain the same.
[3] The same
argument will apply to any amendment of this
theory as, for example, by the Riemann-Christoffel
curvature of space, as long as it is purely
mathematical and does not introduce new empirical
(falsifiable) information.
[4] I am happy to be able to correct this
statement now because it is no longer true: after writing first drafts
of this article, but before reading it at the conference,
I received a very kind reply from Dr. Thomas Angelidis, London, who
spared a tremendous amount of time to go into the details of my
criticism and caused me to correct some serious mistakes in earlier
versions of this article. Before the conference time was too short to
reach a result in our discussion, but some of the footnotes refer to it.
And Dr. Elie Zahar, to whom the paper was sent by a common friend, also
made some important-critical-comments. As far as possible I
discuss these too in the
footnotes (see already footnotes 2, 3).
[5] This argument remains valid even
after taking into account the Riemann-Christoffel
curvature of space (cp. footnotes 2,
3) as long as this relies on purely
mathematical inferences, i.e. without introducing
new empirical hypotheses.
[6] The same appears to
have happened with his explanation of the rotation of
the long axis of the Mercury-orbit. In
(Einstein 1915) he reports that this
implied the assumption of a curving of light in the
gravitational field twice as strong as
previously calculated by him. This was before
Eddington's experiment!
[7] Also in (Einstein 1990, p. 91)
[8] I
doubt the correctness of this interpretation, but
this does not affect the validity of the argument
against the general theory of relativity since, at any
rate, the Hubble effect must be explained
somehow.
[9] Strictly speaking the experiment
discussed here must be considered in terms of the
general theory of relativity because it deals with
circular movements. But since the authors Hafele &
Keating (see footnote 10) apply
the special theory "as a first
approximation" I am doing the same in this article.
The distinction between special and general
relativity has no bearing on the arguments used in
the following text as long as it is agreed that
general relativity will also produce a time
difference for the clock experiment. Einstein
explicitly said so
(Einstein 1917, p. 53).
[10] At this point I
have been accused of misunderstanding the special
theory of relativity. Both Dr. Angelidis and Dr. Elie
Zahar argued that the speed should be taken
"with respect to the same inertial frame"
(Zahar's words), and that the east-west asymmetry
would then be explained by "the
different relative speeds involved"
(Dr. Angelidis' words). Their argument, I understand,
is that the speed of the planes should not be taken
relative to USNO where it would be equal, but
relative to the axis of the earth, where it must be
added to, or subtracted from,
(the rotation
velocity of the equator). I think they did not get my
point, and I will therefore try to clarify my view
with the following two arguments:
- According to Hafele & Keating "special relativity
predicts that a moving standard clock will record less time compared
with (real or hypothetical) coordinate clocks distributed at rest in
an inertial reference space" (their words). Let us now assume three
satellites,
,
,
, each with a clock on board.
is in a geostationary position, rotating with the equator and keeping
its place relative to USNO and any other location on earth.
is
in a "heliostationary" position, keeping its position
between the sun and the earth (and therefore not rotating with the
equator). And
is in a "lunarstationary" position,
keeping its position between the earth and the moon, and relative to
any location on the moon, and therefore rotating around the earth, but
not with the equator. Why do Hafele & Keating measure the time
difference (only) relative to
? Taking
would have produced
something quite different, and taking
would have produced
equal relative velocities for both trips. Is there any reason to
consider only
to be "at rest", and the others not to
be at rest? Since no observer was out in space, or on the North Pole,
they could just as well have chosen
or
as their reference
clock. Unless, for some reason, they "prefer"
. But
"preferring" is not permitted by relativity.
- Another way of demonstrating the incoherence of the
Hafele & Keating experiment and the results obtained by relativity can
be found in the following Gedankenexperiment: let a satellite,
having on board a caesium beam clock sending time signals to earth,
fly on a course shaping a very long ellipse, comparable to the
course of Halley's comet relative to the sun, and circumnavigate the
earth as its focal point from east to west, i.e. against the
direction of its rotation. According to special relativity the time
dilatation on this satellite should be strongest (the ageing of the
clock should be at its minimum) when its velocity is highest. This
would be the point when its course is closest to the earth as its
focal point. But the observation made by Hafele & Keating shows that, at
this point, when circumnavigating the earth in an east-west direction,
the clock on the satellite will in fact be gaining time (ageing
faster).
[11] Popper's
words, (Popper 1966, volume 2, p. 9).
[12] I am referring to chapters 3 & 11 of "The Open
Society and its Enemies", (Popper 1966).
[13] This is a necessary
implication of any theory involving the Lorentz
transformation. For the expression:
will yield
for any
.
The arguments related to special relativity will
therefore remain valid for general relativity as long
as general relativity relies on a transfer of the
results obtained from an application of the
Lorentz transformation in special
relativity. This transfer Einstein undertook
explicitly in (Einstein 1917, p. 53),
when he assumed a time dilatation for a
clock mounted on the periphery of a rotating disc.
[14] At this point I
should mention that the hypothesis of the constant
spreading velocity of light is also incompatible with
the common interpretation of the Hubble effect as an
expression of the Doppler principle. Hubble's
interpretation relies on the assumption that the
redshift of light from distant galaxies is caused by
their (assumed) flight movement which will, according
to the Doppler principle, reduce frequency, as we can
all observe when we hear the horn of a passing car.
But this presupposes that the velocity of the
(assumed) flight movement can be deducted from
the velocity of light coming from distant galaxies.
The Doppler principle will never yield a difference
of frequency without difference of velocity. But this
clashes with Einstein's principle of the constant
spreading velocity of light which explicitly
excludes an addition, or subtraction, to or
from the velocity of light. Therefore the common
interpretation of the Hubble effect as an expression
of the Doppler principle is also incompatible with
the theory of relativity.
[15] This is a somewhat rash
conclusion which, for time reasons, it was impossible
to elaborate when actually reading the paper at the
conference, and of which only a sketchy outline can
be given here. It is clear that, even if the time
difference observed by Hafele & Keating cannot be
explained by special relativity, as I have tried to
show in the text (par. 22), the refutation
of special relativity will not explain it either. We
need a new empirical hypothesis, and time
dilatation can be explained if we assume the earth
and its surrounding atmosphere to be a vortex-like
rotating field of energy (ether) in which matter is a
form of appearance (comparable to a disturbance) of
that field. The clock flying eastward is then flying
with the direction of rotation, the other one
against it, and all the time the field is
"flowing" through both clocks, and
their time difference is accounted for by the Doppler
principle which would otherwise be incompatible with
the assumption of a constant spreading velocity of
light (see footnote 14). The
"time difference" is then, in fact, a
difference of performance: one of the clocks
has gone through more oscillations of the field than
the other.
[16] The formula
in footnote 13 is needed only to make the
contradiction clearer for adherents of relativity; my
criticism of the theory of relativity could do
without it.
[17] Here again I am referring to
chapters 3 & 11 of The Open Society and
its Enemies, (Popper 1966).
[18] There are many examples in his
texts. In
(Einstein 1917, p. 13) he
says: "This is where the theory of
relativity sets in. By an analysis of the physical
concepts of "time" and "space"
[he did not put quotation marks] it appeared that,
in reality, there is no incompatibility of
the relativity principle with the law of
spreading velocity of light, but that systematic
application of both these laws will yield a
logically faultless theory"-(his italics; my
translation). I think this shows quite clearly that
he thought he was working exclusively by
logical inference.
Copyright © 1996 All Rights Reserved.
TCR Issue Timestamp: Mon Dec 30 17:41:04 GMT 1996
tcr-editors@www.eeng.dcu.ie