# Is the Lorentz Invariance Tested?

#### Pentcho Valev

Brian Keating: "All of modern physics relies on LI [Lorentz invariance]. But we should test it":

The Lorentz invariance is tested and disproved by Doppler-type experiments. Assume that a light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer. That is, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer. Accordingly, the Lorentz invariance is false. Physicists know that:

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time...It is the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way."
View: https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

#### Pentcho Valev

The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON

as originally (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

John Norton unwittingly exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Understandably, Norton and Stachel, high priests in the Einstein cult, are trying to exculpate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the original liar - in 1921 he informed the gullible world that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved constant speed of light:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." https://ebay.com/itm/ALBERT-EINSTEI...e-1st-Visit-to-US-1921-Newspaper/373400655156

#### murgatroyd

Pentcho. We know that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is incomplete. It does not extend into domains covered by quantum theory. Maybe a future Theory of Everything will unify GTR and quantum. Maybe GTR will be discarded as wrong.

In the meantime, every single observation testing the predictions of GTR confirms it. It's gotten boring. Frankly, I think these experiments refining the precision of GTR's predictions by yet another decimal digit are a waste of time and scarce resources.

But if you're so certain that GTR is wrong, why don't you propose an experiment to falsify its predictions? Crowd-fund it if you cannot get institutional support. You would become world-famous and earn a place in the history books, doesn't matter who you are, a railroad engineer, a janitor, or even a bum living under the bridge.

It might even be that no experiment is needed. Much astronomical raw data is available to the public. Scrutinize it for indications of variance from GTR predictions. If the evidence you find is unequivocal, it will be accepted.

billslugg

#### billslugg

Excellent advice, murgatroyd. Even Einstein did not work as an academic, he was a patent examiner.

#### Pentcho Valev

Pentcho. We know that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is incomplete. It does not extend into domains covered by quantum theory. Maybe a future Theory of Everything will unify GTR and quantum. Maybe GTR will be discarded as wrong.

In the meantime, every single observation testing the predictions of GTR confirms it. It's gotten boring. Frankly, I think these experiments refining the precision of GTR's predictions by yet another decimal digit are a waste of time and scarce resources.

But if you're so certain that GTR is wrong, why don't you propose an experiment to falsify its predictions? Crowd-fund it if you cannot get institutional support. You would become world-famous and earn a place in the history books, doesn't matter who you are, a railroad engineer, a janitor, or even a bum living under the bridge.

It might even be that no experiment is needed. Much astronomical raw data is available to the public. Scrutinize it for indications of variance from GTR predictions. If the evidence you find is unequivocal, it will be accepted.

As you suggest, no new experiment is needed. The accelerating-compartment experiment, combined with the equivalence principle, unequivocally disproves GTR. It shows that, as light falls towards a source of gravity, its speed INCREASES as per Newton:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

James Hartle, "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

"To see WHY A DEFLECTION OF LIGHT WOULD BE EXPECTED, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Einstein's general relativity predicts that, as light falls towards a source of gravity, its speed DECREASES:

"The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached...If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"Simply put: Light appears to travel slower near bigger mass (in stronger gravitational fields)." https://speed-of-light.com/speed_of_light_gravity.html

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
68
Views
15K
Replies
3
Views
2K