From: Subject: The Velocity of Light In Relation to Moving Bodies Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:38:35 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/pensee/ivr05/16light.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 The Velocity of Light In Relation to Moving = Bodies

The Velocity of Light In Relation to Moving Bodies

Immanuel Velikovsky

Copyright 1973 by Immanuel Velikovsky

A proposal for an experiment

This paper remains in the form in which it was written = over a=20 decade ago. Ed.

The Michelson-Morley experiment performed in 1886 demonstrated that a = beam of=20 light that issues from a terrestrial source and travels in the direction = of=20 terrestrial motion, East-West-East or West-East-West, needs the same = time to=20 traverse a laboratory distance as a beam that travels at right angles to = that=20 motion (North-South-North or South-North-South). The undulatory theory = of light=20 transmitted by waves in the ether anticipated detection of a difference = in the=20 velocities of the two beams due to the orbital velocity of the earth = through=20 absolute ether-filled space. Half a year later, when the earth was on = the=20 opposite side of its orbit, the same experiment again disclosed no = difference in=20 the velocities of the beams; any possible compensatory motion on the = part of the=20 solar system or the entire galaxy thus was excluded.

The explanation first offered was the supposition that any material = object=20 (also a measuring rod) traveling through the ether is shortened by a = very small=20 amount; the East-West distance in the laboratory apparatus = (interferometer),=20 being shorter, is traversed by a beam of light traveling a little slower = in the=20 same time that the longer North-South distance is crossed by a swifter = beam (1).=20 Einstein, however, generalized this idea by assuming that the velocity = of light=20 in vacuum is constant in relation to all bodies, whether in motion or at = rest.=20 The ether was discarded in the Special Theory of Relativity, and = Einstein=20 embraced the quanta theory of light. Both space and time lost the = attribute of=20 constancy, and light (its velocity) acquired it.

Ritz objected to the thesis of constancy, claiming that the velocity = of an=20 illuminating body adds itself to the velocity of propagation of light c, = the=20 resultant being c + v. De Sitter disposed of Ritz' argument by offering = to=20 consider a case of a double star whose two members revolve around the = common=20 center of gravity on orbits situated in the plane of the observer on = earth. If=20 the velocity of light from each of the stars is c - v while receding = from the=20 observer and c + v while approaching, the beams of light, after = traveling at=20 varying speeds for many years to reach the observer, would present the = pair in a=20 most chaotic motion, definitely not in harmony with the Keplerian laws = of motion=20 for celestial bodies (2). The idea developed by de Sitter originated = with D.=20 Comstock (3).

This argument for a constant velocity of light was regarded as = conclusive and=20 the question was not raised again for over three decades. However, in = 1932, Sir=20 Oliver Lodge wrote (4): "'that the velocity of light in space is really=20 constant, in itself, may be fully granted ... but that its apparent = speed when=20 determined by an observer moving to meet it, should be unaffected = likewise is=20 extraordinary. Yet this is the postulate of the relativity = doctrine=20 propounded in 1905. The doctrine certainly explains the Michelson = experiment,=20 and my experiment; nor has any experiment ever negated it so far; and = yet--well,=20 it hardly seems consistent with common sense. It seems to me that = posterity will=20 formulate the doctrine a little differently. I had hopes that if = Michelson had=20 lived (5) --he might have tackled it by some hitherto unimagined = experiment, and=20 separated the velocity from the Doppler change of frequency with which = it is=20 closely associated. Something might possibly be done with a pair of = rapidly=20 revolving cameras. Every terrestrial determination of c involves a to = and fro=20 journey of some kind, and therefore is inconclusive. It is now orthodox = to=20 assert that no one will ever measure the velocity of light differently = by moving=20 towards the source. They would certainly not observe any change in = velocity if=20 the source moved toward them; and it is inconsistent with relativity = that there=20 should be any difference between the two cases. If there were, we should = have to=20 take the ether as our standard of rest (as I want to do), and begin to = apprehend=20 absolute motion through the emptiness of space, as well as the familiar = relative=20 motion with reference to other portions of matter. Let us try to keep = the=20 question open."

Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment is not a direct test; it = depends on=20 assumptions and analogies. The beam of light travels both directions; = whatever=20 might be won in time on approach to a mirror may be lost in retreat from = it;=20 this is also expressed thus: "Because transits to and fro are involved, = the=20 Michelson-Morley experiment does not prove anything about the velocity = of light=20 in one direction" (6). Therefore, this experiment by itself = does not=20 prove the proposition that the velocity of light is the same in all = directions=20 and for all observers. Besides, in the estimate of the expected results, = analogy=20 with a body propelled upstream and then downstream as compared with one=20 propelled forth and back across the stream is assumed, and the different = times=20 needed for these two types of travel are computed accordingly. But = motion=20 through a resisting fluid is not necessarily analogous to the case of = light=20 transmitted by waves in the ether.

A direct experiment to measure the velocity of light relative to = moving=20 bodies was devised by me as long ago as 1944, and in December of 1945 it = was=20 submitted to the National Academy of Sciences (7) (also copyrighted as = lecture=20 on February 23, 1945); but at that time and until recently, such an = experiment=20 was considered unnecessary. This I also learned from a letter written to = me by=20 Professor Paul Epstein of Cal. Inst. Tech. on March 7, 1945. However, I = thought=20 that an experiment, if one could be devised, should also be performed to = verify=20 the Michelson-Morley results. On theoretical grounds, it appeared to me = that de=20 Sitter's argument is not necessarily valid: an illuminating body might = not=20 impart to an erupting photon its own velocity of motion, so = instantaneous, most=20 probably, is the eruption; perhaps the light travels with constant = velocity c in=20 relation to the illuminating body and also with a velocity c + v in = relation to=20 an illuminated body or an observer traveling toward or away from the = source of=20 light. De Sitter's argument may have been valid against Ritz, but Ritz'=20 conjecture did not encompass the proposition made here and, in fact,=20 contradicted it.

In recent years (1959-1960), Professor Herbert Dingle raised a = question that=20 lay dormant for decades when he wrote (8):

"In view of recent difficulties that have arisen in connection with = the=20 [Special Relativity] theory, and particularly in view of the fact that = an=20 alternative theory of Ritz's, which was thought to have been disproved, = has now=20 been shown to be a distinct possibility (9) ... it is claimed that at = present=20 there is no experimental evidence for or against the kinematical = requirements of=20 the [Relativity] theory. . ."

"For all practical purposes, then, the choice lies between Einstein = and Ritz,=20 and at present there is not a scrap of experimental evidence even to = make one=20 appear more probable than the other ... We have not sufficient evidence = on=20 observational grounds to give one even a greater or less probability = than the=20 other: we await the verdict of experiment." Professor Dingle challenged=20 experimental physicists to find a method for "the comparison of the = velocity of=20 light, with respect to the laboratory, from relatively moving sources," = and=20 expressed hope that "the crucial experiment will be undertaken without = delay if=20 it is practically possible."

An experiment involving measurement of time on moving clocks is also=20 mentioned in general terms but conceded to be less simple. Professor = Dingle=20 stressed that "all experiments in which an atom is regarded as a clock = are=20 powerless to answer our question" (10).

It follows that Professor Dingle did not consider that in addition to = the=20 hypotheses of Einstein and Ritz a third is possible, namely, that an = observer=20 traveling toward a source may meet its light at velocity c + v, while = the light=20 travels at constant speed c in relation to neither observer nor source = but to=20 the point in space at which it was emitted.

P. Moon and D. Spenser, before Dingle, tried to show that = observations of=20 double stars do not justify de Sitter's argument against Ritz (11).

Dingle's reference to "recent difficulties" that have encountered the = Special=20 Relativity theory has its basis in W. Heisenberg (1955):

"Relativity Theory assumes that in principle no effect can be = propagated=20 faster than the velocity of light. Now this trend in Relativity Theory = leads to=20 difficulties in connection with the uncertainty relations of quantum = theory ...=20 We have found that in quantum theory a clear determination of position-- = in=20 other words, a sharp delimitation of space--presupposes an infinite = uncertainty=20 of velocity and thus also of momentum and energy" (12).

By 1956, Russian physicists, too, recognized the need for proof of = constant=20 velocity of light; they were not guided by doubts regarding the truth of = the=20 postulate but by the realization that the theory of relativity lacks=20 experimental verification of this basic postulate. A. M. Bonch-Bruevich=20 presented in that year a paper entitled: "An experimental verification = that the=20 velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source with = respect to=20 an observer" (13), in which the author claimed to have "for the first = time=20 performed a direct experiment."

The experiment was based on an idea offered by S. I. Vavilov and = before him=20 by G. S. Landsberg. Of the two equatorial points at the limbs of the = rotating=20 sun, one retreats from the observer, the other approaches, and the = velocity=20 difference is almost 4 kilometers per second. The experiment was = performed in=20 Pulkovo on a stretch of two kilometers. The procedure, though = complicated in=20 apparatus, was not sufficiently sensitive to measure a time differential = of less=20 than one ten billionth of a second, a requirement in the method. = Therefore, a=20 statistical treatment was applied to over 1700 measurements, yielding a = result=20 that "satisfies the hypothesis of relativistic theory."

The experiment and its result were disqualified by another Russian = physicist,=20 A. G. Baranov, who wrote (1961): "On the one hand, the author begins = with some a=20 priori assumptions concerning the speed of light after reflection from a = mirror;=20 on the other hand, owing to the low accuracy inherent in the method, the = observed results have a large scatter, several times larger than the = effects=20 expected from classical theory" (14). To this, I may add that in the = experiment=20 only the influence of the motion of the illuminating object on the = velocity of=20 light was queried, whereas the problem is also whether the motion of an=20 illuminated object in relation to a photon can result in c =B1 v = velocity.

Baranov, in turn, proposed "A Method to verify experimentally that = the speed=20 of light is independent of the velocity of the source" (the title of the = paper),=20 claiming it to be "a scheme by which to verify directly in the = laboratory the=20 postulate of the constancy of the speed of light," the two claims being = not=20 identical. Also, the method (no experiment was performed) is not well = devised. A=20 beam of light is split in two by a semi-silvered mirror; the split = portions of=20 the beam travel, with the help of reflecting mirrors, the same route but = in=20 opposite directions; a movable system of two mutually perpendicular = mirrors is=20 inserted (closer to one end of the route) so that its motion lengthens = the=20 distance more for that beam which has the movable system close to the = end of its=20 route. The speed of the mirror is of the order of one meter per second. = The=20 interferometer must show no fringe shift if the speed of light depends = on the=20 velocity of the source (the value c + 2v after reflection from the = movable=20 mirrors would be compensated by the difference in the lengths of the = paths).

However, in this project, the source of light and the observer are=20 stationary, and only the mirror is moving; also, the problem remains = whether the=20 (hypothetical) c =B1 v velocity of light traveling toward a mirror = remains the=20 same after being reflected (related to the mirror), or becomes c =B1 v. = Light=20 loses energy when it exerts pressure on reflecting surfaces and when it=20 encounters resistance in various transparent media, like air, water, or = glass.=20 In Baranov's scheme one half of the beam is reflected from four mirrors = and=20 passes through two semi-silvered ones, whereas the other half of the = beam is=20 reflected from six mirrors and passes through none.

In my experiment, as devised in 1944, a beam of morning sunlight is = permitted=20 to travel through a slit provided with a shutter toward a rotating, = multifaced=20 mirror at a distance; through a parallel slit operated by the same = shutter=20 travels light from a source on earth. From the rotating mirror the beams = are=20 reflected to a sensitive plate not far away. The apparatus travels = toward the=20 sun with velocity due to the earth's rotation amounting to somewhat less = than=20 half a kilometer per second, depending on latitude (40,000 kilometers in = ca.=20 86,000 seconds at equator). If the solar light approaches the apparatus = with=20 velocity c + vt, then it will mark its appearance on a = sensitive=20 plate in advance of the mark made by the light from the terrestrial = source,=20 which travels with the apparatus and is stationary with respect to = it.

Before sunset the experiment is repeated as the apparatus retreats = before the=20 solar beam. This time the shutter is placed west of the rotating mirror; = precise=20 equality of distances between shutter and mirror in the morning and = afternoon is=20 not of prime importance. The results of the morning and afternoon = experiments=20 are compared.

In this experiment, the light does not travel in two opposite = directions=20 before its velocity is measured by comparison with a parallel beam from = a=20 terrestrial source. The solar light coming from the central portion of = the disc=20 is utilized.

The following quantities may be taken as guides: The distance between = shutter=20 and mirror--one kilometer; the shutter opens for 10-5 of a = second;=20 the mirror rotates 5,000 times per second and has the form of a = decagonal prism;=20 each facet replaces the previous in 2 x 10-5 sec.; the = distance from=20 the decagon mirror to the detection device is ca. 2 meters. If there is = a=20 difference in velocity between the solar and terrestrial light signals, = it would=20 amount to ca. 10-6 km per sec.; the difference in time would = be 3.3 x=20 10-12 second; at a radius of 2m., ten microns subtend nearly = 1" of=20 arc; the angular rotation of a reflected beam of light being twice the = angular=20 rotation of the mirror, at 5,000 rotations per second, the light beam = that=20 precedes by 3.3 x 10-12 sec. would mark itself on a sensitive = plate=20 half a micron in advance of the other beam of light.

Half a micron is at the limit of optical observation, but we are left = with a=20 reserve in the possibilities for increasing mirror speed or passage and=20 projection distances. An optical dispersion device might be inserted = before the=20 sensitive plate, unless another method (photoelectric) proves to be = superior.=20 Half a micron being the wave length of green light, an interferometer = device=20 could be utilized for checking the comparative velocities of the two = beams.

In this form I communicated my experiment plan to Dr. H. K. Ziegler, = Chief=20 Scientist, U. S. Army Signal Research and Development Laboratory, Fort = Monmouth,=20 N.J., in April-May 1961.

Originally I considered passing the beams of light through a prism = between=20 the rotating mirror and the sensitive plate and comparing the positions = of the=20 spectral lines in the solar light with those from terrestrial source = (neon) in=20 the morning and before evening, but this arrangement requires a very = fast=20 shutter to obtain unsmudged spectral lines. To distinguish in this = arrangement=20 between a shift due to the changed velocity of light and a shift due to = a=20 Doppler effect, the mirror should be rotated both ways: the Doppler = shift would=20 be toward the violet in the morning and toward the red in the evening, = but a=20 displacement due to the change in velocity of light would follow the = direction=20 of the mirror's rotation.

In both versions of the proposed experiment, we have a direct method = to=20 compare the velocity of a beam of light in relation to an observer = moving toward=20 the source of light or away from it with the velocity of light from a = source=20 that is stationary in relation to the observer. Travel of beams of light = "to and=20 fro" is avoided in this arrangement.

Should the experiment result in velocity c for the light arriving = from the=20 terrestrial source and c =B1 v for the light from the sun, then = Einstein's=20 postulate of constant light velocity would be disproven; Ritz, however, = would=20 not yet be proven because, though we can regard the sun as moving and = the=20 observer as stationary, yet we cannot reverse the illuminating faculty = and=20 consider the observer illuminating and the sun illuminated. Ritz claimed = that=20 the motion of a source is transferred to the photons and results in c + = v where=20 v is the velocity of the source with respect to the observer. Yet we = may,=20 consider that the photons do not inherit the inertia of motion of the = source=20 from which they erupt, but an observer traveling toward h source of = light would=20 meet the photons at a speed surpassing c. In order to substantiate or = eliminate=20 Ritz, a control experiment should be instituted: beams from both = equatorial=20 edges of the solar disk are compared as to their velocity; an = arrangement=20 similar to that of the original experiment is employed.

In case, however, the original experiment should result in equal = velocities=20 for the solar and terrestrial beams of light in relation to the = observer, Ritz=20 would be disproven, but Einstein not yet proven. This is seen from the=20 following: If in the experiment performed in the morning the velocities = of the=20 solar and terrestrial beams are c in relation to the points in space = where they=20 were emitted, but c + vt in respect to the mirror, then the = two beams=20 will arrive at the same speed and there will be no immediate way to = determine=20 whether velocity c =B1 v in relation to a moving body does or does not = exist.

To solve this part of the problem, an experiment must be devised in = which=20 light (laser) signals from two terrestrial sources equidistant from a = detector=20 and coming from opposite directions (east and west) are competing. Also = radio=20 signals substituting for fight could be sent to the sun and registered = upon=20 their return, the passage time being measured and compared in the = morning and=20 afternoon. In view of turbulent conditions above the photosphere and in = the=20 corona, such an experiment needs to be repeated several times in order = to obtain=20 mean values. The moon, too, after rising and before setting may serve as = the=20 reflecting body; it has no magnetosphere worth considering and it may = prove to=20 be a preferable target, though the sun offers an almost 400 times longer = route;=20 the time difference for the passage time of morning and afternoon = signals to the=20 sun and back, if not zero, may be close to one three-hundredth = second.

Experiments concerned with the problem of absolute space need to be = repeated=20 at certain time intervals: The orbital and the rotational speeds of the = earth=20 and the motion of the solar system in its entirety will affect any = experiment=20 devised to solve the problem of constancy of velocity of light in = relation to a=20 point in absolute space where the photon left its source.

The main experiment described in this paper will eliminate either = Ritz' or=20 Einstein's solution of the problem, leaving the winner to face another=20 contest.

REFERENCES

1. G. F. Fitzgerald (1851-1901), The = Scientific=20 Writings (1902). H. A. Lorentz, Proc. Amsterdam Academy = English=20 edition) 6,809 (1903).
2. W. Ritz, "Das Prinzip der Relativity in der = Optik,"=20 Gesammelte Werke, Paris, 1911. W. de Sitter, Ein astronomischer = Beweis=20 für die Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit," Physikalische = Zeitschrift, 14=20 (1913).
3. D. Comstock, Physic. Rev., 80 (1910), = 267.
4. Sir=20 Oliver Lodge, Past Years, an Autobiography (New York, = 1932).
5. A.=20 A. Michelson died in 1931 at the age of 79: Lodge, in 1940, aged = 89.
6. R. W.=20 Ditchburn, Light (1953) p. 331.
7. As a contribution for=20 consideration for the "Charles L. Mayer Nature of Light awards."
8. = H.=20 Dingle, "The Origin and Present Status of the Special Relativity = Theory,"=20 Science Progress, Vol. XLVIII # 190 (April 1960), pp. 201-19: = idem,=20 Nature, 183 (1959), 1761.
9. Cf. M. N. Royal = Astron.=20 Society, 119 (1959), 67.
10. For more recent discussion of this = problem=20 by W. G. V. Rosser, see Nature (April 15, 1961), 249.
11. P. = Moon=20 and D. Spenser, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 43 (1953), 635.
12. W. = Heisenberg,=20 The Physicist's Conception of Nature (1958), p. 48 = (transl.=20 from Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik, 1955).
13. = Doklady,=20 Physical Section, Proceeding of the Academy of Sciences of the = U.S.S.R.,=20 109 Engl. Transl. : Soviet Physics, Vol 1, #4.
14. = J.=20 Experiment. Theoret. Phys. (U.S.S.R.), 40 (March 1961), Soviet=20 Physics, Vol. 13, #3 (September 1961).

PENSEE Journal V

\cdrom\pubs\journals\pensee\ivr05\16light.htm=20