Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 265–284 | Cite as

Misconceptions in recent papers on special relativity and absolute space theories

  • D. G. Torr
  • P. Kolen
Article

Abstract

Several recent papers which purport to substantiate or negate arguments in favor of certain theories of absolute space have been based on fallacious principles. In this paper we discuss three related instances, indicating where misconceptions have arisen. We establish, contrary to popular belief, that the classical Lorentz ether theory accounts for all the experimental evidence which supports the special theory of relativity. We demonstrate that the ether theory predicts the null results obtained from pulsar timing and Mössbauer experiments. We conclude that a measurement of the one-way velocity of light has physical meaning within the context of the Lorentz theory, and argue that an adequately designed experiment to measure the one-way velocity of light should be attempted.

Keywords

Ether Experimental Evidence Physical Meaning Special Relativity Space Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Bailey, K. Borer, F. Combley, H. Drumm, F. Krienen, F. Langle, E. Picasso, W. von Ruden, F. J. M. Farley, J. H. Field, W. Flegel, and P. M. Hattersley,Nature 268, 301 (1977).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    David Bohm,The Special Theory of Relativity (Benjamin, New York, 1965).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. W. Cole,Mon. N. R. Astr. Soc. 175, 93P (1976).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Edwards,Am. J. Phys. 31, 482 (1963).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Feenberg,Found. Phys. 9, 329 (1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Giannoni,Found. Phys. 9, 427 (1979).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Grünbaum,Philosophical Problems of Space and Time (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1975).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Kolen and D. G. Torr,Found. Phys. to be published (1982).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. A. Lorentz,Proc. Amst. Acad. (Engl. ed.)6, 809 (1903).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. A. Lorentz,Amst. Proc. 6, 809 (1904).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Marinov,Found. Phys. 8, 137 (1978).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Poincaré,Bull. Sc. Math. 28, 302 (1904).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Poincaré,Comptes Rendus cxl, 1504 (1905).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Potzel, A. Forster, and G. M. Kalvius,J. Phys. Paris C6–691 (1976).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Reichenbach,The Philosophy of Space and Time (1922; Dover Reprint, New York, 1957).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Ruebenbauer,Intern. J. Theor. Phys. 19, 217 (1980).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. Whittaker,A History of Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol. II (Harper, New York, 1960).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. A. Winnie,Phil. 37, 81, 223 (1970).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. G. Torr and D. Fraser, to be submitted toPhys. Rev. Lett. (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. G. Torr
    • 1
  • P. Kolen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUtah State UniversityLogan

Personalised recommendations