General Relativity Requires Absolute Space and Time

Home , Luminiferous aether, Preferred frame

arXiv:physics/0209107v1 [physics.gen-ph] 30 Sep 2002 nfidCuobster feetiiy[]with [9] electricity [8] Faraday of theory [7]. Coulomb’s electrodynamics unified classical of ory [6]. frame aether preferred luminiferous a the as of He frame particles. rest aether the named considered very of he which consists which particles, via medium tiny new propagate a waves of light oscillations theory, his to According mechanics [5]. classical Newton the and Galileo by by required introduced not is motion ap- [4]. not equations did described his motion in equations Absolute pear His motion. relative only kinematics. Galileo’s of as it also considered but [3]. motion, motion he relative absolute only motion not have fix to to necessary mo- However, absolute not but tion. observed and only was that universe thought motion argued the relative Galileo was of frame. centre Sun preferred the a The defining within resting be valid. to was [2] Copernicus time and Space motion. relative [1]. absolute absolute motion as were all Earth and the frame to preferred terrestrial a the as considered He frame the Before universe. in the resting of was centre Earth the Time Aristotle, to According and Space 1 Relativity. General of travel and solutions time strict and space universe are includes rotating absolute A which (ii) frame, time. cosmology rest a preferred a requires Relativity. It General (i) of consequences somewhat and heretic far-reaching two examine We eea eaiiyRequires Relativity General h ehrcnetrapae nMxelsthe- Maxwell’s in reappeared concept aether The light. of theory wave the introduced Huyghens absolute that suggest to Leibniz inspired This description mathematical the introduced Newton of model heliocentric the Galileo of days the In eht.6,310Bancwi,Germany Braunschweig, 38120 63, Lechstr. boueSaeadTime and Space Absolute eea Relativity General anrW Kühne W. Rainer 1 eaiiycnol eciebtntepanwhy propagating explain in waves. oscillate light not fields but magnetic and describe electric only can Relativity filled fluids. be turbulent can or mechanics radiation say, classical con- with, of By space frames. the and inertial observers trast, the in the objects from observed apart the entities no are There problems. clas- to also applied be mechanics. can Relativity.sical it Special Leibniz to to According solely belongs that nomenon required. not rela- is the principle alone, ex- tivity invariance completely Lorentz be using by can the invariance plained experiment Galilei of The if only result assumed. frame is the preferred exis- a fact, the This of In tence disproved frame. experiment correct. preferred Michelson-Morley not a is of believe existence and the principle relativity refuted the confirmed [13] periment of axis rotational universe. any the exist and not homogeneous does do is there time isotropic, space and Furthermore, space exist. Absolute the not via of frames. infer time inertial the can on other One [12] transformations time. Lorentz relative the own its has frame aether an of existence an [11]. of the absence prohibits postulated iner- frame The re- absolute the needed. not between is is motion frames relative motion tial the Absolute only frame. quired, there preferred equivalent, no are is frames inertial all Relativity, clas- an- by to explained mechanics. able were sical that not Less problems is several Relativity swer Special [11]. that Relativity is Special known Einstein’s by placed is aether luminiferous light Huyghens. the waveof theory through electromagnetic Maxwell’s propagates oscillating which in an the- where as wave considered light, Huyghens’ of with ory theory uni- Faraday’s Maxwell fied [10]. magnetism of Ampère’s theory ii pca eaiiyde o aif h equiva- the satisfy not does Relativity Special (iii) Special aether an of concept the Without (ii) empty. is Relativity Special of space The (i) three has Relativity Special of theory Einstein’s phe- a not is principle relativity the way, the By ex- Michelson-Morley the that believed often is It inertial each Relativity, Special to According Special of principle relativity the to According re- was kinematics classical the that know all We lence principle [14] of General Relativity, according observations, namely the redshift-distance relation to which inertial mass and gravitational mass are generated by the Hubble effect. It appears isotropic identical. Special Relativity considers only inertial only for a unique rest frame [25]. mass. I argued that the Friedmann-Lemaître universe Special Relativity is a valid approximation of re- has a finite age and therefore a finite light cone. ality which is appropriate for the description of The centre-of-mass frame of this Hubble sphere can most of the physical phenomena examined until the be regarded as a preferred frame [26]. beginning of the twenty-first century. However, the After the discovery of the cosmic microwave back- macroscopic properties of space and time are better ground radiation by Penzias and Wilson [27], it was described by General Relativity. predicted that it should have a dipole anisotropy generated by the Doppler effect by the Earth’s motion. This dipole anisotropy was predicted in ac- 2 General Relativity: Abso- cordance with Lorentz invariance [28] and later dis- lute Space and Time covered experimentally [29]. Peebles called these experiments “aether drift experiments” [30]. In 1915 Einstein presented the field equations of The preferred frames defined by the Robertson- General Relativity [15] and in 1916 he presented the Walker metric, the Hubble effect, and the cosmic first comprehensive article on his theory [16]. In a microwave background radiation are probably iden- later work he showed an analogy between Maxwell’s tical. In this case the absolute motion of the Sun theory and General Relativity. The solutions of the was determined by the dipole anisotropy experi- free Maxwell equations are electromagnetic waves ments of the cosmic microwave background radi- while the solutions of the free Einstein field equa- ation to be (371 ± 1) km/s. tions are gravitational waves which propagate on I suggested that this aether drift can give rise to an oscillating metric [17]. As a consequence, Ein- local physical effects. I introduced the theory of stein called space the aether of General Relativity quantum electromagnetodynamics [26]. It is a gen- [18]. However, even within the framework of Gen- eralization of quantum electrodynamics [31] which eral Relativity do electromagnetic waves not prop- includes Dirac’s magnetic monopoles [32] and two agate through a luminiferous aether. kinds of photons, Einstein’s electric photon [33] and Einstein applied the field equations of General Salam’s magnetic photon [34]. I predicted that ev- Relativity on the entire universe [19]. He presented ery light source which emits electric photons does a solution of a homogeneous, isotropic, and static emit also magnetic photons. The ratio between universe, where the space has a positive curvature. the interaction cross-sections of the magnetic pho- This model became known as the Einstein universe. ton and the electric photon shall depend on the However, de Sitter has shown that the Einstein uni- aether drift of the laboratory. The results of re- verse is not stable against density fluctuations [20]. cent experiments to test my theory may be inter- This problem was solved by Friedmann and preted as preliminary evidence for these magnetic Lemaître who suggested a homogeneous and photon rays. These experiments were performed isotropic expanding universe where the space is in Vienna/Austria by Alipasha Vaziri in February curved [21]. 2002 and in Madison/Wisconsin by Roderic Lakes Robertson and Walker presented a metric for a in March and June 2002. homogeneous and isotropic universe [22]. Accord- ing to Gödel this metric requires an absolute time [23]. In any homogeneous and isotropic cosmology 3 General Relativity: Ro- the Hubble constant [24] and its inverse, the Hub- ble age of the universe, are absolute and not rela- tating Universe and Time tive quantities. In the Friedmann-Lemaître universe Travel there exists a relation between the actual age of the universe and the Hubble age. It is well-known that planets, stars, and galaxies According to Bondi and Gold, a preferred mo- rotate. So Lanczos and Gamow speculated that the tion is given at each point of space by cosmological entire universe may rotate and that the rotating

2 universe might have generated the rotation of the proved that an observer outside the gravitational galaxies [35]. field would also see time-travel. Gödel was the first to show that a rotating uni- To conclude, General Relativity requires a cos- verse is a strict solution of Einstein’s field equa- mology which includes a preferred frame, absolute tions for a homogeneous and anisotropic universe. space and time and which may include a rotating He considered a non-expanding universe and has universe and time-travel. Such a universe may have shown that it allows closed time-like curves, i.e. originated not from a singularity (big bang), but time-travel. He predicted that the original order from a closed time-like curve (time-machine). of the rotation axes of galaxies was parallel to the universal rotation axis [23]. Raychaudhuri presented a model for an expand- References ing and rotating universe which is a generaliza- [1] Aristotle, De caelo (4th century BC). tion of both the Friedmann-Lemaître universe and the Gödel universe. This cosmology, too, includes [2] N. Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium closed time-like curves [36]. coelestium (1543). Possibly, the Raychaudhuri universe did not start [3] G. Galilei, Discorsi e dimostrazioni matem- from a singularity (big bang), but from a closed atiche intorno a due nuove scienze attenenti time-like curve, i.e. from a time-machine. alla meccanica ed i movimente locali (Leida, Gregory, Thompson, and Tifft discovered that Elsevier, 1638). the distribution of the rotation axes for both the spiral and ellipsoid galaxies of the filament-like [4] I. Newton, Philosophiae naturalis principia Perseus-Pisces supercluster is bimodal. One of the mathematica (London, 1687). peaks is roughly aligned with the major axis of [5] G. W. Leibniz, Third letter to S. Clarke (1716). the supercluster while the second peak is roughly 90◦ from the first [37]. This anisotropic distribu- [6] C. Huyghens, Traitéde la lumière (1690). tion cannot be explained by conventional models of [7] J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and galaxy-formation. Therefore I suggested that this Magnetism (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1873). might be a remnant of the original aligned distribution of galactic rotation axes generated by a rotat- [8] M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Elec- ing universe [38]. tricity, Vol. I (London, Taylor and Francis, A rotating universe with both vorticity and shear 1839). would generate an anisotropy of the cosmic mi- M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Elec- crowave background radiation. Collins and Hawk- tricity, Vol. II (London, Richard and John Ed- ing were able to set tight bounds on this effect [39]. ward Taylor, 1844). However, Korotky and Obukhov showed that the M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Elec- generation of this anisotropy is an effect of shear tricity, Vol. III (London, Taylor and Francis, and not of vorticity alone. So the observed isotropy 1855). of the cosmic microwave background radiation does [9] C. A. Coulomb, Hist. Mém. l’Acad. R. Sci., p. not contradict the idea of a rotating universe, where 569 (1785). the rotation period could be as high as the Hubble C. A. Coulomb, Hist. Mém. l’Acad. R. Sci., p. age of the universe [40]. 578 (1785). There is some discussion whether General Rela- C. A. Coulomb, Hist. Mém. l’Acad. R. Sci., p. tivity could allow local time-machines. Carter has 612 (1785). shown that the Kerr metric [41] of rotating spheri- C. A. Coulomb, Hist. Mém. l’Acad. R. Sci., p. cal bodies can generate closed time-like curves [42]. 67 (1786). This inspired Tipler to investigate a rapidly rotating cylinder with 100 km length, 15 km radius, [10] A.-M. Ampère, Ann. Chim. Phys. 15, 59 1014g/cm3 density, and a rotational speed of 70% of (1820). the speed of light. This object yielded closed time- A.-M. Ampère, Ann. Chim. Phys. 15, 170 like curves [43]. However, until now it has not been (1820).

3 [11] A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 17, 891 [28] P. J. E. Peebles and D. T. Wilkinson, Phys. (1905). Rev. 174, 2168 (1968). R. N. Bracewell and E. K. Conklin, Nature [12] J. Larmor, Aether and Matter (Cambridge, 219, 1343 (1968). University Press, 1900). H. A. Lorentz, Proc. R. Acad. Amsterdam 6, [29] G. F. Smoot, M. V. Gorenstein, and R. A. 809 (1904). Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 898 (1977).

[13] A. A. Michelson, Am. J. Sci. 22, 120 (1881). [30] P. J. E. Peebles, Physical Cosmology (Prince- A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, Am. J. Sci. ton, University Press, 1971). 34, 333 (1887). [31] S. Tomonaga, Phys. Rev. 74, 224 (1948). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 74, 1439 (1948). [14] A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 38, 355 J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 75, 651 (1949). (1912). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 76, 790 (1949). [15] A. Einstein, S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., p. 844 R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 76, 749 (1949). (1915). R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949). F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75, 486 (1949). [16] A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 49, 769 F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75, 1736 (1949). (1916). [32] P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. A 133, 60 (1931). [17] A. Einstein, S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., p. 154 [33] A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 17, 132 (1918). (1905). ¨ [18] A. Einstein, Ather und Relativitätstheorie [34] A. Salam, Phys. Lett. 22, 683 (1966). (Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1920). [35] C. Lanczos, Z. Phys. 21, 73 (1924). [19] A. Einstein, S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., p. 142 G. Gamow, Nature 158, 549 (1946). (1917). [36] A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. 98, 1123 (1955). [20] W. de Sitter, Konin. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap- pen 19, 1217 (1917). [37] S. A. Gregory, L. A. Thompson, and W. G. Tifft, Astrophys. J. 243, 411 (1981). [21] A. Friedmann, Z. Phys. 10, 377 (1922). [38] R. W. Kühne, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 2473 A. Friedmann, Z. Phys. 21, 326 (1924). (1997). G. Lemaître, Ann. Soc. Sci. Brux. 47, 49 (1927). [39] S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 142, 129 (1969). [22] H. P. Robertson, Astrophys. J. 82, 284 (1935). C. B. Collins and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. A. G. Walker, Proc. London Math. Soc. 42, 90 R. Astron. Soc. 162, 307 (1973). (1936). [40] V. A. Korotky and Yu. N. Obukhov, Sov. Phys. [23] K. Gödel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 447 (1949). JETP 72, 11 (1991). Yu. N. Obukhov, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 24, 121 [24] E. P. Hubble, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15, 168 (1992). (1929). S. Carneiro and G. A. Mena Marugán, Phys. [25] H. Bondi and T. Gold, Nature 169, 146 (1952). Rev. D 64, 083502 (2001). [41] R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 (1963). [26] R. W. Kühne, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 3153 (1997). [42] B. Carter, Phys. Rev. 174, 1559 (1968). [27] A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, Astrophys. J. [43] F. J. Tipler, Phys. Rev. D 9, 2203 (1974). 142, 419 (1965).