Dr. George J. Marklin

STANDARDS OF MEASUREMENT PART II

This article is adapted from material originally posted elsewhere
in response to questions from students critical of my views.
It addresses the question of whether experiments prove that the
speed of light is constant:
   
Many people seem to think that experiments prove that the speed
of light is constant. They do not. They only prove that the
Lorentz transformation formulas are valid, and that the apparent
speed of light is constant - the speed as measured by ordinary
clocks and rulers. The conclusion that the actual speed is
constant is an inference based on philosophical premises - on the
assumption that ordinary clocks and rulers constitute immutable
standards. The special theory of relativity (STR) makes this
assumption without any attempt to justify it, or even identify
it, and takes the constant speed of light as an arbitrary
starting point. The only problem is that the constant speed of
light doesn't make any sense. It can't be integrated with the
rest of our knowledge about physics. In every other instance of
wave phenomena there is always a medium, the substance that is
doing the waving, and the waves travel at a certain speed defined
relative to the medium. If the medium is moving, the speed of the
wave changes accordingly. Why should light waves be different?
The relativists just claim that they are and that the experiments
prove it, ignoring their unstated premise. Counter-intuitive
results do not seem to be sufficient motivation for them to check
their premises.

   The Lorentz ether theory (LET) starts out by assuming that
the ether exists and that Maxwell's equations hold in the ether
frame, but not necessarily in any other frame. This implies that
the speed of light is only constant relative to the ether, and is
different if the ether is in motion - just like any other wave
phenomena. Integration is built right in at the very beginning.
The Lorentz contraction and time dilation can be derived as a
consequence of assuming that the structure and mechanism of
ordinary rulers and clocks is determined by electromagnetic
interactions which are affected by motion through the ether. This
leads to the Lorentz transformation formulas and the apparent
constancy of the speed of light (and for experts - the apparent
invariance of Maxwell's equations).

   The concepts of space and time used in the LET are the same 
ones we all know from everyday experience. They pass what
has been called the "five-year-old test". They are simple
concepts of measurement which can be understood by any five-year-
old. The concepts of space and time used by STR are completely
different. The special theory of relativity posits a universe
populated not by entities but by four dimensional space-time
intervals. Space and time are viewed not as measurements of
relationships among entities and of the changes they undergo, but
as components of the space-time interval. Their values depend on
a kind of motional perspective of the observer, determined by his
relative velocity. Different observers can measure different
lengths and times for the same space-time interval if they view
it from different perspectives. Try explaining that to a five-
year-old. What this all amounts to is another failure of
integration - between the concepts of space and time as used by
STR and as inferred from everyday experience.

   The concepts of space and time used by STR are actually
anti-concepts. They do not identify objective facts of reality,
they obfuscate them, creating only confusion and destroying ones
ability to think clearly. Physicists who use STR in their work
cannot rely on physical intuition to guide them. They only
succeed by blind adherence to mathematical rules and formulas,
which is what modern physics has become. They are like pilots
flying through a dense fog, relying solely on their instruments
for guidance. But there does not have to be any fog. It is
entirely self imposed by a bad (Positivist) epistemology. The LET
reproduces all the same results as STR and satisfies the
Objectivist requirements of integration, causal explanation, and
immutable standards of measurement. It enables one to achieve a
much clearer and more intuitive understanding of the physical
world - an understanding that is essential if progress in physics
is ever to resume.

Return to home page