Scientism and the Special Theory of Relativity. Part Two: A layman’s overview of key scientists and their influence on STR.
STR is really a classic case of Scientism with a very small group deciding on eternal 'laws'.
Scientism and STR
Scientism can take many forms. In essence Scientism can be described as the worship of ‘science’ as the only medium of truth and reality. This leads to Scientocracy exemplified by the Corona fascism. No more obvious cult of worship exists than that of Einstein and the ‘special theory of relativity’ or STR. Any layman with some effort and curiosity can understand and critique the STR.
Post 1a looked at STR and its implications. Post 1b discussed the underlying mathematics. This post will look at some key individuals who influenced Einstein. The last two posts will critique STR and its relevancy with a view to its Scientism and many of its unfounded assumptions and claims.
As with many Scientisms the STR is built on layers of abstraction with many ideas still looking for proof though ‘the science’ with its single narrative, broadcasts its certainties and consensus.
Without Galileo, James Clerk Maxell, Henrique Lorentz, Hermann Minkowski, and many others, Einstein’s STR would not exist. But he never offered credit any of the other actors, nor did he endeavour to defend his theory from its many critics. He left the defence of STR to the lower orders of acolytes and defenders. It is now accepted dogma that STR is right.
Gravity vs Electromagnetism
We don’t really know how the universe functions, we just use theories and maths to guess how it might operate. There are ‘competing theories’ to explain how the universe may work. One concept is Newton’s theory or law of gravity, the second is Maxwell’s electromagnetism. Einstein’s STR is a third, ‘unifying’ ideas from the first two and is a fundamental part of Big Bang theology, itself largely discredited and suffering from a litany of abuse and errors. The cosmologist and salesman Stephen Hawking is an example of someone who could not defend the big bang or its largely theoretically basis.
Gravity is defined as the attraction between objects based on their mass. Mainstream science believes that gravity though a very weak force, accounts for the order of the universe including planetary motions and that it has universal influence, ‘acting’ on all objects with a mass. In the current ‘accepted’ model, gravity is only significant when massive objects are involved but its range is supposedly infinite. I am not sure how anyone knows that the range is infinite.
An issue with the idea that gravity explains everything is that the Earth should logically collapse into the Sun, and the universe should implode on itself. Dark matter or matter that does not interact with light, is now invoked to counteract the admittedly weak force of gravity to explain why this does not happen. It is safe to say that dark matter will never be found but will be used to ‘confirm’ the current paradigmatic model of how the universe functions. Anything to get equations to work. This is also the reason for Einstein’s ‘constant’ a mathematical fudge variable to keep the universe from collapsing in on itself. He admitted this was his ‘greatest blunder’.
Strong is weak, weak is strong
Unlike gravity, electromagnetism is a much stronger force but pace the mainstream science, it acts on smaller scales. Electromagnetic ‘law governs’ interactions between charged particles and is responsible for the behaviour of atoms, chemical reactions and electronic devices. The range is thus limited. But this mainstream view is misleading and incomplete.
There is a large object called the Sun. The Sun emits electromagnetic energy. Apparently, this is important. As I wrote here, Velikovsky, deemed ‘delusional’ by mainstream science, proved in his interactions with his friend Einstein, large objects emit electromagnetic energy at great levels, a reality that Einstein at one time denied but convinced by Velikovsky, later admitted was a fact.
A second example of macro-electromagnetism is the magnetic field of planets (movement of molten iron and fluid in the cores). Magnetic shields interact with cosmic rays and solar radiation and produce auroras and other phenomena. A third is the ionosphere or regions around planets where gases are ionised by solar radiation which leads to electro-magnetic radio emissions. A fourth is the emission of vast amounts of internal heat and electromagnetic radiation from all planets, which includes the decay of radioactive isotopes. These processes can drive out both electromagnetic and infrared radiation.
These electromagnetic impacts must have an effect on planets, motions, light emissions and associated measurements.
For the layman it seems very odd that ‘the science’ relegates the awesome power and diverse nature of electromagnetic energy to ‘particles’ and atoms. This is probably to elevate STR and gravity as the real arbiters of cosmic order. Along with electromagnetic energy and theorems are the ideas of an ‘ether’ and ‘plasma’.
Ether or ?
James Clerk Maxwell (more below) supported a prevailing mid-19th century concept that there was an ‘ether’ in the universe which acted on light and electromagnetic radiation. He called it a ‘luminiferous ether’ which ‘filled’ space and was the ‘medium’ for the propagation of light waves. Maxwell used the ether to explain how light could travel through apparently empty space. It is unclear what he really meant by this or what constituted the ‘ether’ (particles, density etc).
More recently the ‘ether’ idea has been replaced by ‘plasma’ theory though in essence they are quite similar. Plasma theory proposes that a significant portion of the matter in the universe is in the form of plasma, which is a state of matter consisting of ionized gas. In this theory, electromagnetic interactions and plasma dynamics play crucial roles in shaping the large-scale structure of the universe, influencing the behaviour of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and cosmic filaments.
James Clerk Maxwell’s Theory
JCM was a Christian science and mathematical theorist from the mid-19th century. He was not an experimentalist but a modeler and mathematician. His theories around electromagnetism still inform much science today. Maxwell is famous for 4 general postulations.
1. Maxwell’s 4 key equations
Maxwell developed a set of four differential equations that describe the ‘fundamental laws’ governing electric and magnetic fields. These equations ‘unified’ many existing ideas and theories into one coherent framework. They include Gauss's law for electricity, Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction, and Ampère's law with Maxwell's addition.
They are remarkable in their abstraction, for example, the 4 key equations can be summarised as (1) div D = ρ, (2) div B = 0, (3) curl E = -dB/dt, and (4) curl H = dD/dt + J. These are taken from the original 8 equations, Jtotal = Jconduction + ∂D/∂t (A) ∇×A = μH (B) ∇×H = Jtotal (C) E = μv×H − ∂A/∂t − ∇ψ (D) D = eE (E) E = RJconduction (F) ∇∙D = ρ (G) ∇∙J + ∂ρ/∂t = 0 (H)
2. Electromagnetic waves
From his equations, Maxwell correctly predicted that varying electric and magnetic fields could propagate through space as electromagnetic waves. Maxwell showed that these waves would travel at the speed of light and would exhibit properties similar to those of light waves.
3. Electricity
Maxwell's ideas showed a connection between electricity and magnetism, unifying these seemingly distinct phenomena into a single framework. His equations explained how electric currents produce magnetic fields and how changing magnetic fields can induce electric currents.
4. Speed of light
Maxwell's equations predicted that electromagnetic waves, including light waves, propagate through a vacuum at a speed equal to 186.000 miles per second. Einstein copied Maxwell’s notes and equations on the speed of light, though ‘the science’ vigorously denies this.
Maxwell’s dynamic aether
In his 1865 paper, ‘The Dynamical Field of Electromagnetic Theory’ Maxwell premises unobserved phenomena (the ether) to be satisfied only by complex mathematical models, writing:
“The theory I propose assumes that in that space [space in the neighbourhood of the electric or magnetic bodies] there is matter in motion by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced... We may therefore receive, as a datum from a branch of science independent of that with which we have to deal, the existence of a pervading medium, of small but real density, capable of being set in motion, and of transmitting motion from one part to another with great, but not infinite, velocity.”
It is hard to understand what he means. He suggests a dynamic, moving, dense atmosphere, subject to forces and motion. Maxwell was not an experimenter. He elevated maths to be the same as physical proofs, a corrupting influence which has informed Scientism to our own day. Physical reality was replaced with obstruse arcana.
The idea of a ‘luminiferous ether’ was not Maxwell’s. It was introduced independently of his work. An ether as a medium permeating space was rooted in efforts to explain how light waves could propagate through a seemingly empty vacuum. Maxwell offered no proof of an ether as theorised but others. But his elegant and complicated machinery of mathematics convinced those of the validity of the theory, while they ignored that real science is about concrete evidence.
Michelson-Morley’s experiment
In 1887, 136 years ago, Michelson and Morley attempted to prove the ‘ether’ theory which Maxwell had not attempted to validate. Surprisingly in their work they failed to detect any significant difference in the speed of light in different directions. From this they deduced that the ether did not exist. But it is not the only conclusion that can be reached.
The Michelson-Morely experiment is fairly straightforward. Actually, there were many experiments done in two phases, one in 1880-81 by the German Michelson, reconfirmed with the American physicist Morley in 1887. The procedure in both cases was as follows:
A. -Michelson created an interferometer, or a sensitive optical device which attempts to compare the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions
B. -An interferometer can measure light in the direction that the object is moving, as well as in a right angle to that motion
C. -They assumed based on Maxwell’s equations, that the speed of light was a constant with respect to the proposed ether through which Earth was moving
D. -They assumed that the Earth’s motion through the ether could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of Earth’s motion and the speed of light at right angles to Earth’s motion
E. -They split a beam of light into two parts, one part was sent along one arm aligned with the Earth’s motion and a second arm placed at a right angle to the Earth’s orbit, the beams were sent to a point along each arm and back again
F. -On returning to their starting point the light produced a pattern of dark and bright fringes
G. -The fringes remained in the same position throughout the year both when the arm aligned with the Earth’s orbit remained in its original position or, contrary to expectations, when the arm aligned in direction of movement was moved to a position at right angles to the orbit and the other arm was brought into alignment
H. -This is contrary to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, where there should be variations in the velocity of light from moving bodies in an ether (or in this case a single moving object the Earth), they expected the light beams to arrive at the detector at different times, but they arrived at the same time
- This ‘null result’ eventually led to the proposal by Einstein in 1905 that the speed of light is a universal constant in a vacuum
Michelson-Morley had supposedly failed to detect any difference between the velocities of the light beams from bodies that were known to be moving with respect to one another. The light speed was the same in all directions. This led to the assumption that the speed of light is constant in the inertial reference frame, which is also the theoretical basis of Einstein's STR.
The Farmer’s view
The layman is probably not be so sure about this. There are four inferences from their observations.
1. First the ether theory was wrong.
2. Second, there is something else which caused the supposed observations by Michelson-Morey, with the ether still being valid (eg experimental error, machine error, handler error).
3. Third, the apparently self-evident requirement of Newtonian mechanics that two bodies moving with respect to one another must have different velocities with respect to a third body, was wrong.
4. Fourth, the Maxell (and later) Lorentz equations are wrong.
This second, third and fourth inferences were never pursued. Plasma or something similar was never considered. Newtonian mechanics was deemed proven and unnecessary to confirm. Same for Maxwell-Lorent’s abstract maths. Michelson concluded his account of his experiment with the words: ‘the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous’.
This experiment is the foundation of the objection to the luminiferous ether hypothesis. Purportedly according to the mainstream science, this experiment allowed the development of new theories including STR which does not accept a stationary ether.
The layman would be rather unconvinced by a single 136-year-old experiment and the attitude that of the three inferences, only one was correct without pursuing and proving the other inferences were wrong.
Issues with Michelson-Morey’s experiment
The layman would ask: is the interferometer accurate?
· Michelson’s interferometer could only measure small distances, so it is not suitable for measuring large distances and it was slow to make measurements.
· There is proof that it did not return a null set on each occasion.
· It was also too crude to actually disprove an aether wind.
· In some of the experiments there could well have been errors caused by component parts and counting or miscounting pulses.
· Some modern assessments have disproved the MM experiment as invalid.
· Even today there are issues with interferometer calculations.
The layman would also ask the obvious question as to why this experiment has not been attempted with modern technology? No one has bothered to reconfirm this single experiment. This is quite odd.
The layman would also ask if any of ‘the science’ has bothered to read the lab notes around the MM experiment?
· You analyse the lab notes to ensure that there is no data manipulation or misinterpretation. This also has not been done.
· There could well be systematic, random and human errors, and some of these may have been revealed in the notes, depending on how detailed they were.
· Human error is a noticeable factor when Michelson’s interferometer is built in today’s classrooms.
The layman would require factual, up to date proof of this experiment.
Ritz & Fitzgerald
Of the 4 options or inferences above, the third, that the Maxwell- Lorentz equations were wrong, was only pursued by the physicist and former classmate of Einstein’s, Walter Ritz (1908) and his ‘emissions theory’. The physical proofs of Lorentz’s maths are premised on a few experiments which are inconclusive. They do not dispose of the possibility, advanced by Ritz, that the velocity of light is c with respect to its source alone. This would invalidate the conclusion from Michelson and Morley. Ritz’s idea has not been disproven and in fact are rooted in common sense. A stone thrown from a fast-moving train has more force than one thrown from a stationary train, which Einstein’s STR does not support.
Ritz died in 1911, aged 31 and his theory died with him. Another classmate and close friend of both Ritz and Einstein was Ehrenfest. He had written a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, demanding that Ritz’s emission hypothesis be rejected though not providing much in the way of a compelling argument. Shortly after this exchange Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory and Ritz’s theory was forgotten.
A small group of ‘experts’
Why did Einstein ‘win’ against Walther Ritz? It was the triumph of theory over physicality. The important theoreticians at that time, Poincaré, Lorentz, and others were all etherists, and Ritz's ‘speed of light dependent on the speed of the source’ would have destroyed their work. Ehrenfest and others who were more neutral simply deferred to the mountains of maths models issued by Einstein that they probably did not understand. Einstein in part was trying to save the Maxwell-Lorentz maths, admitting: ‘I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether.’
The layman will have noticed just how intertwined, small and enclosed is the group of experts and opinion makers.
The fourth inference namely that Newton was wrong or that there was some unknown law of motion, was adopted by Lorentz Fitzgerald (1892) and Einstein. Fitzgerald proposed that a change or contraction occurred in the dimensions of bodies caused by their motion through the ether; for example, if the length of one of the arms in the light experiment changed, a shift in interference patterns would be expected. Again, few experiments pursued this idea.
Einstein ending up adopting Lorentz’s mathematics and removed the ether, assuming that both Ritz and Fitzgerald were wrong. This allowed him to unify his STR with Lorentz’s STR. Initially STR was named the Lorentz-Einstein theory. The layman wonders why if the MM experiment is probably wrong, that neither Einstein nor any following him bothered to pursue the Ritz or Fitzgerald programs of thought.
Some huge issues
There are major metaphysical and physical issues with both STR’s – that of Lorentz and Einstein – even though the underlying maths is largely similar. There are also issues with Maxwell’s work, Michelson-Morley’s unverified experiment and the casual dismissal of ‘the ether or aether’ by the science. All of these have profound implications. The next post will start in with criticisms of STR, beginning with the differences between Lorentz’s STR and that of Einstein’s and then moving into the much-derided STR expert Herbert Dingle’s criticism around clocks, and the inbuilt impossibility of STR being correct and his withering expose of Minkowski’s abstract maths in lieu of reality.
A last post will offer general objections to STR including ideas around a dynamic ether and other concepts that are never pursued against the one-narrative idol. It should be noted that STR is a fundament of Big Bang theology, itself a religious cult in crisis.
STR is a classic case example of Scientism, with the Church of ‘Science’ possessing the only holy writ of knowledge. The layman is right to ask, ‘does much of it make any sense?’.
Sources
‘Electricity and Magnetism’, Edward Purcell [Classic textbook to understand and critique Maxwell)
‘Relativity: The Special and General Theory’, Albert Einstein
‘A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity’, by Sir Edmund Whittaker (history of physics from the 17th to 20th centuries)
‘The Genesis of General Relativity: Sources and Interpretations’, edited by J. Renn (historical context of GTR and STR)
‘A Student’s Guide to Waves’, by Daniel Fleisch (covers electromagnetism and wave theory)