next up previous contents
Next: Once again on light speed Up: Criticism of the relativistic experiments Previous: Additional remarks   Contents

GRT experiments

Though this Chapter 3 is not devoted to the general relativity theory (GRT), nevertheless (because of the relativity theory unity declared by relativists), for completeness of the picture we shall present some additional critical comments to the experiments. It is rather strange, that in some cases the relativists declare the equivalence of description (of Sagnac's experiment, for example) both within the SRT framework, and with using the non-inertial system within the GRT framework. In the other cases, however, contrary to the declared equivalence of the gravitational field and the non-inertial nature of a system, the SRT gives an inadequately low result (for example, for the Mercury perihelion displacement).

The Hafele-Keating experiment was declared as confirming the GRT. However, this conclusion was made with use of a little sampling (again reduced). Other investigators, which had a free access to the primary data, made quite the reverse conclusion. Besides, the Hafele-Keating experiment was interpreted as the gravitation dependence of time (actually, the interpretation means change of the generator carrier frequency itself in the gravitational field). In such the case, however, it contradicts the interpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment, where the generator was considered to provide the same frequency at any altitude (and some kind of these two experiments must be eliminated from the "GRT money-box"). It would be not bad for theorists to stop to reiterate "what matter must to be", "to extract a cotton wool from the ears" and to listen those peoples whom were named (a modest and imperceptible word) "observer" [134]: it would be interesting to know "what IS to be in reality". Just these "observers" participate in construction of "the preferential reference system" (USA: WGS-84, NAVSTAR GPS; Russia: PZ-90, GLONASS), introduce corrections from the motion of the Earth surface relative navigational satellites in spite of the SRT postulates etc.. Practical workers (land-surveyors, engineers, inventors, experimenters) have no time to listen "explanations after the event from theorists", and they are obliged to act as in the proverb "about a baying dog and coming steam-engine". Thus, generators of the satellite systems NAVSTAR GPS are tuned in the frequency 10.2299999945 MGz at the Earth in order that the frequency would be increased to 10.23 MGz at the satellite orbit in the strict agreement with the Etvs effect well known before the SRT, that is the long-term navigational experiments disprove the isolated experiment with "flying airplanes". The gravitational displacement is treated in [33] from the energy point of view, but where the time slowdown in the gravity field has vanished in this case? The attempt to get rid of the relativistic "discordance" was undertaken in [21]. However, the "explanation" with the help of an elevator model (the elevator possesses zero initial velocity), given in that paper, is completely groundless; therefore, the comparison of the Pound-Rebka experiment with the Hafele-Keating experiment can not be considered in favor of the gravitational change in the operation of the watch (remember, in accordance with the GRT, the gravitational field is locally "excluded" inside a freely falling lift). The fact is that all formulas in SRT and GRT are local. Actually, in the aforementioned paper the relativists try "to create" mentally a unique object by means of infinitely rapid signals. Whether the fact, that I set moving the receiver inside a laboratory now, can influence the photon that will be received from the Alpha-Centaur 4 years later? Certainly, it can not! In fact, SRT also considers the signal (a photon and its influence) to propagate at the speed of light (the prehistory of processes is included in none formula). Therefore, we should not consider the elevator velocity at the initial instant to be zero at "explaining" the Pound-Rebka experiment. On the contrary, we should impart to a freely falling elevator such a velocity (it does not influence a remote photon), that at the photon reception instant the "instrument" (perceiving an atom) be at the same place, as a real resting atom, and has a zero velocity too. It is clear that the Doppler effect will be pure at anything in this case, since it depends only on velocity, rather than on acceleration. Both atoms will be at the completely equal position, and the only distinction will lie in the fact that one of the atoms has a support from below, whereas the second one - does not. But, in fact, if the support is removed instantaneously, nothing can change (according to the Doppler effect). However, for obtaining this final state the photons could be sent from different "depths", i.e. the effect would be different for the same state (place). Therefore, the observed effect represents the influence of just changed properties of a photon itself, rather than of the receiving atom position. It is just the photon, which becomes red (but not "the place of reception becomes blue"), which can be quite probably described in classical terms of the energy loss and changing a real frequency of a photon (rather than changing of observed frequency). The GRT's "explanation" of this displacement in terms of "bluing the energy levels of an absorbing atom", given in [21], is rather doubtful by the other reasons as well. Since the question is here about an individual atom, the given effect can not be a "characteristic of the place" (GRT's watch). For example, the atoms of gas are always (except the collision instant) in the free falling state, and no displacement at the given place would be observed. In liquids and solid bodies the atoms are moving too (even for $T\rightarrow 0$). Therefore, instead of distinct displacement of a line (this effect is highly sensitive even to velocities of some cm/s), the complete spreading of a line would be observed. But in any case not a "universal gravitational GRT effect" is obtained [21], but the effect, which depends on particular non-relativistic mechanisms participating in the given process. It is easily to take refuge in resonance effects (the presence of radiation lines), but if do we consider transitions to the continuous spectrum? Where does the continuous spectrum know the path passed by the photon from? And we must take into account that not each photon "falling" on an atom will be absorbed, but a part of photons always fly past just the same place "become blue" which waited for them. And if is any medium absent at all? Let a photon leave the "black hole", for example. It fly itself with the same energy, and places, which it flies by on the way, "become more and more blue" all the time. A fine poetry! The manipulation with mathematical symbols can not be considered as the "explanation" in physics. (For example, the masslessness condition in the third "explanation" of [21] is nothing else, but a hypothesis). The fact, that the Pound-Rebka experiment's explanation is correct in the energy terms exactly (the change of energy signifies the change of a photon frequency), is clear from following mental experiment (see Fig. 3.5).

Figure 3.5: Perpetuum mobile of GRT.
\begin{figure}\begin{center}\epsfxsize =7truecm

Let an electron and positron be annihilated in the gravitational field ${\bf g}$ underneath. Let the two obtained photons be reflected upwards. Let now the birth of a pair of particles to take place again overhead. If the energy of photons did not change at their rising in the field of gravity (recall a customary air on the Earth), then how could we without energy consumption lift the particles in the field of gravity to a high altitude (i.e. we have imparted them some additional potential energy)? Is it a perpetuum mobile, really? The similar contradiction will be more pronounced (and without using auxiliary reflections), if we use reaction of the other type, with radiation of one gamma-quantum, below and the appropriate reverse reaction above.

It seems rather strange that some relativists declare a possibility and necessity of the experimental verification of an "allegedly existing" space curvature (for our sole Universe!): but relative what could this curvature be measured? Experiments can note happening variations with physical values only (the method of comparison with the standards).

Summarizing the criticism of the RT basis, the implication is that we must return to the classical Newtonian notions of space and time. We must also return to the classical additive vector law of velocity addition for particles.

next up previous contents
Next: Once again on light speed Up: Criticism of the relativistic experiments Previous: Additional remarks   Contents
Sergey N. Arteha