Electric Sun verified

Original Article

NEWS ITEM

20 October 2009 Electric Sun Verified �Is it likely that any astonishing new developments are lying in wait for us? Is it possible that the cosmology of 500 years hence will extend as far beyond our present beliefs as our cosmology goes beyond that of Newton?� �Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun�s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly. >> Voyagers 1 and 2 (V1 and V2 above) reached the boundary of the Sun�s influence in 2005 and 2007, respectively, taking measurements as they left the solar system. Before IBEX, there was only data from these two points at the edge of the solar system. While exciting and valuable, the data they provided about this region raised more questions than they resolved. IBEX has filled in the entire interaction region, revealing surprising details completely unpredicted by any theories. This shows some of the fine detail of the ribbon in the blow-up section. Credit: SwRI [Click all images to enlarge]. The meter-wide, hexagonal IBEX monitors the edge of the solar system from Earth orbit by �seeing� the heliosphere�s outer boundary in the �light� of energetic neutral hydrogen atoms (ENA�s). The news releases of October 15 highlighted the difficulties this discovery causes. �The thing that�s really shocking is this ribbon,� says IBEX principal investigator David McComas of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. Researchers had expected gusts in the solar wind blowing against the boundary to create 20% or 30% variations in ENA emissions, but the ribbon is 10 times that intense�a narrow band blazing across the sky like some Milky Way on fire. Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, says McComas, but how they got there �is still a big mystery. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised." �I�m blown away completely,� says space physicist Neil Murphy of NASA�s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. �It�s amazing, it�s opened up a new kind of astronomy.� >> Annotated summary of basic findings from the ENA maps of the heliosheath by researchers from the Saturn Cassini mission. Credit: S. M. Krimigis et al., The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. "The expectations of NASA scientists are not being met because their shock front model is incorrect. The boundary that Voyager has reached is more complex and structured than a mechanical impact.� �Wal Thornhill, September 2006. >> The publicized image of the Sun�s interaction with interstellar space is like the shock front of a supersonic aircraft. We are told the �magnetic bubble� of the heliosphere protects us like a cocoon as the Sun and its planets travel through the Milky Way. The concept of Langmuir�s plasma sheath is entirely missing from this picture. It is electrically inert. Image credit: Adler Planetarium/Chicago IBEX has discovered that the heliosheath is dominated not by the Sun but by the Galaxy�s magnetic field. Since the galaxy's magnetic field traces the direction of interstellar electric current flow in space near the Sun, it is a result that conforms to the EU model of galaxies and stars. It is necessary to acknowledge that the cometary heliosphere model seems reasonable when some images of stars do have a cometary appearance. Examples of cometary stars are provided in the NASA news report: >> This image shows photographs of the heliospheres around other stars (called astrospheres) taken by a variety of telescopes. Credit: SwRI [Note that the title of the original has been changed here from �Astrospheres� because it makes the unsupported assumption that all stars have them in this cometary form]. Cometary phenomena are not a simple mechanical effect of an object plowing through a thin gas. Comets are an electrical phenomenon where the comet nucleus is a negative cathode in the Sun�s plasma discharge. Examples of cometary stars are uncommon because stars are normally a positive anode in the galactic discharge. Characteristically, cathodes tend to jet matter into the plasma to form spectacular comas and tails, as seen above. Stars may become comets in the process of electrical capture by a more highly charged star. It is a mistake to assume a cometary astrosphere model for all stars. However, a more fundamental conceptual error is to invoke stellar and galactic �winds� and the notion of tails being �swept downstream.� Astrospheres and comets are plasma discharge phenomena! Electrodynamic forces govern them. Discussions about the �external magnetic forces of the galactic wind� dominating the shape of the heliosphere highlights a curious blindspot in astrophysics. In 1970 the late Hannes Alfv�n counseled against the notion that magnetic fields can exist in space while ignoring their origin in cosmic electric currents and their circuits. Alfv�n predicted an imminent �crisis in cosmology.� I�m sure he never imagined that scientific revolutions could take a century or more in this era of global communication. But specialism and specialist jargon is the enemy of communication and the wide-ranging investigation needed to compose the �big picture� we call cosmology. And no scientist likes to admit their specialty is in crisis. For a more detailed perspective on the astrophysical crisis, I recommend my earlier article of April 2007, �The Astrophysical Crisis at Red Square.� There I wrote, �Alfv�n pioneered the stellar circuit concept and it seems his 'wiring diagram' is essentially correct but incomplete because it does not show the star's connection to the larger galactic circuit. Alfv�n remarked, "The [stellar] current closes at large distances, but we do not know where." Plasma cosmologists have supplied the answer by mapping the currents flowing along the arms of spiral galaxies. It is but a small step from there to see that all stars are the focus of Z-pinches within a galactic discharge. Normally the current flows in 'dark mode' so we don't usually see the spectacular bipolar 'wiring harnesses' of hyperactive stars.� The diagram appearing in that article is shown below, re-annotated. >> In 2007, twenty years after it was discovered, �the origin of the triple-ring nebula [of Supernova 1987A] has so far not found a satisfactory explanation.� Meanwhile, in 2005 I explained all three rings of supernova 1987A in terms of a stellar plasma Z-pinch. Above we see the essential features of a plasma Z-pinch experiment (left); the details of the concentric Birkeland current filament cylinders (center); and the 'witness plate' resulting from the galactic Birkeland current filaments in that cylinder striking the matter in the disk expelled from the star at the focus of supernova 1987A. The bright beads are like the effect of a ring of searchlights punching through a thin cloud. The tendency for pairing of the bright circular spots and the extremely slow expansion rate of the equatorial ring suggest the Z-pinch model is correct. A normal star will have the same Z-pinch environment as a supernova but at a much lower energy. So instead of a brilliant ring of lights in the sky, astronomers detect a �bright ribbon� of ENA�s, caused by modest excitation of matter from the Sun�s stellar �wind� by the local galactic Z-pinch. >> This diagram shows a conceptual cross-section along the central axis of the stellar Z-pinch at the Sun�s position. Whether the double layers exist within or outside the heliosphere is unknown. The diameter of the encircling cylinder is unknown. That of supernova 1987A is of the order of a light-year, which would make the diameter of the heliosphere more than 600 times smaller! Note that as a rotating charged body the Sun�s magnetic field is not aligned with the interstellar magnetic field and Z-pinch axis. The Sun�s magnetic field only has influence within the tiny heliosphere but it is modulated by galactic currents. Alfv�n�s axial �double layers� (DLs) have been included although their distance from the Sun is unknown. DLs are produced in current carrying plasma and are the one region where charge separation takes place in plasma and a high voltage is generated across them (see discussion below). The Z-pinch model offers a simple explanation for the �giant ribbon� found wrapped around the heliosphere. The Z-pinch is naturally aligned with the interstellar magnetic field. Solar �wind� ions are scattered and neutralized by electrons from the Birkeland current filaments to form ENA�s coming from the Z-pinch ring, a giant ring about the solar system and orthogonal to the interstellar magnetic field. The Sun�s heliospheric circuit is connected to the galaxy via the central column and the disk of charged particles. The current path is traced by magnetic fields. The �open� helical magnetic fields discovered high above the Sun�s poles by the Ulysses spacecraft are supportive of Alfv�n�s stellar circuit model. And the solar �wind� would seem to connect to the broader disk of charged particles about the heliosphere. Given the detail in this model we should expect, as more data comes in, that researchers may find in the ENA �ribbon,� bright spots, filamentary structures, and movement of the bright spots consistent with rotation of Birkeland current filament pairs and their possible coalescence. The Science journal reports the opinion of one of the researchers that �sorting out the heliosphere�s true shape will take more time �the geometry�s tough. The shape is no doubt somewhere between the two extremes of ideal comet and pure bubble, but all agree that researchers will have to understand how the ribbon forms to know the heliosphere�s true shape.� That is true, but scientists will continue to suffer surprises while they have �no doubt� that the galactic wind and the interstellar magnetic field are the dominant forces that shape the heliosphere. Researchers are keen to see how changes in the solar wind affect the ENA observations as the sun moves toward the maximum of its 11-year cycle. Such observations are very important. The solar cycle is controlled by its local galactic Z-pinch, so any variation in ENA�s may provide some clues about the origin of the quasi-cyclic variability in the circuit supplying DC electrical power to the Sun or �solar cycle.� The �brightness� of the ENA�s should vary, probably out of phase with the solar cycle. In 1984 Alfv�n predicted from his circuit model of the Sun there are two double layers, one connected to each pole at some unknown distance from the Sun or heliosphere. He wrote, �As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory... Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object.� � H. Alfv�n, Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, December 1986. There is some other research to be encouraged by this ENAs discovery, which should throw further light on the Sun�s electrical environment. The axial double layers should be detectable as nearby, fluctuating radio and cosmic ray sources. In fact their oscillation may modulate the current flow and be a source of the solar cycle. Already there has been a report of an unexplained high-energy cosmic ray �hot spot� roughly in the direction of the inferred �heliotail.� The energies of the cosmic rays are in the range possible by acceleration in a galactic double layer (Carlqvist). Confirmation may soon come from observations of high-energy cosmic-ray electrons. The electrons undergo synchrotron and inverse Compton scattering losses and thus cannot travel very far from their sources, which makes them sensitive probes of nearby galactic sources and propagation. If the diagram above is close to the real situation then we might expect cosmic-ray electrons to arrive from the double layer in the opposite direction in the sky to the nuclear cosmic rays. The EU model is based on a hierarchy of repeated patterns of plasma behavior, from the size of a galaxy down to a few centimeters in the laboratory. Therefore it is subject to experimental confirmation, unlike most astrophysical theory today. So discoveries from space like this one should trigger experiments in plasma laboratories around the world instead of theorists wasting resources by conjuring up ever more complex and unlikely models based on invalid concepts of space plasma. IBEX's recent results that have taken researchers by surprise have given yet more strength to the EU model, a model that confidently predicts that the shape of the Sun�s galactic plasma environment is the hourglass, Z-pinch shape of planetary nebulae and supernovae, aligned with the local interstellar magnetic field. The beautiful symmetrical patterns that arise in plasma discharges from very simple principles renders all modeling that ignores the electrical nature of matter and the universe worthless. Wal Thornhill Back to top Print friendly page

Black Holes -- An Astronomical Myth

by Tarun Biswas (Jan. 22, 2003)

---

Physics is often a quest for the exotic truth. With many such truths having been discovered in the last century, our need for them has intensified like a drug addiction. Now we often find truth to be not exotic enough. So we settle for the exotic that has little to do with the truth. Einstein's theory of gravity was considered quite exotic at one time. But now we need to ratchet up the "exoticness" with things like black holes. Here I will try to present the "unexotic" truth or the lack thereof in the popular understanding of black holes.

How do I identify a black hole?

Well, how do I identify a nose? When I was young someone must have shown me my nose (and those of others) and told me what it was called. So now, whenever I see a nose, I quickly identify it as such. This is how we all identify most things we see around us. We remember definitions of objects by observation -- let us call this kind of definition a "definition by observation". Then whenever we see a new object we match it with existing definitions in memory.

Unfortunately, the definition of a black hole is not a definition by observation. It is a "definition from theory" -- the theory of general relativity to be precise. This makes identification of a black hole a bit more tricky. General relativity is the theory of gravity as presented by Einstein. It is an improvement over the earlier theory of gravity presented by Newton. It is an improvement because it explains several astronomical observations in the solar system much better than the Newtonian theory. With such spectacular success in the solar system it is natural to want to test the theory beyond the solar system. We must remember here that a theory is only as good as the experiments it explains. So we need some theoretical predictions of Einstein's theory that can be tested experimentally beyond the solar system. Enter the black hole -- a theoretical prediction of general relativity in need of experimental verification. Hence, I conclude that the definition of a black hole comes from theory rather than observation. So, to identify an object as a black hole, we must make sure it matches with the definition from theory and remember that there exists no definition from observation. Moreover, the existence of a theoretical definition does not guarantee the existence of such objects. Only experiment can tell for sure.

Black hole -- the definition from theory.

As one may expect, this theoretical definition of a black hole is deeply mathematical. In the following I shall present some possibly observable effects of the mathematics.

The simplest black holes are spherically symmetric. For any spherically symmetric object (may be a star) one may define an imaginary sphere around it of radius r_s = 2GM/c², where G (= 6.67 X 10^-11 Nm²/kg²) is the universal gravitational constant, M the mass of the object and c the speed of light in vacuum. r_s is called the Schwarzchild radius. If all the material of the object is within this imaginary sphere (that is if the surface of the object is at a radius less than r_s) then this imaginary sphere is called the event horizon and the object is called a black hole. Note that if the radius of the surface of the object is larger than r_s then there is no event horizon and the object is not a black hole.

Now, let us see what the big deal is about this event horizon. The region within the event horizon is usually referred to as "inside the black hole". But first we need to understand all the oddities of the horizon itself. If you stand outside the black hole and watch a clock (or watch) placed precisely on the event horizon, it will appear to have stopped. More generally, if you put a clock in a spaceship and let it fall towards the black hole while you watch it from outside, the clock will appear to progressively slow down. This is the so-called gravitational time dilation. Theoretically, this time dilation becomes infinite at the event horizon (the clock stops). However, this time dilation also makes the spaceship itself fall slower as it gets closer to the event horizon. So, it takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon (as seen by you the outside observer) -- which really means that it never gets there. On the other hand, if there is an astronaut in the spaceship, he/she will find the clock working quite normally. Hence, according to the astronaut the spaceship will reach the horizon in finite time and then proceed to go inside the black hole quite eventlessly (provided there is some technology to prevent the spaceship, clock and astronaut from coming apart due to strong gravitational tidal forces!).

While you, the outside observer, watch the spaceship clock getting slower, your own clock is running quite normally (according to you). So, by the time the spaceship clock reaches the horizon, your clock has run out of time (reached infinity in time!). This means whatever happens to the spaceship after it enters the black hole is unseen by you -- hence the name "event horizon". The astronaut, of course, does not reach infinite time at the horizon and hence gets to see what is inside the black hole.

For a rough idea of the Schwarzchild radius, one may compute that of our own Sun. It turns out to be about 3 kilometers. The actual radius of our Sun is about 7 hundred thousand kilometers. So, if this huge bulk is squeezed into a 3 kilometer radius sphere, we would have a black hole.

Myth #1 -- A Black hole can be identified from outside its event horizon.

General relativity shares an interesting feature with its predecessor (Newtonian gravity). The gravitational field outside a spherical star depends only on its mass and gives no clue about its size. What this means is that if our Sun were to suddenly shrink tomorrow (even to black hole dimensions), the planetary orbits would remain unchanged.

This is quite a disappointment for the art of black hole identification. As long as you look at phenomena outside the star and outside the expected event horizon, all gravitational effects will be the same whether the star radius is greater or less than the Schwarzchild radius r_s. Hence, from outside the star one cannot tell if it is collapsed down to its black hole size or not. So, the only way to determine whether a star is a black hole or not would be to send a probe inside it. But we would have to wait literally forever (infinite time) for the probe to even reach the event horizon, let alone go in and return.

Now, I know many claims have been made of observed black holes. The arguments given involve very strong gravity near some stars which produce all kinds of violent activity and what is more there is darkness near the center. But all of this can happen just as well near a very heavy star that is still not a black hole. We have to remember that the definition of a black hole is mathematical and that mathematical definition must be fulfilled before anything can be called a black hole. If we were to take to qualitative definitions like "a black hole looks dark in the middle and sucks up everything around it," we would soon find black holes in our toilets.

Myth #2 -- Some stars can collapse to become black holes.

The popular story is that in a supernova large amounts of mass can get crushed at the center to form a black hole. Well, general relativity disagrees. Think of a black hole being formed by a certain amount of mass M in the form of a fine dust (debris) collapsing due to gravity. It will become a black hole when all of M falls within a sphere of radius r_s = 2GM/c² as given above. But closer it gets to doing this the greater is the time dilation for the outermost pieces of the debris. The last few pieces that need to fall in to form the black hole will take literally forever (infinite time) to do so. Hence, a star cannot collapse to form a black hole. What it can form is a ball of dust which is close to being a black hole at every spherical layer within it but not quite. In such a star, time dilation is so large for every falling piece of debris that it appears to be "frozen" in time. It can be shown that such a "frozen star" would have a density profile that reduces as the inverse square of distance from the center.

So, the only way the universe can have black holes is if they were there all the time. Of course, this is a conclusion of general relativity which is only a theory and a theory can be wrong. However, if general relativity is wrong and we need to abandon it, we would also have to abandon the definition of black holes that comes from it and there exists no other definition.

Myth #3 -- Black holes must be very heavy and dense.

The only condition that a black hole needs to satisfy is the mathematical one given earlier. This definition does not provide any critical mass or density for a black hole. A jug of water (say 1 kg) could become a black hole if squeezed down to a sphere of radius 1.5 X 10^-27 meters (its Schwarzchild radius). At the same time the lightest element hydrogen at standard temperature and pressure could form a black hole if one were to gather up a ball of the gas of radius 4.3 X 10¹³ meters.

The myth started because of a kind of star called white dwarfs. These are stars that cannot collapse any further because of a quantum mechanical effect (Pauli exclusion principle). This effect does not allow more than one electron in any given quantum state. When gravity tries to collapse a star beyond a certain limit, it tries to force electrons into identical quantum states. To avoid this, the electrons generate a reverse pressure that prevents the star from collapsing any further. However, if the mass of the star is beyond a certain limit (called the Chandrasekhar limit), the gravitational forces are strong enough to make the electrons combine with protons to form neutrons. Then there are no more electrons left to produce that reverse pressure and hence stars heavier than the Chandrasekhar limit do not stop collapsing at the white dwarf stage. But then the neutrons in such a star (called a neutron star) also obey Pauli exclusion principle and they produce a new reverse pressure to hold up the star. At this stage some have tried to repeat the Chandrasekhar limit idea and figured that beyond a certain limiting mass even a neutron star will collapse further -- this time into a black hole. This is where the reasoning gets a bit fuzzy. Unlike the earlier mechanism of electrons combining with protons, there is no known nuclear process by which neutrons can combine with anything to cheat Pauli exclusion principle.

But there is really no need to figure out mechanisms of collapse of neutron stars. A neutron star, without any further collapse, could be a black hole (if it has enough mass). For that matter a white dwarf or even a big ball of hydrogen could be a black hole. The reason none of these will actually collapse to become a black hole is the infinite time dilation problem discussed above.

Myth #4 -- Nothing (not even light) can escape from a black hole.

From the point of view of the outside observer, nothing (not even light) ever enters the black hole. So, the question of escape is quite moot in this case. Hence, the question of escape must be from the point of view of the astronaut (and his/her spaceship) falling into the black hole.

The equation of motion (a differential equation) of any small object (an unpowered spaceship in particular) moving around a black hole as seen by an observer on the object can be found in any general relativity text book. It is sometimes called the geodesic equation as the trajectories of objects moving under the influence of gravity alone are called geodesics. Sometimes these trajectories are also called free fall trajectories as an unpowered spaceship will "fall" along these trajectories. The geodesic equation is time-reversal symmetric -- which means that if the unpowered spaceship could "fall" from point A to point B it can also retrace its path back from point B to point A if somehow one could reverse its momentum at point B. As points A and B could be anywhere in general, one could pick point A outside the black hole and point B inside it. This means that if one can go from outside to inside the black hole, one can just as well go the other way if somehow the momentum direction can be reversed. The reversing of momentum requires a finite change in momentum and as it can be done in nonzero time, it can be done by a finite amount of force. This force, of course, has to be nongravitational in nature. It is also expected to be huge. But as long as it is finite, no laws of physics are violated. So one may picture this spaceship with a tiny passenger capsule and a huge fuel compartment that falls freely from point A to B. When it reaches point B the rocket engines start and all the fuel is burnt to produce enough nongravitational force in order to reverse the momentum of just the tiny passenger capsule. Once its job is done, the fuel compartment itself can be ejected allowing the passenger capsule to follow the geodesic backwards and return to point A outside the black hole. Hence, we have escape from a black hole!

The above proof may seem qualitative, but it is actually mathematically complete. I did not have to write down the actual equation because the only aspect of the equation that is relevant to the proof is the time-reversal symmetry.

The "no escape" myth has established itself in literature due to a misinterpretation of a unique feature of geodesics within a black hole. Consider a black hole that has all its mass concentrated at the center. It can be shown that a geodesic entering the black hole at any angle is doomed to spiral into the center. This is in contrast to geodesics that remain outside the black hole. Such outside geodesics can reach a nearest point of approach (from the center) and then move away. This is like paths of comets that come close to the Sun and then move away. However, one must realize that geodesics are paths of freely falling objects only. So, an unpowered spaceship will truly fall to the center of the black hole once it crosses the event horizon (to be precise, once it gets any closer than 3r_s/2 from the center). But as soon as the rocket engines of a spaceship are fired nongravitational forces are applied and the spaceship no longer follows a geodesic. Once the momentum of the spaceship is reversed the rocket engines are turned off and the spaceship is free to follow a geodesic which now happens to be the old geodesic in reverse.

In case a general mathematical proof has not convinced you, I have a computer program for you to play with. It solves the geodesic equation numerically and plots the trajectory of a spaceship if the launch conditions are given.

To download the program click here.

An example of a trajectory plotted by this program is shown below. The red spot is the launch position -- the point B inside the black hole. The green circle is the event horizon. This is an escaping spaceship!

However, there is one little problem. The astronaut (in the spaceship) who went from point A to point B saw the outside observer's time go to infinity when he/she reached the event horizon. So what outside observer time will the astronaut return to after he/she goes into the black hole and returns? General relativity has no answer. This allows us to conjecture freely and create all kinds of science fiction. For example, the astronaut may reappear in a whole new universe with a whole new time line.

The reason for the failure of general relativity here is in its "local" nature. This means that all equations of general relativity are differential equations that hold true at individual points in space-time. When we have to come up with large scale solutions, we merely "tack" on these individual point solutions. Such an approach can get into trouble when the topology of space-time is not simple. For example, for cosmological predictions of general relativity, we need to make ad hoc assumptions about the topology of the universe. General relativity cannot tell us what it should be. In the case of black holes the weird thing is that the astronaut's time line and the outside observer's time line do not have corresponding points everywhere. The infinity of the outside observer's time line maps to the astronaut's time at the point of entry into the black hole. The astronaut's time line clearly has points beyond this point but the outside observer's does not. This mismatch of time lines is a topological one and cannot be addressed by general relativity. However, all such problems would disappear if we assumed that black holes did not exist since time began. As I have shown that new black holes cannot form in finite time, this would make sure that there are never any black holes. Besides, as we cannot identify a black hole from outside, it may not make much physical sense to talk about them anyway.

---

Reader Counter 3230 .

Newest Ridiculousness

Jet From Supermassive Black Hole Seen Blasting Neighboring Galaxy

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 18, 2007; A03

A jet of highly charged radiation from a supermassive black hole at the center of a distant galaxy is blasting another galaxy nearby -- an act of galactic violence that astronomers said yesterday they have never seen before.

Using images from the orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory and other sources, scientists said the extremely intense jet from the larger galaxy can be seen shooting across 20,000 light-years of space and plowing into the outer gas and dust of the smaller one.

The smaller galaxy is being transformed by the radiation and the jet is being bent before shooting millions of light-years farther in a new direction.

"What we've identified is an act of violence by a black hole, with an unfortunate nearby galaxy in the line of fire," said Dan Evans, the study leader at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge. He said any planets orbiting the stars of the smaller galaxy would be dramatically affected, and any life forms would likely die as the jet's radiation transformed the planets' atmosphere.

Black holes are generally thought of as mysterious cosmic phenomena that swallow matter, but the supermassive ones that occur at the center of many -- possibly all -- galaxies also set loose tremendous bursts of energy as matter swirls around the disk of material that circles the black hole but does not make it in.

That energy, often in the form of highly charged gamma rays and X-rays, shoots out in powerful jets that can be millions of light-years long and 1,000 light-years wide.

Scientists are just beginning to understand these jets, which not only transform matter in their path but also help produce "stellar nurseries," where new stars are formed.

Evans's collaborator, Martin Hardcastle of the University of Hertfordshire in England, said the collision they have identified began no more than 1 million years ago and could continue for 10 million to 100 million more years. Hardcastle called the collision a great opportunity to learn more about the jets.

"We see jets all over the universe, but we're still struggling to understand some of their basic properties," he said. "This system . . . gives us a chance to learn how they're affected when they slam into something -- like a galaxy -- and what they do after that."

The two galaxies are more than 1.4 billion light-years away from the Milky Way galaxy (a light-year equals about 6 trillion miles). But they are close to each other in cosmic terms -- about as far as the distance from Earth to the center of the Milky Way. That the two appear to be moving toward a merger may have played a role in creating such a powerful jet from the larger galaxy's central black hole.

The researchers said that the collision would have no effect on Earth, but the process is one that could play out in our galaxy a billion years into the future.

The galaxy Andromeda is the closest to the Milky Way, and the two are gradually coming closer to each other. In time, astronomers say, the two will merge, and the process may cause the dormant central black holes in either the Milky Way or Andromeda to become active and begin sending out similarly powerful jets.

If a jet were to hit Earth, Evans said, it would destroy the ozone layer and collapse the magnetosphere that blankets the planet and protects it from harmful solar particles. Without the ozone layer and magnetosphere, he said, much of life on Earth would end.

"This jet could be causing all sorts of problems for the smaller galaxy it is pummeling," Evans said.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York, said the discovery illustrates how researchers can now observe astronomical phenomena using many different tools and understand how they behave at many different points along the electromagnetic spectrum. Only when scientists measure a galaxy at all different wavelengths, he said, "can you really understand what's going on."

In making their discovery, the researchers used data from three orbiting instruments -- the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope -- as well as ground-based observatories including the Very Large Array telescope in New Mexico and Britain's Multi-Element Radio Linked Interferometer Network. The Astrophysical Journal will publish the results next year.

Latest Junk Science

Dark matter clues in oldest stars

By Liz Seward Science reporter, York

A computer model of the early Universe indicates the first stars could have formed in spectacular, long filaments.

These structures, which may have been thousands of light-years across, would have been shaped by "dark matter".

Scientists know very little about this type of matter, even though it accounts for most of the mass in the cosmos.

The researchers told the British Association (BA) Festival of Science that their work could reveal the true nature of dark matter.

Liang Gao and Tom Theuns from Durham University, UK, also reported their findings in the journal Science.

Quick or slow

Astronomers believe that more than three-quarters of the matter in our Universe may be "dark". It does not reflect or emit detectable light, and so cannot be seen directly - but it does gravitationally pull on normal matter (the gas, stars, and planets we see in space).

It is this interaction that allows scientists to predict its existence - even if they cannot say what it is. Various types of exotic particle seem to be the favoured theory.

The new research, though, may give some clues as to dark matter's properties. Computer modelling suggests there is a link between the structures assumed by early stars and the temperature of the dark matter amongst them.

Tom Theuns, from Durham's Institute for Computational Cosmology, told the festival: "What we found for the first time is that the nature of the dark matter is crucial to the nature of the first stars.

"In cold dark matter the particles move very slowly; in warm dark matter they move very quickly," he explained.

"We found that if the dark matter consists of these fast moving particles, then the first stars form in very long, thin filaments.

"The filaments have a length about a quarter the size of the Milky Way and contain an amount of matter and gas about 10 million times the mass of the Sun, so that provides a lot of fuel for many stars."

Exotic collection

Some of the stars that formed within the filaments would have had a relatively low mass, which is of interest to astronomers as they have a long lifespan and could still survive today.

Dr Theuns added: "In stark contrast, what happens in (the simulation with) cold dark matter is very, very different.

"Here, the first stars formed in little lumps of dark matter, and just one star per dark matter lump. And these stars are probably very massive as well: 100 solar masses.

"Because these stars are so massive, they die very quickly; so you wouldn't find such stars in the Milky Way today," he said.

Scientists believe that the temperature of the dark matter indicates what kind of particles it is made of.

Warm dark matter would probably consist of exotic particles known as gravitinos, neutralinos and sterile neutrinos.

However, cold dark matter could comprise particles known as axions and wimps.

Observational pointers

The research team hopes answers could come from astronomers who are now scouring the skies to find signs of very old stars.

If dark matter is warm, then some of these very first stars may be in the Milky Way today.

However, detecting the massive stars formed in cold dark matter would require very powerful telescopes capable of "peering into the very distant Universe," Dr Theuns added.

"We don't know what the dark matter is, we don't know what the first stars are. If we bring these two problems together, when we know more about one, then we can say something about the other."

Black Holes: Have They Reached Their Use-By-Date?

Black holes have garnered so much publicity over the years that they seem almost to have assumed themselves into existence, but on closer inspection the evidence underpinning their existence is not at all impervious to scrutiny. In fact, current research into black holes is turning up some fairly quirky results, which may prove correct Einstein's original hunch that black holes couldn't possibly exist, and ultimately show black hole advocates the door. As new observational devices and methods for detecting celestial objects become available, astonishing alternatives for phenomena normally associated with black holes - suspected to reside at the heart of most galaxies - abound. New theories include anything from dark matter or vacuum filled bubbles, to magnetic balls of plasma situated where a black hole should reside at the center of a quasar. Whether or not these theories represent a collective step toward a greater understanding of these mysterious celestial objects is anyone's guess.

To be fair, black holes (BHs) haven't really just been insinuated into reality, and scientists think that they have enough data and theory on their side to back up claims of their existence. But critics of BH theory are comforted by the knowledge that no one has yet seen a BH, and those supermassive celestial objects responsible for all manner of phenomena could in fact be anything. Theories suggesting that BHs may not even exist are bolstered further by a substantial weakness in BH theory; namely, the inability to reconcile Einstein's classical theory with quantum laws, which determine the behavior of fundamental fields and particles.

When the nuclear fuel of a star with a mass more than 3 times that of the sun runs out, it starts to collapse under the force of its own gravity, after which a singularity may form. Initially it was thought that such singularities might divulge the secrets of the universe's distant beginnings, but this, of course, turned out to be impossible. So much matter squeezed into such a small area of space creates a situation where nothing - not even light - can escape the powerful pull of gravity. Not without breaking some causal law, anyway. So getting a peek inside is out of the question.

Formed along with the singularity is what is known as an "event horizon," which Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University, says is an "essential feature" of a BH. "An observer in a space ship would notice nothing in particular happening as the horizon is crossed from the outside to the inside," writes Penrose in The Road To Reality. "Yet, as soon as that perilous journey has been undertaken, there is no return." While our hapless observer continues to be dragged in toward the singularity situated at the center, the subsequent tidal effects, says Penrose, "would mount very rapidly to infinity, totally destroying the observer in less than a minute." The infinity property associated with BHs is based on a mathematical model that predicts matter will continue to cascade into an infinitely dense singularity, where space and time no longer hold sway. This may turn out to be different if, say, some new physical laws came into existence, which may arise as a consequence of finally merging classical models with quantum laws.

As it stands, however, scientists are quite happy to accept that BHs exist because of a number of measured phenomena that are quite convincing when correlated. Why? Well, when a BH orbits a companion star, for instance, it produces distinctive intermittent x-rays as it sucks up material from its counterpart's surface. These particular x-rays are integral to detecting BHs, as scientists use the x-rays to determine the BH's distinctive size and gravitational strength. But for some scientists, a nagging doubt still persists as to the true nature of the powerful bodies that exist at the center of galaxies.

A recent deep intergalactic survey conducted by a group of European and American scientists to ferret out supermassive black holes in nearby galaxies found, to their surprise, remarkably few of them. They presumed that because they couldn't find them, they must be hiding behind thick clouds of dust, which only the strongest of x-rays could penetrate. Based on data from the European Space Agency's International Gamma Ray Astrophysics Laboratory (Integral), only 15 percent of these hidden black holes were found, which was later revised by NASA to be around 10 percent. "Integral is a telescope that should see nearby hidden black holes, but we have come up short," said Volker Beckmann, of NASA Goddard and the University of Maryland.

The problem lies in the fact that even taking into account the hidden BHs that they have found, they cannot adequately account for the quantity of cosmic background x-rays already known to exist. One theory to explain the shortfall, according to team leader Loredana Bassani, is that these hidden BHs are better at hiding than scientists first thought. "The fact that we do not see them does not necessarily mean that they are not there, just that we don't see them. Perhaps they are more deeply hidden than we think and so are therefore below even Integral's detection limit," said Bassani. Not very encouraging, so it's not surprising that there's a swathe of alternative theories beginning to surface.

But let's back up a bit to what Penrose was saying about event horizons, as he claims that they are an "essential" aspect of BHs. If event horizons did not exist the universe would no longer be protected by the singularity at a BH's center, which is a very bad thing, in case you're wondering. As we've already discovered, physical laws related to time and space cease to exist, theoretically, near a singularity, so things could get really bizarre if not for the protective shield of the event horizon. So vital is this weirdness shield that Penrose argues that no singularity can ever be "naked," a hypothesis that he calls "cosmic censorship." Bassani might be confident that BHs are out there even though no one can seem to find them, but what if someone said that they had devised a theory showing that a particular BH did not have an event horizon? Would you call it a BH or a BS theory?

If no event horizon existed it would obviously mean that the consensus on black hole theory is either flawed or that black holes don't exist in the form outlined by those theories. But astrophysicist Rudy Schild, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, says that there is even more bad news for black hole theory. Schild's paper, entitled "Observations Supporting The Intrinsic Magnetic Moment Inside The Central Compact Object Within The Quasar Q0957+561," is concerned with the characteristic properties of one particular quasar, called Q0957+561. The scientific consensus is that quasars are powered by the accretion of matter onto supermassive black holes within the nuclei of far-flung galaxies, and to test the veracity of this consensus Schild trained no less than 14 telescopes upon the quasar. As with other investigations as this type, Schild analyzed the flickerings of the quasar and used micro-lensing to determine its scale and internal properties.

Schild crosschecked all available data relating to black hole theories with his own findings and found that all of the "plausible black hole models" were "unsatisfactory." Schild considered the findings produced by his team's analysis to be extremely important, and described the center of the quasar as a "new non-standard magnetically dominated internal structure," which he thereafter dubbed the Schild-Vakulik Structure. Schild concluded that the Schild-Vakulik structure in quasar Q0957+561 was consistent within the context of the Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) model. Subsequently, Schild concluded: "Since observations of the Schild-Vakulik structure within Q0957+561 imply that this quasar contains an observable intrinsic magnetic moment, this represents strong evidence that the quasar does not have an event horizon." The existence of a MECO coupled with the absence of an event horizon means that there is not a black hole to be seen in Schild's theory.

If Schild's theory proves to be correct it would seem that black hole theory as we know it will cease to exist. Many scientists disagree with Schild's theory, and it will be interesting to see how events unfold in regard to the Schild-Vakulik structure. However, even if Schild's theory does turn out to be wrong, it still leaves science somewhat in the dark about black holes, or whatever massive objects lie at the center of galaxies. Perhaps there is some overlap of the differing theories posited, and inconsistencies between theories arise from us not yet having the full picture. Or maybe we need to distinguish what the other 90 percent of the universe is comprised of before we can arrive at any conclusions about black holes. Only time will tell.

Denying The Existence Of Time

16 June 2005
Denying The Existence Of Time
By Rusty Rockets

Perhaps humans invented the concept of time out of mortal fear; reasoning that if time were tangible then its degenerative march could be controlled, just as mankind has tried to subdue other aspects of the natural world. Immortality would be within our grasp! But while time may be a convenient metronome that delivers neatly portioned slivers of existence to conscious beings, the idea of a ‘universal time’ is looking increasingly fanciful, at least to some physicists.

One individual, Peter Lynds, has put his reputation on the line to try and prove that thinking of time and motion in measured segments, like frames in a film, is wrong-headed. Funnily enough, that’s what his critics think of his theory. Lynds goes as far as saying that if instants, rather than intervals, of time were a cosmological truth, then none of us would be here today. In fact no physical object, no mass or energy down to the smallest of particles would ever be in motion. This is probably not the sort of immortality that our ancestors had in mind.

The most amazing thing about this whole story is that Lynds is not a trained scientist. But he does have a passionate interest in physics and he is also a huge fan of Einstein’s work. Lynds’ theory, Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity, has caused quite a commotion amongst academics, some even saying that his theory is a hoax and that Lynds doesn’t actually exist. Skepticism and scorn of Lynds’ work has continued but this barrage of criticism doesn’t look like it will shut him up anytime soon.

Much of the opposition to Lynds’ ideas can be attributed to his questioning of scientific orthodoxy. He doesn’t mind suggesting that Einstein, Hawking and other respected figures are just plain wrong. He claims some theories are redundant, such as ‘imaginary’ time, and others just need modification, such as further developing Einstein’s theories so as to iron out some of the contradictions. Most of these would take up too much space in trying to explain; so concentrating on Lynds’ main theme will be the goal here.

In the beginning there was darkness… and there was no time. Time becomes immaterial in empty space, and demonstrates clearly that without objects-in-motion - mass and energy - there is nothing to measure the relative passing of time. So how God knew what day it was in the beginning is anyone’s guess. But we digress. Time is relative to mass and energy, there is no ideal universal clock. As a concept, time cannot precede mass and energy, simply because the idea of time is reliant on the relative motions of celestial bodies. As Lynds says: “if there is no mass-energy, there is no space-time;” both are fixed and enmeshed. Because of this, time also has no direction or flow, as we conceive it subjectively; “it is the relative order of events that is important.” This is what led Lynds to claim that there is “no precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process.”

The Greek mathematician Zeno conjured up a famous paradox that involved halving the distance between starting and end-points in time and space. The paradox involves a person trying to move from point A to point B. In order to move from point A, say, your doorway, to point B, say the pub, you must first reach half the distance between A and B, but before that, you must first reach half of that distance. And before that, you must first reach half of that distance and so on ad infinitum. You’ll never reach the pub! Zeno’s paradox seems to make a mockery out of divvying up time to conveniently suit scientific purposes but we know that this doesn’t happen in the real world.

For example, when you are driving in your car, your speed is relative to the road beneath you. There is no point on your journey that could be called one instant in time. It can only be an interval of time. Even if you took a photograph of the car travelling along the road, the photograph would be an interval related to the speed of the camera, perhaps a thirtieth of a second. It doesn’t matter how much you reduce the time interval, it will always still be an interval, rather than an instant.

If there are no measured instants then there is no infinity paradox, which demonstrates that there is no actual time measurement. In short, there is only relative motion between objects, and the order in which they occur. To make it even more confusing, Lynds proposes that this theory demonstrates that a body in motion has no distinct position or coordinate.

This basic account of Lynds’ theory brings us back to human perceptions of time and why the brain needs to have a concept of time. We are finite beings in an infinite universe (as far as we know) and understanding the universe requires that we are able to measure the events and objects that make up the universe. Being able to control our physical environment by allocating and referring to time in ‘instants’ is a handy way of dealing with the problem. But it seems increasingly likely that we need to change the way in which we approach, observe and evaluate the universe’s dimensions before we have any hope of understanding any of the universe’s mysteries. Perhaps Lynds’ theory is just what we need to get started.

Rethinking Relativity

by Tom Bethell

No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine the foundations of modern physics--Einstein's theory of relativity in particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would contradict the special theory of relativity of 1905, which asserts that nothing can go faster than light. This claim about the special status of the speed of light has become part of the world view of educated laymen in the twentieth century.

Special relativity, as opposed to the general theory (1916), is considered by experts to be above criticism, because it has been confirmed "over and over again." But several dissident physicists believe that there is a simpler way of looking at the facts, a way that avoids the mind-bending complications of relativity. Their arguments can be understood by laymen. I wrote about one of these dissidents, Petr Beckmann, over five years ago (TAS, August 1993, and Correspondence, TAS, October 1993). The present article introduces new people and arguments. The subject is important because if special relativity is supplanted, much of twentieth-century physics, including quantum theory, will have to be reconsidered in that light.

The article in Physics Letters A was written by Tom Van Flandern, a research associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland. He also publishes Meta Research Bulletin, which supports "promising but unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy." In the 1990's, he worked as a special consultant to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of satellites whose atomic clocks allow ground observers to determine their position to within about a foot. Van Flandern reports that an intriguing controversy arose before GPS was even launched. Special relativity gave Einsteinians reason to doubt whether it would work at all. In fact, it works fine. (But more on that later.)

The publication of his article is a breakthrough of sorts. For years, most editors of mainstream physics journals have automatically rejected articles arguing against special relativity. This policy was informally adopted in the wake of the Herbert Dingle controversy. A professor of science at the University of London, Dingle had written a book popularizing special relativity, but by the 1960's he had become convinced that it couldn't be true. So he wrote another book, Science at the Crossroads (1972), contradicting the first. Scientific journals, especially Nature, were bombarded with his (and others') letters.

An editor of Physics Letters A promised Van Flandern that reviewers would not be allowed to reject his article simply because it conflicted with received wisdom. Van Flandern begins with the "most amazing thing" he learned as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale: that all gravitational interactions must be taken as instantaneous. At the same time, students were also taught that Einstein's special relativity proved that nothing could propagate faster than light in a vacuum. The disagreement "sat there like an irritant," Van Flandern told me. He determined that one day he would find its resolution. Today, he thinks that a new interpretation of relativity may be needed.

The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action. By the time the Sun's "pull" reaches us, the Earth will have "moved on" for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the Sun's pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth's pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces "would be to double the Earth's distance from the Sun in 1200 years." Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.

Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun--that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its light comes to us from one direction, its "pull" from a slightly different direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity.

It might seem strange that something so fundamental to our understanding of physics can still be a matter of debate. But that in itself should encourage us to wonder how much we really know about the physical world. In certain Internet discussion groups, "the most frequently asked question and debated topic is 'What is the speed of gravity?'" Van Flandern writes. It is heard less often in the classroom, but only "because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question." They understand the argument that it must go very fast indeed, but they also have been trained not to let anything exceed Einstein's speed limit.

So maybe there is something wrong with special relativity after all.

In The ABC of Relativity (1925), Bertrand Russell said that just as the Copernican system once seemed impossible and now seems obvious, so, one day, Einstein's relativity theory "will seem easy." But it remains as "difficult" as ever, not because the math is easy or difficult (special relativity requires only high-school math, general relativity really is difficult), but because elementary logic must be abandoned. "Easy Einstein" books remain baffling to almost all. The sun-centered solar system, on the other hand, has all along been easy to grasp. Nonetheless, special relativity (which deals with motion in a straight line) is thought to be beyond reproach. General relativity (which deals with gravity, and accelerated motion in general) is not regarded with the same awe. Stanford's Francis Everitt, the director of an experimental test of general relativity due for space-launch next year, has summarized the standing of the two theories in this way: "I would not be at all surprised if Einstein's general theory of relativity were to break down," he wrote. "Einstein himself recognized some serious shortcomings in it, and we know on general grounds that it is very difficult to reconcile with other parts of modern physics. With regard to special relativity, on the other hand, I would be much more surprised. The experimental foundations do seem to be much more compelling." This is the consensus view.

Dissent from special relativity is small and scattered. But it is there, and it is growing. Van Flandern's article is only the latest manifestation. In 1987, Petr Beckmann, who taught at the University of Colorado, published Einstein Plus Two, pointing out that the observations that led to relativity can be more simply reinterpreted in a way that preserves universal time. The journal he founded, Galilean Electrodynamics, was taken over by Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut (Physics), and is now edited by Cynthia Kolb Whitney of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts. Hayden held colloquia on Beckmann's ideas at several New England universities, but could find no physicist who even tried to put up an argument.

A brief note on Einstein's most famous contribution to physics--the formula that everyone knows. When they hear that heresy is in the air, some people come to the defense of relativity with this question: "Atom bombs work, don't they?" They reason as follows: The equation E = mc2 was discovered as a byproduct of Einstein's (special) theory of relativity. (True.) Relativity, they conclude, is indispensable to our understanding of the way the world works. But that does not follow. Alternative derivations of the famous equation dispense with relativity. One such was provided by Einstein himself in 1946. And it is simpler than the relativistic rigmarole. But few Einstein books or biographies mention the alternative. They admire complexity, and cling to it.

Consider Clifford M. Will of Washington University, a leading proponent of relativity today. "It is difficult to imagine life without special relativity," he says in Was Einstein Right? "Just think of all the phenomena or features of our world in which special relativity plays a role. Atomic energy, both the explosive and the controlled kind. The famous equation E=mc2 tells how mass can be converted into extraordinary amounts of energy." Note the misleading predicate, "plays a role." He knows that the stronger claim, "is indispensable," would be pounced on as inaccurate. Is there an alternative way of looking at all the facts that supposedly would be orphaned without relativity? Is there a simpler way? A criterion of simplicity has frequently been used as a court of appeal in deciding between theories. If it is made complex enough, the Ptolemaic system can predict planetary positions correctly. But the Sun-centered system is much simpler, and ultimately we prefer it for that reason.

Tom Van Flandern says the problem is that the Einstein experts who have grown accustomed to "Minkowski diagrams and real relativistic thinking" find the alternative of universal time and "Galilean space" actually more puzzling than their own mathematical ingenuities. Once relativists have been thoroughly trained, he says, it's as difficult for them to rethink the subject in classical terms as it is for laymen to grasp time dilation and space contraction. For laymen, however, and for those physicists who have not specialized in relativity, which is to say the vast majority of physicists, there's no doubt that the Galilean way is far simpler than the Einsteinian.

Special relativity was first proposed as a way of sidestepping the great difficulty that arose in physics as a result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887). Clerk Maxwell had shown that light and radio waves share the same electromagnetic spectrum, differing only in wave length. Sea waves require water, sound waves air, so, it was argued, electromagnetic waves must have their own medium to travel in. It was called the ether. "There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty," Maxwell wrote, "but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge." As today's dissidents see things, it was Maxwell's assumption of uniformity that was misleading.

The experiment of Michelson and Morley tried to detect this ether. Since the Earth in its orbital motion must plow through it, an "ether wind" should be detectable, just as a breeze can be felt outside the window of a moving car. Despite repeated attempts, however, no ethereal breeze could be felt. A pattern of interference fringes was supposed to shift when Michelson's instrument was rotated. But there was no fringe shift.

Einstein explained this result in radical fashion. There is no need of an ether, he said. And there was no fringe shift because the speed of an approaching light wave is unaffected by the observer's motion. But if the speed of light always remains the same, time itself would have to slow down, and space contract to just the amount needed to ensure that the one divided by the other--space divided by time--always gave the same value: the unvarying speed of light. The formula that achieved this result was quite simple, and mathematically everything worked out nicely and agreed with observation.

The skeptical, meanwhile, were placated with this formula: "I know it seems odd that time slows down and space contracts when things move, but don't worry, a measurable effect only occurs at high velocities--much higher than anything we find in everyday life. So for all practical purposes we can go on thinking in the same old way." (Meanwhile, space and time have been subordinated to velocity. Get used to it.)

Now we come to some modern experimental findings. Today we have very accurate clocks, accurate to a billionth of a second a day. The tiny differentials predicted by Einstein are now measurable. And the interesting thing is this: Experiments have shown that atomic clocks really do slow down when they move, and atomic particles really do live longer. Does this mean that time itself slows down? Or is there a simpler explanation?

The dissident physicists I have mentioned disagree about various things, but they are beginning to unite behind this proposition: There really is an ether, in which electromagnetic waves travel, but it is not the all-encompassing, uniform ether proposed by Maxwell. Instead, it corresponds to the gravitational field that all celestial bodies carry about with them. Close to the surface (of sun, planet, or star) the field, or ether, is relatively more dense. As you move out into space it becomes more attenuated. Beckmann's Einstein Plus Two introduces this hypothesis, I believe for the first time, and he told me it was first suggested to him in the 1950's by one of his graduate students, Jiri Pokorny, at the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics in Prague. Pokorny later joined the department of physics at Prague's Charles University, and today is retired. I believe that all the facts that seem to require special or general relativity can be more simply explained by assuming an ether that corresponds to the local gravitational field. Michelson found no "ether wind," or fringe shift, because of course the Earth's gravitational field moves forward with the Earth. As for the bending of starlight near the Sun, the confirmation of general relativity that made Einstein world-famous, it is easily explained given a non-uniform light medium. It is a well known law of physics that wave fronts do change direction when they enter a denser medium. According to Howard Hayden, refracted starlight can be derived this way "with a few lines of high school algebra." And derived exactly. The tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry of general relativity gives only an approximation. Likewise the "Shapiro Time-Delay," observed when radar beams pass close to the Sun and bounce back from Mercury. Some may prefer to try to understand all this in terms of the "curvature of space-time," to use the Einstein formulation (unintelligible to laymen, I believe). But they should know that a far simpler alternative exists.

The advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, another famous confirmation of general relativity, is worth a closer look. (The perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun.) Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury's orbit, "he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him.... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein's scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him." Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury's orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his general-relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber's article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein's relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber's priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber's formula had been published in Mach's Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber's assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a "target" for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber's method "made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics." Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber's derivation was "wrong through and through."

So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had "three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier." So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, "knowing the answer," Einstein had "jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value."

If the general relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways that the Einstein formula did not predict. "Physicists know about it and shrug their shoulders," Van Flandern says. They say there must be "something peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal effects." Another possibility is that Einstein saw to it that he got the result needed to "explain" Mercury's orbit, but that it doesn't apply elsewhere.

The simplest way to understand all this "without going crazy," Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian relativity and to assume that "there is a light-carrying medium." When a clock moves through this medium "it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit." Therefore it makes fewer "ticks" in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are "ploughing through this medium and working more slowly." It's not time that slows down. It's the clocks. All the experiments that supposedly "confirm" special relativity do so because all have been conducted in laboratories on the Earth's surface, where every single moving particle, or moving atomic clock, is in fact "ploughing through" the Earth's gravitational field, and therefore slowing down.

Both theories, Einsteinian and local field, would yield the same results. So far. Now let's turn back to the Global Positioning System. At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second--their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.

To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have basically blown off Einstein."

The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations. To accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that if you look at things from a different "reference frame," everything still works out fine. But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their heads, and it's not convincing. A simpler theory that accounts for all the facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube Goldberg-like. I believe that is now beginning to happen.

Dingle's Question:

University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.

Dingle's Question was this: Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: "Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong."

The problem has not gone away. Alan Lightman of MIT offers an unsatisfactory solution in his Great Ideas in Physics (1992). "[T]he fact that each observer sees the other clock ticking more slowly than his own clock does not lead to a contradiction. A contradiction could arise only if the two clocks could be put back together side by side at two different times." But clocks in constant relative motion in a straight line "can be brought together only once, at the moment they pass." So the theory is protected from its own internal logic by the impossibility of putting it to a test. Can such a theory be said to be scientific? --TB

Tom Van Flandern's Meta Research Bulletin ($15) and his book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets ($24.50), may be obtained from P.O. Box 15186, Chevy Chase, MD 20825; Petr Beckmann's Einstein Plus Two ($40) from Golem Press, P.O. Box 1342, Boulder, CO 80306. Beckmann's book is highly technical; Van Flandern's is mostly accessible to laymen. Tom Bethell is TAS's Washington correspondent. His new book, The Noblest Triumph, was recently published by St. Martin's Press. (Posted 4/28/99) (The American Spectator, April 1999).