Physics Essays volume 18, number 1, 2005

3

The Luminiferous Ether Detected

Stephan J.G. Gift

Abstract Two well-known experiments are described and shown to detect ether drift in di-rect contradiction to the universal claim that ether drift has not been and cannot be detected.

Key words: luminiferous ether, special relativity, ether drift, Roemer, Doppler, Michelson–Morley

1. INTRODUCTION Stephen Hawking, in his recent book The Universe

in a Nutshell, published at the start of this millen-nium, described the history and state of the universe as we understand it today.(1) He states, “Toward the end of the nineteenth century, scientists believed they were close to a complete description of the universe. They imagined that space was filled by a continuous medium called the ‘ether.’” He continues, “It was expected that light would travel at a fixed speed through the ether but if you were travelling through the ether in the same direction as the light, its speed would appear lower, and if you were travelling in the opposite direction of the light, its speed would appear higher.” This motion through the ether is referred to as ether drift and, on the basis of the Michelson–Morley and other unsuccessful experiments, Hawk-ing, along with the entire scientific community for the past 100 years, concludes that no experiment has detected this ether drift.

As Feynman, Leighton, and Sands(2) put it, “it ap-pears that nature was in a ‘conspiracy’ to thwart man by introducing some new phenomenon to undo every phenomenon that he thought would permit a meas-urement of [motion through the ether].” Feynman et al. continued, “It was ultimately recognized, as Poincaré pointed out, a complete conspiracy is itself a law of nature! Poincaré then proposed that there is such a law of nature, that it is not possible to discover an ether wind by any experiment, that is, there is no way to determine an absolute velocity.” This is Poincairé’s principle of relativity, which was used by Albert Einstein in the development of his special theory of relativity (STR). Einstein, in his famous paper of 1905,(3) took the position that since ether

drift cannot be detected, then the idea of an ether is redundant. He therefore postulated that the laws of nature appear the same in all inertial frames (Ein-stein’s principle of relativity). In particular, the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames and therefore is independent of the motion of all observers. This latter statement is Einstein’s light speed invariance postulate, from which the relativistic kinematics of the STR is derived.

Lorentz, acknowledged as the preeminent theoreti-cal physicist at the beginning of the 20th century, defended the concept of the ether right up to his death in 1928.(4) He had suggested,(5) and this was later confirmed experimentally by Ives,(6–9) that frequency reduction and length contraction are real physical effects that account for the null result of the Michel-son–Morley, Kennedy–Thorndike, and other similar second-order experiments for the detection of ether drift. In these experiments a search is made for an effect E2 as a function f2 of (v2/c2) given by

2

2 2 2 ,v

E fc� �

= � �� �

(1)

where v is the speed relative to the ether and relation (1) follows from classical analysis involving the ether. In the Michelson–Morley experiment, for example,(10) E2 is an interferometer fringe shift δ given by

2 22( / )

,/

v cl

δλ

= (2)

where λ is the wavelength of the light used and l is

The Luminiferous Ether Detected

4

the length of the interferometer arms. In these second-order experiments first-order effects cancel and the compensating action of frequency reduction and length contraction produces an approximately null result.(6–9) This class of experiments is therefore unsuitable for ether-drift detection.

Despite their established unsuitability, these sec-ond-order experiments, particularly that by Michelson and Morley, continue to be presented in textbooks on relativity and modern physics as legitimate ether-drift detection experiments with their null results being used as the basis of the universal claim of nondetec-tion of ether drift. This is most unscientific. Max-well(10,11) had actually discounted second-order ether detection methods because of the difficulty of the small measurements involved, and though Michelson overcame this problem, the compensating action of frequency reduction and length contraction, unknown at the time, effectively vindicated Maxwell’s action.

A more suitable class of experiments for detecting ether drift, to which Maxwell turned,(10,11) is the set of first-order experiments in which a search is made for an effect E1 as a function f1 of (v/c) given by

1 1 ,v

E fc� �= � �� �

(3)

and relation (3) again follows from classical analysis involving the ether. At the speeds involved (v << c) such experiments are essentially immune to the second-order effects of length contraction and fre-quency reduction. Amazingly, several first-order experiments that detect ether drift exist! These all yield non-null results in accordance with (3) and it is therefore a myth that no experiment has detected ether drift. Two of these experiments are described below. Both detect Earth’s approximately uniform motion around the Sun, precisely the motion that the famous Michelson–Morley second-order experiment failed to detect. Six other experiments that also detect ether drift are listed.

2. ROEMER’S EXPERIMENT(10,11) Ole Roemer, a Danish astronomer, observed that Io,

the innermost satellite of Jupiter (Fig. 1), undergoes a regular variation in its period of revolution To as Earth revolves at speed v around the Sun (Roemer effect). Since Io, as seen at Earth, is periodically eclipsed by Jupiter, this eclipsing source emits “pulses of darkness” to Earth as Io revolves around Jupiter. The time between successive pulses is the period To and the

Figure 1. Orbits of Earth, Jupiter, and moon Io.

distance between successive pulses is fixed at λo, where

.ooT

cλ= (4)

Based on classical velocity composition, when Earth is moving away from Jupiter at A, the pulses arrive at Earth at a reduced speed c – v and therefore the measured time TA between successive pulses in-creases and is given by

.oA oT T

c vλ� �= >� �−� �

(5)

Similarly, when Earth is moving toward Jupiter at B, the pulses arrive at Earth at an increased speed c + v and therefore the measured time TB between succes-sive pulses decreases and is given by

.oB oT T

c vλ� �= <� �+� �

(6)

The total change in the period, �T, of Io is given by

2 2

1 1

2.

A B o

o

T T Tc v c v

cT vc v

λ � �∆ ≡ − = −� �− +� �

=−

(7)

Stephan J.G. Gift

5

Since v << c, (7) reduces to

2 .o

vT T

c∆ = (8)

Note that (8) takes exactly the form (3) with the effect E1 being the period change ∆T. This result, along with (5) and (6), has been confirmed with great precision and is now so well established that it is usually stated in the form of a law involving the fractional change (∆T/2)/To = v/c: the fractional change of the orbital period of a satellite is simply the ratio of the speed of Earth’s motion to the speed of light.(12) Ether drift has here been detected.

This interpretation that the period change ∆T is an indicator of ether drift is new. It is valid since, as Earth moves away from Jupiter (position A) in the same direction as the light, the light speed appears lower, c – v, and as Earth approaches Jupiter (position B) in the opposite direction to the light, the light speed appears higher, c + v, precisely as expected in the ether theory (Ref. 1, p. 6). This is why a variation in the period of Io is observed.

Thus different observers can observe different speeds of light and therefore, contrary to Einstein, the speed of light as seen by an observer is not independ-ent of the motion of the observer. Einstein’s light speed invariance postulate is consequently invalid.

3. DOPPLER’S EXPERIMENT The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a

wave emitted by a source, resulting from relative movement of the observer and source.(13) Consider a stationary source S emitting waves at speed w, frequency fo, and wavelength λo given by

.oo

wf

λ= (9)

A stationary observer O receives these waves at speed w and frequency fo (Fig. 2). The observer O moving toward the stationary source S at speed v receives waves at an increased speed w + v, and therefore an increased number of wavefronts separated by a fixed wavelength λo are intercepted per unit time. This is manifested as an increase in wave frequency received by the observer O and given by

.A oo

w vf f

λ+= > (10)

Figure 2. Doppler effect due to motion of the observer. The observer moving away from S at speed v receives waves at a reduced speed w – v. Therefore a reduced number of wavefronts are intercepted per unit time, resulting in a decrease in the frequency of the wave received by O and given by

.B oo

w vf f

λ−= < (11)

Consider the situation where S is a stationary star on the ecliptic observed from the revolving Earth,(14) in which case w = c and v is the speed of revolution of Earth, v << c. fo is now given by

.oo

cf

λ= (12)

Then, based on ether wave theory, for Earth moving toward the star, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is c + v and therefore the observer intercepts wavefronts at an increased rate, resulting in a received frequency fA given by

.A oo

c vf f

λ+= > (13)

Similarly, for Earth moving away from the star, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is c – v and therefore the observer receives waves of reduced frequency fB given by

.B oo

c vf f

λ−= < (14)

The Luminiferous Ether Detected

6

Using (12), (13) and (14) become

, ,A B o o

vf f f

c= ± (15)

from which the change in the frequency �f = fR – fo or �f = fo – fR is given by

.o

vf f

c∆ = (16)

Relation (16), along with (13) and (14), has been confirmed to a high degree of accuracy.(14) Again ether drift has been detected, though this interpreta-tion is new. Here the effect E1 is the frequency change ∆f and (16) is of the form (3). Relation (16) is rou-tinely used to determine Earth’s speed of revolution.

The interpretation that the Doppler shift ∆f is a manifestation of ether drift is valid since, as in the previous experiment, as Earth moves toward the source, the light speed appears higher, c + v, and as Earth moves away from the source, the light speed appears lower, c – v, precisely as expected in the ether theory. This change in light speed is the reason a frequency change occurs and again contradicts Einstein’s light speed invariance postulate.

It follows from this and the previous experiment that Poincaré was wrong; it is possible to discover an ether wind by experiment. There may be a “conspir-acy” at the second-order level (first-order effects having cancelled) to prevent detection of ether drift, but not at the first-order level. The principle of relativity, while true for mechanics, does not extend to electrodynamics. Hence the STR, depending as it does on this principle, collapses.

4. THE ETHER EXISTS There are several other first-order experiments,

operating according to (3), that positively detect ether drift. These, including the two already discussed, are summarized in Table I.

Some of these experiments predate the Michelson–Morley experiment! In view of this list, it is clear that ether drift has long been detected and therefore the contrary claim of nondetection by Hawking and the entire scientific community is false. Sagnac first claimed detection of ether drift for nonuniform motion in his famous experiment of 1913,(17) a claim fully supported by Ives.(9) In this paper we have extended Sagnac’s result to uniform motion, thereby realizing ether-drift detection for all motion, nonuniform and uniform.

Maxwell, having rejected second-order methods for ether-drift detection, turned to first-order experiments. He pointed out the possibility of detecting ether drift, specifically the Sun’s motion around the galaxy (last entry in Table I), using Jupiter’s eclipsing satellite Io,(10,11) though the unavailability of appropriate equipment prevented execution of the experiment. Table I: Positive Ether-Drift Experiments 1. Experiment 2. Motion Detected

Roemer (Section 2) Doppler (Section 3) Bradley (stellar aberration(10)) Michelson–Gale(15) Allan et al.(16) Sagnac(17) Fizeau(10) Jones(18) Maxwell(11)

Earth’s revolution around the Sun Earth’s revolution around the Sun Earth’s revolution around the Sun Earth’s rotation on its axis Earth’s rotation on its axis Rotation of an object Motion of a liquid medium Rotary motion of a solid medium Sun’s galactic motion (to be detected)

The experiment involved the relation

2 ,o

vt t

c∆ = (17)

where v is the velocity of the Sun through the ether, to is the time taken for light to travel a distance corre-sponding to the diameter of Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and �t is the change in the delay of Io’s eclipse. The Maxwell relation (17) is identical in form to the Roemer relation (8), and neither Maxwell nor anyone else seemed to have realized that the Roemer experi-ment, also using Jupiter’s eclipsing satellite Io, actually detects ether drift, i.e., Earth’s motion around the Sun (first entry in list). Modern instrumentation may now be sufficiently sensitive to enable Max-well’s experiment to be performed.

A modern version of Roemer’s experiment using a terrestrial light source (in which pulses of light replace pulses of darkness) is in principle easily performed to illustrate detection of uniform motion through the ether as well as the variability of light speed as seen by an observer. This is shown in Fig. 3, where a light transmitter L is fixed on a surface and pulses P of light of speed c are emitted at time inter-vals To. The distance λo between the pulses is fixed and given by λo = cTo. A movable light detector D is located in a position relative to L such that the pulses P can be received by D and the time interval T between

Stephan J.G. Gift

7

Figure 3. Modern version of Roemer’s experiment.

received pulses timed. When D is stationary, T = To. If D moves toward or away from L with uniform speed v, then from classical velocity composition the speed of the light pulses relative to the detector changes to c ± v and therefore the time interval between the pulses changes. The conditions here are equivalent to those occurring in the Roemer experi-ment and can be used to demonstrate light speed variation and ether-drift detection.

A modern version of Doppler’s experiment is the radar speed gun, which detects the changed frequency of an electromagnetic beam reflected by a moving vehicle. The frequency change (16) (increased by a factor of two because of the reflection) occurs because the moving vehicle intercepts beam wavefronts at a rate different from their emitted frequency, this as a result of the changed wave speed relative to the moving vehicle. Confirmation of (16) represents the detection of ether drift associated with the moving vehicle, which is achieved every time the radar speed gun is used for speed determination.

In the spirit of the universal claim of nonexistence of the ether based on the null result of the Michelson–Morley and similar second-order experiments we now conclude, on the basis of the non-null Roemer, Doppler, and other first-order experiments, that the ether has been detected. The existence of the luminif-erous (radiation-bearing) ether pervading all of space is consistent with the isotropic cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) discovered by Penzias and Wilson.(19) This radiation has an almost perfect black-body spectrum characteristic of radiation that originates from a state of perfect equilibrium between matter and radiation. We therefore suggest that the CMBR may be the black-body radiation of the ether. In any event, the CMBR itself provides a preferred reference frame since its isotropic nature enables the measurement of absolute motion by anisotropic measurement based on Doppler shift first shown by Conklin(20) and Henry.(21) According to Weisskopf,(22) “It is remarkable that we are now justified in talking about an absolute motion, and that one can measure it. The great dream of Michelson and Morley is realized. They wanted to measure the absolute motion of the

earth by measuring the velocity of light in different directions. According to Einstein, however, this velocity is always the same. But the [2.7 K] radiation represents a fixed system of coordinates. It makes sense to say that an observer is at rest in the absolute sense when the [2.7 K] radiation appears to have the same frequencies in all directions. Nature has pro-vided an absolute frame of reference,” one that we believe is coincident with the luminiferous ether.

5. CONCLUSION In this paper, on the basis of the reinterpretation of

two well-known first-order experiments, namely the Roemer and Doppler experiments, and the explicit demonstration of variable light speed, we claim detection of ether drift, specifically Earth’s approxi-mately uniform motion around the Sun. This is the motion that Michelson and Morley attempted to detect in 1887 in order to demonstrate the existence of the ether, but were unsuccessful because they used a second-order experiment. The compensating effect of frequency reduction and length contraction, which were experimentally established by Ives, renders the Michelson–Morley and other second-order experi-ments unsuitable for ether-drift detection. Several other non-null first-order ether-drift detection experi-ments were listed, including that by Sagnac, and it was suggested that the isotropic CMBR, itself a preferred reference frame, was further indication of the existence of the ether.

The existence of the luminiferous ether immedi-ately invalidates the STR. As a result science must therefore switch from the Einstein–Poincaré relativis-tic theory to the Maxwell–Lorentz ether-based theory; that is, the science of high-speed phenomena must be based on an ether framework and not a relativistic one. This change is facilitated by the almost complete correspondence between the mathematical formulas of both theories, as indicated by Erlichson,(23) and, consequently, the practice of science will suffer little if any disruption as a result of this change. Impor-tantly, though, the rejection of Einstein’s principle of relativity and the reintroduction of the all-pervasive ether will usher in a “revolutionary clarification of physical thought” (no more paradoxes) and provide new opportunity for discovery. For example, in 1997, an experiment performed at the University of Ge-neva(24) demonstrated the phenomenon of physical nonlocality over a distance of 11 km, thereby estab-lishing the interconnectedness of space. We believe that the ether provides a plausible physical basis for this amazing phenomenon.

The Luminiferous Ether Detected

8

As Michael Faraday, the 19th century’s greatest experimental physicist, said, “Nothing is too wonder-ful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.” Thus research into the nature of the ether, which was stopped at the end of the 19th century because of a perceived failure to detect this ether and the later introduction of the STR, must now resume. Some of the questions to be addressed include the following:

i) What is the structure of the ether and what are its properties?

ii) Does the ether contribute to or is it the cause of the strange phenomena associated with the quan-tum domain, including nonlocality?

iii) Is the ether connected with paranormal and psychic phenomena?

iv) Can energy be obtained from the ether?

The ether must now be viewed as the main scien-tific frontier of the 21st century. Received 31 May 2002.

Résumé Deux expériences bien connues sont décrites ici et permettent de détecter la dérive de l’éther, ce qui s’avère en contradiction totale avec la théorie universelle selon laquelle la dérive de l’éther n’a pas été et ne peut pas être détectée.

References 1. S. Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell (Bantam

Books, New York, 2001). 2. R. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The

Feynman Lectures on Physics (Mechanics, Ra-diation and Heat) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1963).

3. A. Einstein, in The Principle of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl (Dover Publications, New York, 1953), pp. 35–65.

4. L. Kostro, Einstein and the Ether (Apeiron, Montreal, 2000).

5. H.A. Lorentz, in Ref. 3, pp. 9–34. 6. H. Ives, J. Opt. Soc. America 27, 177 (1937). 7. H. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, J. Opt. Soc. America

28, 215 (1938). 8. H. Ives, Philos. Mag. 36, 392 (1945). 9. Idem, Sci. Proc. Royal Dublin Soc. 26, 9 (1952). 10. A.P. French, Special Relativity (Nelson, London,

1968). 11. M. Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (Dover

Publications, New York, 1965). 12. F. Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology (Freeman,

San Francisco, 1975).

13. D. Halliday and R. Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd edition (Wiley, New York, 1981).

14. M. Zelik and E. Smith, Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2nd edition (Saunders College Publishing, New York, 1987).

15. A.A. Michelson and H.E. Gale, Astrophys. J. 61, 140 (1925).

16. D.W. Allan, M.A. Weiss, and N. Ashby, Science 228, 69 (1985).

17. G. Sagnac, in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, edited by R. Hazelett and D. Turner, translated by R. Hazelett (Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich, CT, 1979), pp. 247–250.

18. R.V. Jones, Proc. R. Soc. London, Series A 328, 337 (1972).

19. A.A. Penzias and R.W. Wilson, Astrophys. J. 142, 419 (1965).

20. E.K. Conklin, Nature 222, 971 (1969). 21. P.S. Henry, Nature 231, 516 (1971). 22. V.F. Weisskopf, Am. Sci. 71, 473 (1983). 23. H. Erlichson, Am. J. Phys. 41, 1068 (1973). 24. W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinger, and N. Gisin,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3563 (1998).

Stephan J.G. Gift Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The University of the West Indies St. Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies e-mail: sgift@eng.uwi.tt