LETTERE AL NUOVO CIMENTO VOL. 7, N.

15 11 Agosto 1973

On the Impossibility of the First-Order Relativity Test.

A. A. TYAPxI~
J o i n t I n s t i t u t e ]or N u c l e a r l~esearch - D u b n a

(ricevuto il 16 Maggie 1973)

CIALI)EA (1) has reported recently about an experiment on the measurement of

the phase shift of two laser beams. The author interpretes erroneously the absence of
first-order effects when the whole apparatus is rotated b y an angle of 180 ~ as an evi-
dence • the equality of light velocities in two opposite directions.
Unfortunately, this is not a single publication stating an erroneous point of view
on the subject. E . g . , the authors of ref. (2) review a number of papers containing sug-
gestions on the possibility of first-order experiments for the proof of the independence
of light velocity upon its direction without noticing their errors. A widely known opinion
on the possibility of such experiments evidences a serious lack in understanding
the most important point of the special relativity theory related to the conditional
character of simultaneity for events occurring at different places.
The constancy of light velocity adopted in special relativity includes, strictly speak-
ing, two statements which arc differently related to the experiment. The first statement
is that the light velocity should be independent of source motion permitting a direct ex-
perimental test, e.g., in observing double stars. Namely, this statement contains the
exact contents of the second postulate of the special relativity theory. The violation
of the statement might lead to observable first-order effects. But these effects equally
contradict also the basic postulate of the ether theory.
The second statement on the independence of light velocity upon its direction is
another property of the constancy of the light velocity adopted in the theory. This state-
mont. which means, in particular, the equality of the velocities of light going i n two op-
posite directions for any inertial system of co-ordinates, is adopted in fact on the basis of
a conditional agreement, b u t not as a statement permitting a direct or aa indirect
experimental tests. By the way, this circumstance has been stressed b y POINCA~ as
far back as 1898 in his <~Mesure de temps ~>(3) in which he was the first to explain the
conditional character of simultaneity of events occurring at different points b y relating
it with the assumption on equality of light propagation in two opposite directions. Then
in his publications of 1900 and 1904 POI~CARg, considering the synchronization of a

(1) R. CIALDEA.*Left. Nuovo Cimento, 4, 821 (1972).

(2) G.M. STRAKHOVSKYand A. V. USPEXSKY: Usp. Fiz. Nauk, 86, 421 (1965).
(s) H. POICAR~: Rev. Methaphys. Morales, 6, 1 (1898); Arch. Nederland, 5, 252 (1900); The Monist,
1~, 1 (January 1995) (the original in French was published in Bull. Sel. Math., Set. 2, 28, 302 (1904)).

760
ON TH:E IMPOSSIBILITY OF T H E FIRST-0RD]~lZ I:r165 TEST 76"]

clock by a light signal, has shown that the local time introduced by LORENTZ for a mov-
ing reference system directly corresponds to the assumption of the equality of light veloc-
ities in (~direct )) and ((inverse )) motions. I n his celebrated work (4) of 1905 EINSTEI~
also used the same vivid example of clock synchronization b y a light signal in order to
explain the proper time of the reference system. Along with the second postulate on
the independence of light velocity upon its source motion EinSTEIN had to introduce
as an additional determination the equality of light velocities for opposite directions.
However, in his fundamental paper EINSWmN did not consider the problem of ambiguity
of the relation of the conventional deter'ruination with experimentM facts. This circum-
stance was one of the reasons for the wide circulation of a very limited understanding of
the simultaneity of events in relativistic theory. Many scientists considered that the
validity of this determination of simultaneity as well as some other Einstein's basic
statements followed from the agreement of all theoretical predictions with experiment.
However, this assumption on the equality of light velocities for opposite directions falls
in fact out of this scheme of possible tests of the initial postulates of the theory.
A principal impossibility of experimentally testing this statement comes directly from
the absence in Nature of a physical process propagating in space at unlimited velocity.
The postulate on the equality of light velocities in opposite directions refers to condi-
tional agreements characterizing only the form of the theoretical description of physical
phenomena. The refusal of this assumption results, respectively, in another form of
theory presentation which with the same accuracy agrees with the experimentM facts.
The whole system of such problems has been considered in ref. (5), where the analysis
of special relativity has been given on account of the conditional character of
simultaneity. As a result of this analysis it has been estab]ished which of the conse-
quences of relativity theory depends upon the conditional agreement on the simultaneity
and which of them are objective invariants remaining unchanged when the agreement
ell simultaneity is changed.
One of the first theoretical explanations for the failure to discover (( the ether wind )~
developed b y LORENTZ in a sufficiently complete form by 1904 (6) was, in fact, only
another way of describing the relativity theory differing from a later one only by the
acceptation of the agreement on a single simultaneity of events for two reference systems
being in a state of relative motion. As is known, Lorentz's approach to the explanation
of the negative result of Miehelson's experiment retains the presentation of the dif-
ference of the velocities of light along an opposite reference system motion, while the
impossibility to observe the absolute motion appears as a result of taking into account
the effect of the second order of the relativistic contraction of space cuts. I t is important
to clear out that Lorentz's approach not only should be acceptable for explaining
Miehelson's experiment, b u t also should be a consistent system for describing relativity
effects for any possible experiments. Many scientists have stated quite justifiably the
absence of an ~(experimentum crueis )) for Lorentz's theory and special relativity.
Of course, Lorentz's approach could have been absolutlely groundless if the experi-
mental comparison of light velocities in opposite directions had been possible. B u t
such a test is impossible, in principle, and all the proposed and performed tests of this
kind have been based on errors made in the calculations of the results of experiments in
the case when the inequality of the velocities of light moving in opposite directions is
accepted. I n his time VAVlLOVin analysing earlier proposed first-order tests has proved
the failure of their grounds (:). However, VAVlLOV has drawn no conclusions on the

(4) A. EINSTEIN: Ann. der Phys., 17, 549 (1905).

(0 A . A. TYAPKIN: Usp. Fiz. Nauk, 106, 617 (1972).
(~) 1:/. A. LORENTZ: Prec. lead. Sci. Amster., 6, 809 (1904).
(0 S. I. V.~WLOV: Sobranie Sochineniy, Vol. 4 (Moscow, 1956).
762 A.A. TYAPKIN

principal impossibility of any tests of this kind. He did not see t h a t it is not a physical
statement t h a t could be experimentally tested b u t a conditional agreement on the rela-
tionship of velocities of light propagating in opposite directions. The lack of clarity
on this basic problem of relativity has led to the fact t h a t in recent years we have
witnessed the repetition of earlier errors b u t on a new technical level when maser and
lasers are used.
MOL~R, a known relativity specialist, has been the first to revive confusion on this
problem in 1957 b y starting a discussion of a seemingly new possibility to test experi-
mentally relativity (s).
H e suggested to compare the Doppler shift for two maser beams whose atoms move
in opposite directions. The calculation of the Doppler shift on the basis of pre-relativ-
istic physics gives rise to the appearance of the term of second-order smallness
linearly dependent upon the velocity V of the l a b o r a t o r y system moving with respect
to ether. Thus, the proposed test was classified as the first-order experiment for the
observation of the (( ether drift ,. The experiment was soon performed in the USA.
The negative result obtained has been interpreted b y the authors quite consistently with
Moller's proposal (g). The fallibity of the t r e a t m e n t of this experiment was aggravated
b y explanations given later b y MOL~I~. He insisted in ref. (~0) t h a t in such experiments
Einsteirr's and Lorentz's theories could be distinguished, since the negative result of
such an experiment in contrast with all the earlier ones of the second order cannot be ex-
plained within the framework of Lorentz's theory (*).
MOLL~R also treated from this point of view the experiment in which the MSssbauer
effect had been used for a system of a moving source and an absorber (~x). Still earlier
RUDERF~R proposed a similar experiment in order to distinguish between Lorentz's
theory and relativity (~2). The opinion has been established t h a t ouly first-order ex-
periments might really test special relativity.
F i r s t of all it should be noted t h a t in all such experiments employing the classical
relationship for the Doppler shift an effect is predicted which is linearly dependent on
the velocity of motion in ether, but is inversely proportional to the square of light velocity.
Unfortunately, in discussing these tests, no attention has been paid to the fact t h a t the
predicted effect should completely vanish if, according to Lorentz's approach, all
second-order effects are taken into consideration, in particular the increment of the
proper periods of sources in their motion through ether b y a factor of ( 1 - - (V A- U)2/c2) -~,
where U is source velocity with respect to the laboratory system moving in ether at
the velocity V. The Doppler shift calculated according to Lorentz's theory contains
no V. Therefore, the negative result obtained in the above tests only proves the neces-
sity to take into consideration second-order effects. I n this sense such experiments
do not differ principally from the earlier ones for testing special relativity. The effect
of time slowing down and the appearance of second-order corrections directly related
to it in the Doppler shift have been first predicted b y LARMOR in 1900 (~a) for systems
moving with respect to ether. F o r the ((light clock ~ this effect directly follows from
the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis. Strictly spealdng, Lorentz's quasi-
classical approach developed b y him in 1904 includes the additional taking into account

(8) C. MOLLER: *~Up~0l. NUOVO Cimento, 6, 381 (1957).

(g) J . P . CEDARKOLICl, G. F. BLAI~D, B. L. HAVENS a n d C. t / . Towru~s: Phys. Rev. Left., 1, 342 (1958).
(10) C. MO:t.LER: Proc. Roy. Sot., A 270, 306 (1906).
(*) U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s erroneous opinion w a s s u p p o r t e d b y o t h e r k n o w n specialists on t h e r e l a t i v i t y
t h e o r y (see, e.g., M. A. TONNELAT: Histoire du principe de relativitg (Paris, 1971), 13. 138).
(11) D. C. (~HA~PENEY a n d P. B. MOON: Proe. Phys. Sot., 77, 350 (1961).
(1~) M. RUDERFER: Phys. Rev. Left., $, 191 (1960).
(1,) j . j . LAR~OR: Aether and Matter (Cambridge, 1900), p. 167.
ON T H E IMPOSSIBILITY OF TH]~ F I R S T - O R D E R R E L A T I V I T Y TEST 76~

of all the relativistic second-order effects (including mass increment) in describing physical
phenomena with respect to the unique system identified by him with the hypothetic ether.
Cialdea's experiment on the measurement of the difference of two laser beam phases
might seem to undoubtedly prove experimentally the equality of light veloeitcs in op-
posite directions. This experiment has been proposed b y CAR~A~AN in ref. (14). Some-
what earlier a similar first-order experiment with the use of two masers had been
described in ref. (~5). However, the substantiation of sttch an experimentM test was
quite erroneous. The authors who had proposed this first-order experiment took into
account the change of phase difference, when an apparatus was rotated b y 180 ~, related
only to the change of the time which light takes to cover the distance L between two
lasers. According to the assumption that light velocity with respect to the laboratory
system is equal to c - - V is one position of the apparatus and to c § V after its rota-
tion by 180 ~ the time which light takes to cover the distance should, indeed, be
changed by the first-order value

AT_~2 - - 1--
(~ 0 e2!

or more exactly by
v Lo(1--
A T = 2-~ V eW] ,

if one takes into account the contraction of the cut L - / 5 0 ( 1 - - V 2 / c ~ ) 89

However, no corresponding shift of laser beam phases b y

should occur, since this value is exactly compensated b y the variation of the phases
of light oscillation on the laser output.
Indeed, by accepting the hypothesis on the dependence of light velocity upon
direction one must, within the framework of this description, consistently take into ac-
count the variations of the phases of laser beams which accumulate to a definite
value at any slowest rotation of the apparatus. The time of light signal propagation
inside a gas laser from one mirror planeto the other one and inversely depends in this
description for a laser in the laboratory system upon V: r = vo(1--V2/c~) -89 where V
is the velocity of the laboratory system motion with respect to the reference system
in which the isotropic description of light velocity is accepted. I n rotating the apparatus
at an angular velocity dO/dt ~ O as a result of the variations of each laser velocity b y
dV=--(Lo/2)O sin0 (where 0 is the angle of each laser rotation taken from the vector
direction V) the time v will be changed by dv =--re(l--V2/e2)-l(Lo/2C~) VO sin 0. I n
this case the angle 0 is varied b y dO = 0v. The summed shift of the oscillation phase
in varying the angle 0 from 0 to z for the first laser and from ~ to 2~ for the second one
is independent of 3o and 0 if L00 << c. The total relative phase shift of oscillations
at the laser output is
V2~-}
A ~ = - - 4 ~ - f L 0 1--c~ ! ,

(it) C. W . CAI~NA]tAM: P l O t . I R E , 50, 1976 (1962).

(1A) N . G . BASOV, O. 1%~.]~ROKHI/q, A. U. ORA]~VSKII, G. ]V~. STRAKHOVSKII a n d B . M . CHIKHACHEV:
Usp. Fiz. Nauk, 75, 3 (1961).
~ A. A.. T Y A P K I N

which exactly compensates the phase difference arising when light passes the distance L
in this field of the anisotropic description. One may show also that this phase shift
remains constant for any mode of laser removal at the distance L along the vector
V. This eficct of (~light clock )> dis-synchronization for any slowest removal necessarily
follows from the accepted asymmetry of light velocity description.
In contrast to the above-discussed experiments on the Doppler shift which may be
given a correct treatment as tests additionally confirming second-order relativistic
effects, the experiment on the measurements of the phase shift of oscillations coming
from two sources cannot be in general reasonably substantiated.
The attempts to measure light velocities in one direction should be considered as
a sad misunderstanding. Its origin is directly related to disadvantages of orthodox
teaching of relativity.