Physics Essays

volume 18, number 4, 2005

Einsteins Principle of Relativity and Stellar Aberration

Stephan J.G. Gift
Abstract This paper examines the possibility of detecting a difference in the stellar aberration phenomenon when generated in different inertial frames, as a means of testing Einsteins principle of relativity. Specifically, stellar aberration resulting alternately from movement of Earth and movement of the light source are examined and show an observable difference that is inconsistent with the relativity principle. Key words: special theory of relativity, Einsteins principle of relativity, light speed invariance postulate, stellar aberration

1. INTRODUCTION Special relativity(1) is the accepted theory of space and time and is a significant part of modern physics. However, unlike other accepted theories such as atomic theory, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and celestial mechanics, where objections declined over time as confirming evidence accumulated, from the time of its introduction in 1905 and continuing today, special relativity has had a continuous stream of critics including Lorentz, Ives, Essen, Nordenson, Dingle, Waldron, Beckmann, McCausland, Monti, Hatch, and many others. The Editor of Physics Essays, a journal in which many such criticisms have appeared, has taken note of this situation and suggested in a recent editorial(2) that inadequate explanations on either side of the controversy may be responsible. I believe the causes are more profound. As philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and others have pointed out, it is extremely difficult to invalidate an accepted theory by reference to facts or by rational or empirical arguments. History is replete with examples of this and the extraordinary lengths to which scientists will go in defence of a theory. There are many reasons for this. As has been observed by many, people do not take kindly to their beliefs being questioned, particularly by newcomers or outsiders to a field. Moreover, because of the risk of embarrassment and possible loss of reputation, most people find it extremely difficult to admit error, especially in cases where they have publicly taken a position on an issue. Then there is the groupthink phenomenon in which people embrace the position of the group in order to be accepted by the group and

avoid ostracism and derision. When the group controls journals and research funds, the pressure on researchers to conform can be irresistible. Most seriously, a scientist, who after years of concerted effort has attained a position of eminence and prestige on the basis of a prevailing paradigm, will generally not countenance any challenge to that paradigm; he or she can and often does exert considerable influence in blocking such challenges. As Max Planck indicated, A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Despite all of this, the search for truth must continue in the firm belief that such truth will eventually prevail. In the case of special relativity, the Editor of Physics Essays indicated, Physics Essays wants to shed conclusive light on this important subject. To this end, we note the invalidating criterion presented by the relativist Good:(3) If (special relativity) is physically wrong, it can be disproved only by physical observations, not by reductio ad absurdum, not by assuming that Newton must be right, and not by metaphysics. In this paper, therefore, in order to increase our chances of convincing the relativists, we appeal strictly to physical observations in our attempts at shedding conclusive light on this controversy. 2. THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY The cornerstone of special relativity is Einsteins principle of relativity, which states,(1) The laws of physics are the same in all uniformly moving reference frames. As Rindler has observed,(1) this princi561

Einsteins Principle of Relativity and Stellar Aberration

ple requires perfect symmetry between inertial frames, a characteristic that is central to the theme of this paper. Applying the relativity principle to electrodynamics results in the light speed invariance postulate. This postulate states, The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. Numerous experiments have been performed in order to test this postulate, and most physicists consider that it has been verified. While light speed invariance has been tested at the level of two-way transmission, it may surprise many physicists to learn that the one-way speed of light has not been and apparently cannot be tested; such a test requires independent clock synchronization that it has not been possible to achieve. Zhang makes this important point in his book on the experimental foundations of special relativity.(4) This therefore means that the light speed invariance postulate has not been confirmed and therefore remains an open question, despite its universal acceptance. In fact Ives(5) has long ago shown analytically using the relativity principle that the light speed invariance postulate is invalid, and, in a paper in Physics Essays,(6) we show light speed variation using the Doppler and Roemer experiments. There have not been many direct tests of the relativity principle,(4) and therefore in light of the ongoing controversy surrounding special relativity, we explore a test of this key principle. We do so by considering stellar aberration, a well-known and well-understood phenomenon, and ascertaining whether the laws of physics governing this effect are independent of the inertial frame in which the phenomenon is initiated, i.e., whether there is perfect symmetry between inertial frames, as the relativity principle requires. 3. THE RELATIVITY PRINCIPLE AND STELLAR ABERRATION In his canonical work on the subject Einstein (Ref. 7, p. 37) indicated that his motivation for special relativity theory was the removal of asymmetries such that for example in the case of a magnet and a conductor, the observable phenomenon depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet. He postulated the relativity principle in order to achieve this. In the framework of this principle he considered two inertial frames, K and k, having a relative velocity v, and proceeded to develop the kinematics of special relativity in which optical phenomena depend only on relative motion of the inertial frames and not on whether one frame or the other is in motion. Consistent with this interpretation, Rindler(1) referred to the perfect symmetry between
562

inertial frames in accordance with the relativity principle (p. 23). Following the establishment of this framework of symmetry, Einstein considered the Doppler effect and stellar aberration. He derived the Doppler result for the observed frequency f given by
f= f 1 v / c 1+ v / c

(1)

for the case of a fixed source and an observer moving away from the source at speed v. Einstein did not specifically discuss the case of a fixed observer and a moving source, which in the context of the relativity principle is an equivalent case. This is, however, done in many textbooks,(8,9) where the derivation yields the same equation (1), thereby illustrating the symmetry. Following his discussion of the Doppler effect, Einstein again considered the case of a fixed source and a moving observer and, using the same set of equations he developed in the case of the Doppler effect, he derived the stellar aberration formula cos = cos v / c 1 cos v / c (2)

for the observed angle . In this formula v continues to be the relative velocity between the inertial frames of the source and observer as in (1). In fact for this phenomenon Einstein stated explicitly, an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant source of light. Because of the relativity principle, therefore, in special relativity the stellar aberration formula (2), like the Doppler formula (1), is symmetrical, i.e., it continues to hold if the observer is fixed and the source is moving. This symmetry of course is not observed. What is observed is stellar aberration asymmetry: stellar aberration between Earth and a distant star occurs for movement of Earth around the Sun but is independent of the movement of the star.(10,11) This stellar aberration asymmetry contradicts Einsteins principle of relativity, which demands perfect symmetry between inertial frames, i.e., source-observer symmetry in producing the phenomenon. 4. DISCUSSION Because of the source-observer asymmetry associated with the stellar aberration phenomenon, the relativity principle requiring perfect symmetry between inertial frames is refuted and special relativity, for

Stephan J.G. Gift

which this postulate is a foundational principle, is invalidated. This invalidity of special relativity is evident from the following three incorrect predictions, the first two of which appear to be unknown to most physicists: (i) Tolchelnikova-Murri(12) has shown that Doppler observations of Venus contradict the relativistic Doppler formula. (ii) Mocanu(13) has shown that relativistic velocity composition applied to a coordinate system A moving at a velocity VA along the x axis and another coordinate system B moving at a velocity VB along the y axis gives the velocity VAB of A relative to B and the velocity VBA of B relative to A such that VAB VBA, which contradicts the physical fact that VAB = VBA. (iii) Ives and others(10,11) have pointed out that for stellar aberration, because of the source-observer symmetry demanded by the relativity principle, the special theory of relativity predicts aberration angles for binary star systems that are not observed. In this third case, even if we accept the reinterpretation presented by some(11,14) in which the special theory of relativity predicts stellar aberration independence of binary star motion, it still fails on

this phenomenon because of the source-observer aberration asymmetry that then results, which contradicts Einsteins principle of relativity. Goods invalidation criterion involving strictly physical observations has therefore been met and special relativity is shown to be an invalid physical theory. 5. CONCLUSION In this paper we have pointed out that the sourceobserver asymmetry of the stellar aberration phenomenon contradicts Einsteins principle of relativity, which requires perfect symmetry between inertial frames. We conclude therefore that Einsteins special theory of relativity, which depends on this principle, is wrong, and as a result the relativistic worldview collapses. Fortunately, a semiclassical replacement theory is immediately available.(1518) We therefore believe we have answered the call of Physics Essays to shed conclusive light on this important subject. Received 4 May 2005.

Rsum Cette communication examine la possibilit de dtecter une diffrence dans le phnomne daberration stellaire produit dans des rfrentiels inertielles diffrents, ceci afin de tester la thorie de la relativit dEinstein. Il est intressant de noter que laberration stellaire produite dune part par le mouvement de la terre et dautre part par le mouvement de la source de lumire montrent aprs examen une diffrence notable qui contredit la thorie de la relativit. References 1. W. Rindler, Essential Relativity, revised 2nd edition (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1979). 2. E. Panarella, Phys. Essays 16, 3 (2003). 3. I.J. Good, Phys. Essays 11, 248 (1998). 4. Y.Z. Zhang, Special Relativity and Its Experimental Foundations (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997). 5. H.E. Ives, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 95, 125 (1951). 6. S.J.G. Gift, Phys. Essays 17, 338 (2004). 7. A. Einstein, in The Principle of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl (Dover Publications, New York, 1952), pp. 3565. 8. A.P. French, Special Relativity (Nelson, London, 1968). 9. S.T. Thornton and A. Rex, Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Saunders College Publishing, New York, 2000). 10. H.E. Ives, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 40, 185 (1950). 11. T.E. Phipps, Am. J. Phys. 57, 549 (1989). 12. S.A. Tolchelnikova-Murri, Galilean Electrodynamics 4, 3 (1993). 13. C.I. Mocanu, Galilean Electrodynamics 2, 67 (1991). 14. P. Naur, Phys. Essays 12, 358 (1999). 15. D.R. Gagnon, D.G. Torr, P.T. Kolen, and T. Chang, Phys. Rev. A 38, 1767 (1988). 16. A.K.A. Maciel and J. Tiomno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 143 (1985). 17. F. Selleri, Apeiron 11, 246 (2004). 18. H. Erlichson, Am. J. Phys. 41, 1068 (1973).

563

Einsteins Principle of Relativity and Stellar Aberration

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

564