/tr>
Journal of Theoretics Journal of Theoretics


Volume 5-6, Dec 2003/Jan 2004

The Hidden Ether of General Relativity
Paul Karl Hoiland

paultrr2000@yahoo.com


Abstract: It will be shown that there must be a hidden Ether embedded within General
Relativity and that such an effect would stipulate that Lorentz Invariance would seem to be
broken at the quantum level, but it is not. I will also show how this accounts fully for the
experimentally validated effect called entanglement.
Keywords: general relativity theory, aether, quantum theory.


To assume that the Integrand vanishes Einstein resorted to an empty space-time
where the gravitational potential satisfies Laplaces equation. But, both modern QM and
experiments like those with Casimir effects have shown the vacuum to be anything but
empty.[1] This brings into question to issues, never fully resolved by GR (general
relativity). Does the Integrand vanish and is there some underlining absolute reference
frame of sorts.
The first question is easy to answer. The assumption about the integrand is derived
from Newtons own equation for the universal law of gravitation. Both GR and Newton
agree on this, as does our observational evidence to date.
To answer the second question I refer you to my prior article on the non-orientation
of time.[2] In it, based upon experimental and observational evidence from Cosmology I
proposed just such an absolute reference frame. It is an absolute reference frame of space
that has no absolute time reference since the zero points have t=0. This would leave us
with an ether of an absolute at rest space with no built in absolute time frame. This
system lends itself to a scale variable C value that is not only in line with current
observation; but would have automatically have given us a simple explanation for the
accelerated expansion issue all along. Any such absolute frame of reference, like the
zero points from the ZPF (zero point field) of Quantum Theory would constitute grounds
for a timeless absolute reference frame. Any altering of scale from that absolute point
would translate to a time orientation elements variance of C from its maximal value
simply since C would be an analytical function of its value at that zero point. Following
Cauchys Theorem, that value is only maximal at the singular point.[3]
The Rs and Ts of the Einstein field equation are covariant tensors of rank two,
which means there are 4x4 set or 16 Rs and Ts and, therefore, 16 equations in General
Relativity. Since these functions are symmetric in the indices, 6 of the equations with
different indices are just repeats of the ones with the indices switched (e.g. R12 = R21,
T12 = T21), so GR boils down to 10 equations. All of them are needed to describe
gravity.
What recommended this set to Einstein, after struggling to find it between 1912
and 1915, is the general covariance keeping the same form with a large group of space- time coordinate transformations ability to express gravity as a space-time condition
instead of a postulated force. The left side consists of space-time terms while the right
side consists of given physical terms. This is because they expand to what are called
Bianchi identities in Riemannian geometry. Therefore, the left side of the equations are
zero due to math rather than physics. The right side of the equations are set to zero and
this has actual physical significance. Some of which I have already mentioned above.
What recommended this set to Einstein, after struggling to find it between 1912 and
1915, is the general covariance keeping the same form with a large group of space-time
coordinate transformations ability to express gravity as a space-time condition instead of
a postulated force. The left side consists of space-time terms while the right side consists
of given physical terms. This is because they expand to what are called Bianchi identities
in Riemannian geometry. Therefore, the left side of the equations are zero due to math
rather than physics. The right side of the equations are set to zero and this has actual
physical significance. The first integrals of relativistic mechanics, including conservation
of momentum and energy, are in the right side. In his original theory, the potentials of
Maxwell's theory occurred on the right side and therefore were not derivable from GR.
Gravity alone gets the place of honor on the left side of the field equation set. The
covariant divergence applied to the set of equations produces 4 sums that are identically
zero. But the Maxwell equation that shows up in the right side is a post-Heaviside set.
It is not the original Maxwell equation. In light of there being evidence for an ether of
sorts within GR the question should be rightly addressed whether these post- Heaviside

changes to Maxwell s original equations ought to be reexamined. The present Lorentz-
regauged Maxwell-Heaviside theory effectively assumes an inert vacuum which has been
falsified for half a century by quantum mechanics and particle physics. It also assumes
no curvatures of local space-time again falsified for nearly a century by general relativity.
Since the active vacuum and the local curvature of space-time are the "active external
environment" in which we utilize EM any aspect of that same vacuum which could be
said to form any absolute reference would in fact automatically call into question the
original logic behind both Heaviside and Lorentzs truncation of those equations. Its
true any aspect abandoned by Heaviside that dwelt with an absolute time should be left
removed. But absolute space reference frames can have implications.
If we consider the matter of gradients we find some odd things. Consider the
gradient of gravitational potential, where potential is a scalar quantity. In math, the
gradient of a scalar field is a unique, unambiguous thing. The gradient of a scalar field is
a vector, not another scalar. An examination of quadeterions used by Maxwell will show
we can exchange tensors for scalars and back again.
Another question we need to answer is if the field source begins to move, does
the field gradient point toward the instantaneous or retarded position of the source? This
is the crux of the gravity speed issue. If it points towards the instantaneous position then
C is not a limit on velocity or information transfer since gravity waves would transfer
information at least on mass. So the answer depends on whether the field updates or
regenerates instantly or with delay. This raises a corollary of the causality principle
which prohibits the prohibition of true action at a distance because every effect must have
a proximate cause. That means that something (call it an agent), whether particle or wave
or wavicle, must pass (or fail to pass) between a source of gravity and an accelerated target to produce the acceleration. Moreover, this agent is the carrier of the momentum
transferred between source and target.
Some in GR have made the bold hypothesis: The space-time metric is not flat, as
was assumed in special relativity. However, we have even a more unique problem if
gravity is C limited. This would imply, since most gravitating bodies are in motion that
for all objects the field gradient point toward the retarded. For fast objects this seems to
be counter to current experiments:
1)

a modern updating of the classical Laplace experiment based on the absence of
any change in the angular momentum of the Earths orbit (a necessary
accompaniment of any propagation delay for gravity even in a static field);
2)

an extension of this angular momentum argument to binary pulsars, showing that
the position, velocity, and acceleration of each mass is anticipated in much less
than the light-time between the masses;
3)

a non-null three-body experiment involving solar eclipses in the Sun-Earth-Moon
system, showing that optical and gravitational eclipses do not coincide;
4)

planetary radar ranging data showing that the direction of Earths gravitational
acceleration toward the Sun does not coincide with the direction of arriving solar
photons;
5)

neutron interferometer experiments, showing a dependence of acceleration on
mass, and therefore a violation of the weak equivalence principle (the geometric
interpretation of gravitation);
6)

the Walker-Dual experiment, showing in theory that changes in both gravitational
and electrostatic fields propagate faster than the speed of light, c, a result
reportedly given preliminary confirmation in a laboratory experiment.
7)

An earlier laboratory experiment with summary description in L.J. Wang et al
showed that charges respond to each others instantaneous positions, and not to
the left-behind potential hill, when they are accelerated.[4] This demonstrates
that electrodynamic forces must likewise propagate at faster than the speed of
light, more convincingly than earlier experiments shows angular momentum
conservation.
8)

A new laboratory experiment at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton claims
to have achieved propagation speeds of 310 c. This supplements earlier quantum
tunneling experiments. It is still debated whether these experiment types using
electromagnetic radiation can truly send information faster than light.[5]
Whatever the resolution of that matter, the leading edge of the transmission is an
electromagneti