September 30, 2002

Preliminary observations of the superluminal propagation of the Coulomb field support Lorentz's Interpretation of Special Relativity Theory

Alexis Guy Obolensky Bromion Div, NEI, Incorporated; 124 Orange Turnpike; Sloatsburg, New York 10974 Jean-Pierre Vigier (corresponding author) Equipe de Rlativit-Gravitation et Astrophysique ; Universit P. et M. Curie ; 4, place Jussieu ; 75252 Paris ; Cedex 05 Telephone: 33-1-4427-4214. Fax: 33-1-4051-0661. Email: guibal@ccr.jussieu.fr Abstract There exist two conflicting interpretations of Special Relativity applied to the propagation of light beams: Einstein's and Lorentz's. In this paper they are assessed in light of two types of recent experimental evidence. Keywords: Special Relativity, electrostatics, Coulomb Field, Lorentz ether. PACS: 03:30; 41.20.C.

1. Introduction
It is a well-known fact that there are two different ways to connect Special Relativity Theory with the observed properties of light.

A. The first (a unitary model resulting in great part from Einstein's research [1]) is to consider light as made up of zero mass elements, i.e., invariant under U(1). These photons follow the geodesics of a curved Riemanian space-time (possibly augmented by torsion and dilatation) locally satisfying Lorentz's special transformations. B. The second, a dualistic model resulting from Lorentzs views [2], is to consider light, i.e., Maxwellian fields, as made up of real, spinning extended photons with spin-1 and nonzero mass linked to real elements in a carrying continuous flat three-dimensional real infinite aetheric field. This moving aether thus contains a chaotic distribution of fieldpiloted extended solitons and wave elements, i.e., piloted solitons which can be described by collective Maxwellian equations, locally invariant under SU(2), for vortices filling this flat, unlimited, three-dimensional space. In Lorentzs model, observers and measuring devices are both made up of aether elements. These two models imply different consequences [3,4,5], which can now be tested. The aim of the present work is to discuss two observations that qualitatively support Lorentzs model and suggest further experiments.

2. Two different interpretations of Special Relativity

In this work, we shall deal with only two different types of effects: A. The first (laboratory experiment) is an observation of the superluminal character of the Coulomb field surrounding an electron concentration (Tesla Effect) [4]. B. The second (proposed by Carey [5]) involves possible astronomical observations such as the radiation of the stellar object SS.433 in the 2.7 K background electromagnetic field.

These experiments show quantitatively different results in the two preceding interpretations.

3. Experimental Nature of the Coulomb field

The first experiment is a laboratory replication by Obolensky [4] of some of the results obtained in 1900 by Tesla, who called his system a magnifying transmitter.[6] If one accepts Einsteins initial view that the rest mass of light (photons) is zero, and that the aether does not exist, then: a) the accelerated emitters (electrons) emit only transverse (J3 = 1) electromagnetic waves, which appear in the form of photons, and fields, exchanged with other charged particles. b) A Coulomb field is emitted with velocity c, so that neighboring charged particles can oscillate in Bohr orbits in a stable way around each other (as in the Bohr Hydrogen molecule), i.e., without radiating photons. If one accepts Lorentzs point of view, one assumes that Maxwells waves describe nonzero-mass, spin-1, extended vortices moving in a Dirac-type continuous vacuum. They can individually be described by a) a center of mass carrying an internal spin with E = h = mc2 ; b) two centers of electromagnetic charge at the two extremes of a diameter perpendicular to the photons spin; and c) the fact that these two localized associated charges, e and e+, rotate on themselves with an angular momentum h/2. The introduction of a non-zero-positive photon mass in electromagnetic theory has wellknown consequences [7,8], i.e.:

1) If the mass is small enough, it implies a practical (FAPP) separation of transverse (with spin J3 = 1) from longitudinal (J3 = 0) Maxwellian waves: the former (J3 = 1) are transverse waves moving with velocity < c, the latter corresponding to a static, Coulombtype field exp (-R)/R, R denoting the distance to the central point in the rest frame of the center of charge X. 2) The pilot fields surround particle-like photons in such a way that their internal orbital motions beat in phase around the axis defined by their charged orbital momenta. 3) In their rest frames (centered on X) longitudinal photons are static (i.e., X = 2 X) and their charge distribution is flattened along X in any other Lorentz frame according to the laws of Special Relativity Theory. 4) In this second model, photons are present only with transverse electromagnetic waves, and their energy-momentum is carried by photons and by waves. 5) This also implies that a moving, limited source containing electrons a) is surrounded by a real, physical, limited Coulomb-type field that corresponds to a superposition of all the Coulomb transverse electronic fields with J3 = 0 in their rest frames. The field (a) contains no photons and has limited extension around the source. b) emits longitudinal waves (J3 = 0) from their accelerated motions. II. Extended electrons (or positrons) are also contained in this Dirac-type aether. They are made up of localized, extended sub-elements defined by a center of mass Y (with E = h = moc2) and a different center of charge Y, around which an electronic charge distribution rotates. This center spirals around Y at a Compton distance, with a velocity c. The electromagnetic charge rotates on itself with an angular momentum h/2.

In this second model, electrons are extended bilocal structures (made up of a hole and a bump in Diracs aether) which contain different angular momenta around Y and X, the latter surrounded by rotating charge and mass distributions. Localized photon and electron elements are embedded in an aether which moves in flat space. This aether satisfies locally the laws of Special Relativity (with the measurement instruments included), but the motions of their accelerated elements' do not satisfy the laws of General Relativity and change their shapes in accelerated motions (detected by real, local, aether-built elements) in the aether and in the flat space in which they move.

4. Reproduction of Teslas evidence on superluminal Coulomb field

To test the validity of Teslas rejected superluminal patent claim, one of the present authors (AGO) [9] has built a local ground-current sensor (Tek. CT.2), associated with a twelve-foot remote one-foot-long aerial-current sensor (50 ohm 30 dB attenuator), both connected with equal length coax cables to a LeCroy 9550-10gs/s coincidence-measuring oscilloscope. These permit monitoring of a simultaneous faster-than-light connection, i.e., they demonstrate quantitatively the reality of superluminal signal correlation. In this experiment, the oscillograph records the time correlation of a local ground current (sensor A) and a remote aerial current (sensor B). Teslas elliptical electrode magnifying transmitter can be envisioned as an AC voltage-fed, Earth-air capacitor whose peak voltage scalar-transition is maximized by synchronizing a discharge of an elevated capacitor-electrode, with lightning-fast air disruption by pulsed UV illumination. The local ground-current sensor is a Tektronix (CT-2) current-to-voltage transformer. The 12-foot remote, 1-foot-long antenna current sensor employs a 30dB attenuator as its 50-ohm current-to-voltage transducer. A LeCroy 9550 10giga samples/s dual trace oscilloscope measures signal arrival time correlation.

In 1958, one of us (AGO) produced an impulse magnifying wave circulator using Guillemins parabolic-rise coefficients in the voltage-fed pulse-forming network. More recently, one can obtain copies of Teslas advanced impulse magnifying work. The unfinished patent drawing from the archives of the Nikola Tesla Museum in Belgrade is shown below. Tesla has explained his impulse magnifying discovery in the following way: The wave starts with a theoretically infinite speed, slowing down first very quickly and afterward at a lesser rate. It is noteworthy that Teslas experimentally determined spherical wave phenomenology parallels that later envisioned by Louis de Broglie in his double solution theory. 1 Dirac too seems to have been dissatisfied with the limitations of Maxwell theory. 2 Ground current sensor A and aerial current sensor B are separated by 12 feet. According to Einstein, a light-speed-limited wave response would introduce a 12-nanosecond delay in the aerial signal B. This 12-foot separation is close enough to reveal the initially instantaneous (rapidly slowing) spherical wave observed by Tesla. He explicitly depicted this spherical wave front in his schematic patent drawing, shown below.

The only way to understand what is going on seems to be to admit that the spherical wave emitted at the start does not remain spherical indefinitely. We can then say that the wave only has to remain spherical for a very short time in order to be able to explain the success of the Schrdinger experiment. L. de Broglie, Cahiers de Physique, 147 (1962), p. 426. 2 As long as we are dealing only with transverse waves, we cannot bring in the Coulomb interactions between particles. To bring them in, we have to introduce longitudinal electromagnetic waves The longitudinal waves can be eliminated by means of mathematical transformation. Now, when we do make this transformation which results in eliminating the longitudinal electromagnetic waves, we get a new term appearing in the Hamiltonian. This new term is just the Coulomb energy of interaction between all the charged particles P.A.M. Dirac.

Aerial current sensor B (3) (2)

Ground node current sensor A

(1) Figure 1

For present purposes, there are two important details in Teslas schematic patent drawing that need to be emphasized: a) the spherical wave-front centered around the ground current node; b) the four voltage-fed, Fourier-component pulse-forming networks (2) parallel-connected between the aluminum plate forming an earth-ground node (1) and the elevated 33-inch-diameter elliptical dome (3). The present experimental setup dispenses with Teslas three phase-coordinated receivers (not shown). Instead, a simple aerial sensor (B) is created by inserting a 1-foot length of #16 AWG wire into a 30 dB, 50-ohm coaxial attenuator (Mini-Circuits CAT-30). A second 30 dB attenuator, matches the coax extension and reduces the 1-volt / ampere output of the CT-2 current sensor (A). The oscillograph, shown below, records the time

correlation of a local ground current (at ground node current sensor A) and remote aerial current (1-foot-long, 50-ohm aerial current sensor B). The voltage-fed pulse forming system (2), the earth-current transducer (A) and the 1-foot-long long remote signal aerial (B) are represented as follows: The coincidence-recording oscilloscope is connected to the matched pair of UHF current sensors through equal-length coaxial cables that correlate the local ground current flowing through sensor A and the 12-foot remote signal current picked up by a 1-footlong 50 ohm antenna (sensor B). The 50 Pf dome capacitys 300kV peak potential produces a peak current of 23A. (cf. Pulse Generators (Glasoe and Lebacqz, ed., MIT Radiation Laboratory Series; 1948: McGraw-Hill), pp.175 ff.)
Expected 12ns light speed delay

Remote antenna current

Local ground current

Oscillographs of the time correlated currents (5 ns / horizontal division) sampled simultaneously at the local ground and 12' remote aerial via equal length coax cables. Top oscillograph displays the received aerial current (0.132 Ampere / vertical division). Bottom oscillograph displays the transmitted ground current (3.03) Amperes / vertical division). Any light speed signal, originating at this local ground, could not be detected at the 12' remote aerial earlier than the 12 ns time

marker. However, it is apparent that the initial-signal at this remote aerial occurs within 1 ns of the initial-signal at the local ground, indicating superluminal velocity. Paired arrows mark the 50% current rise time at the local ground and corresponding time for the remote aerial current.

5. Astronomical observations
Different astronomical tests are also possible. We discuss two in this work. A. One can evaluate the heaviness of rotating bodies by calculating the resistance offered to their rotation. The acceleration of gravity at the surface of a rotating body at its equator can be calculated from the known values of the gravitational force F and of equatorial radius Ro by_ G = F / Re2 (1)

Its velocity at the equator if not retarded by the weight would be Vg = (g.Re) (2)

A measurement of the sidereal period gives the actual velocity at the equator Ve. The equators acceleration ae can then be calculated by the expression of Ve2/R. The ratio g/ae is a measure of the rotating bodys heaviness. If we assume that inertia is the tendency of an object to maintain its state of uniform motion, then inertia can be described as a resistance to change of motion of a given body; hence it is proportional to the bodys local weight W. We thus write
r W = ma

(3)

r The formula (3) is confirmed by experiment. It also shows that a is independent of the

mass. This implies that the mass and orbital rotational velocity vary when velocity r changes. For example, the angular velocity w of Earths spin is not the same at perihelion (which occurs January 1-4), i.e., 6.231.103 m.s2, and at aphelion (July 4-6),

i.e., 5.637.10-3 m.s-2, where the Earths acceleration, i.e., weight, is different. This has been verified by the observations of Essen, which show that the time of rotation of the Earth in terms of the cesium atomic standard is faster in July and slower in January F.A.P.P. The Earth weighs less in aphelion than in perihelion and offers less resistance to its angular velocity.[10,11] B. As argued by Carey [6], a detailed analysis of the transverse Doppler shift of the spectral results of the stellar object S.S. 433 in terms of the Einstein and Lorentz models shows that the latter predicts that its stellar spectra and pulsar rates will have a secondorder Doppler cycle with a period of one year and an amplitude of approximately 2 parts in 10,000. The source S.S. 433 is some 12,000 light years distant and is emitting jets at 26% of the velocity of light, as discovered by Margon [12,13]. The orientation of its jets goes through a cycle so that every 164 days the jets are travelling exactly at right angles to the line of sight. At these times, the jets show a transverse Doppler redshift corresponding to that expected of the Lorentz theory for a velocity of 0.26c, since the vector of Earths net velocity with respect to the 2.7 K microwave background lies in the same plane as its orbit around the sun, this implies that the Earths net velocity oscillates by 30 km per second with an annual cycle. Lorentzs Relativity Model thus also predicts that (after corrections for the usual first-order Doppler effects) the second-order Doppler effects will show a second-order effect with an amplitude of about 2 parts in 10,000 and a period of one year.

Conclusion
The preliminary results described in this work need to be reproduced and extended for the simple reason that they have consequences for the choice between conflicting views on the physical interpretation of known laboratory and astronomical results.

References
1. A. Einstein, Ann. d. Phys. 17 (1905), 891 2. H. A. Lorentz, Proc. Acad. Sci. Amst. 6 (1904), 809 3. J. P. Vigier, Phys. Lett.. A 235 (1997), 419

4. A. G. Obolensky, Research Note Apeiron, Vol. 16 (1993), 15 5. T. Carey, Which Special Relativity is correctEinsteins or Lorentzs? preprint (1998) 6. N. Tesla, Art of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through the Natural Media Examiner states: Applicant has set the value of V to be 4.71241010. The U.S. Patent Office refused to accept Teslas superluminal velocity claim. 7. L. de Broglie, Cahiers de Physique, 147 (1962), 425-445. 8. L. de Broglie and J. P. Vigier, C.R. Acad. Sci., 273B (1970), 1069. 9. A. G. Obolensky, The Mechanics of Time, Proceedings of the 1988 International Tesla Symposium, Chapter 4 Pg. 36 10. L. Essen, Nature 2/9 (1968), 19 11. P. Spolter, Gravitational Force of the Sun, Orb. Publishing Company, 11862 Balboa Blvd., Granada Hills, CA 91344-2753, USA (1993) 12. B. Margon, Physics Today 7 (1960), 26 13. B. Margon, Sc. Am., 243, No. 4 (1980), 44