Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Inconsistency and Problems in Einstein’s General Relativity

Currently, Einstein’s general relativity is generally regarded as a top scientific achievement, although it is very dif-
ficult to understand. It is well known that observations accurately confirm the three predictions of Einstein [1, 2],
namely: 1) the gravitational redshifts, 2) the perihelion of Mercury, and 3) the deflection of light. However, the
difficulties in its understanding actually came, at least in part, due to its being not a self-consistent theory [3].

Einstein’s three accurate predictions created a faith on general relativity. Because of such a faith, few of his peers
took a critical look of his theory. Although problems were raised by Whitehead [3] and Eddington [4] on Ein-
stein’s theory of measurements, they are soon forgotten since nobody was able to solve them. Currently, instead of
trying to improve the theory, many theorists tried very hard to make physical sense out of just any solutions of
Einstein’s equation [5, 6, 7]. And such efforts often made their works sound more like science frictions than a sci-
entific theory [8]. Unsolved problems were still there after more than 90 years although all the problems seem to
be rectifiable. In other words, general relativity actually has never been well understood.

It should be noted that, in spite of the confirmations of Einstein’s predictions, there are problems in verifying Ein-
stein’s theory as follows:

1) The gravitational redshifts were based on Einstein’s 1911 preliminary assumption equivalence between accel-
eration and Newtonian gravity. However, such an assumption is inconsistent with Einstein’s equivalence
principle proposed later in 1916 [1, 2]. Fock [9] found that it is impossible to have a metric that is consistent
with Newtonian uniform gravity. This shows that gravitational red shifts can be derived from an invalid the-
ory although the gravitational redshifts can be derived from Einstein’s equivalence principle [1, 2].

2) Although Einstein did derive the perihelion of Mercury, Gullstrand [10] pointed out in his report to the Nobel
Committee that Einstein’s field equation may not be able to produce a solution for a two-body problem. In
other words, Einstein’s derivation may not be valid. Because of this, Einstein was awarded a prize for his
work in the photo-electric effects. Moreover, it has been proven that Einstein’s field equation indeed cannot
produce a physical solution for a two-body problem [11, 12]. Recently, ‘t Hooft [7] tried to rebuttal this con-
clusion with a “counter” example of his. However, this only exposed his inadequacy in some aspect of phys-
ics such as that he does not understand Einstein’s equivalence principle as well as the principle of causality
[7, 13]. So, the perihelion actually cannot be considered as a verification of Einstein’s theory although it does
suggest that his theory would be in the right direction.

3) From both the Schwarzschild and the harmonic solution, Einstein obtained the same first order deflection of
light in terms of the shortest distance r0 from the sun center [1, 2]. Then, in support of his covariance prin-
ciple, Einstein [2] remarked, “It should be noted that this result, also, of the theory is not influenced by our
arbitrary choice of a system of coordinates.” Obviously, this gauge invariance should have been supported by
all physical quantities in all orders of calculations. Recently, calculation of the deflection angle to the second
order also shows gauge invariance in terms of the impact parameter “b” [14, 15]. However, careful analysis
shows that this calculation actually implies that the theory is intrinsically not gauge invariant since, for each
gauge, the shortest distance r0 is different from that for another gauge [16]. To defend this inconsistency, the
editorial of the Royal Society claimed [17] only b is a true measurable physical quantity, but r0 is just an ar-
bitrary label, a hypothetical construct. However, this is inconsistent with Einstein’s result on the first order
approximation [1, 2]. Thus, the editorial of the Royal Society has not reached the maturity in logic.

Because Einstein’s covariance principle is invalid, general relativity of Einstein was not a complete theory. Fortu-
nately, the Maxwell-Newton approximation has been proven as the valid first order approximation for gravity due
to massive sources [18] such that the binary pulsar experiment can be explained satisfactorily [11, 12]. According
to this approximation, r0 is at least accurate to the first order. Moreover, validity of this approximation implies also
that the coupling constants have different signs [11] and thus the physical assumption of unique sign in singularity
theorems of Penrose and Hawking is invalid.

This logical immaturity also led to supporting [19] to Bondi Pirani & Robin [5] who rejected Einstein’s require-
ment on weak gravity since it is inconsistent with Einstein’s covariance principle. Nevertheless, prominent theor-
ists such as Straumann [20], Wald [21], and Will [22], who believe in both Einstein’s requirement on weak gravity
and his covariance principle, failed responding to this inconsistence [5] discovered since 1959. Moreover, such lo-
gic immaturity is not just isolated incidents of this Royal Society as shown in Hawking’s book [23, 24].

Moreover, although the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation was formed, founders of the
society such as P. G. Bergmann [25], H. Bondi [5], V. A. Fock [8], J. L. Synge [26], J. A. Wheeler [27], and etc.
have never reached a general consensus on general relativity. Under the auspices of this society, “General Relativ-
ity and Gravitation” is published. Surprisingly, members of the Editorial Board actually do not sufficiently under-
stand physical principles, such as Einstein’s equivalence principle and the principle of causality [22-30]. For in-
stance, except in Einstein's original works, there are no textbooks or reference books [28] (including the British
Encyclopedia [2006]) that explained Einstein's equivalence principle correctly although this principle is stated
squarely in page 57 of Einstein's book, “The Meaning of Relativity'” [2]. They also failed to understand that Ein-
stein has changed his position on E = mc 2 to as only conditionally valid [31], and also the experiments of the bin-
ary pulsars. In addition, some of such theorists criticized Einstein without getting the facts straight first [8, 26].
Einstein’s difficulties are due to incorrectly adapt the mathematical notion of local distance in Riemannian
geometry as if valid in physics [32]. Moreover, Einstein’s theory of measurement is actually based on invalid ap-
plications of special relativity [1]. Whitehead [3, p.83], strongly objected,
“By identifying the potential mass impetus of a kinematic element with a spatio-temporal measure-
ment Einstein, in my opinion, leaves the whole antecedent theory of measurement in confusion, when
it is confronted with the actual conditions of our perceptual knowledge. The potential impetus shares
in the contingency of appearances. It therefore follows that measurement on his theory lacks system-
atic uniformity and requires a knowledge of the actual contingent physical field before it is possible.”
Unfortunately, Whitehead also rejected Einstein’s equivalence principle, which actually rectifies Einstein’s theory
of measurement [33]. His theory of measurement is also inconsistent with the observed light bending [34, 35], and
is the root for ambiguity of coordinates and ended up the need of his covariance principle as an interim measure.

Fundamental concepts in a great theory are often difficult to grasp [36]. To mention a few, this happened to
Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Schőrdinger, and C. N. Yang [37]. Einstein is simply not an exception. Unlike Newton,
Einstein did not have adequate background in mathematics, and this affects the logical structure of his theory. He
believed the solutions with different gauges as equally valid [2], but did not see that his covariance principle is in-
consistent with his notion of weak gravity [5]. Zhou Pei-Yuan [38, 39] of Peking University was the first who cor-
rectly rejected Einstein’s covariance principle but accepted Einstein’s equivalence principle. Nevertheless, Ein-
stein is a great theorist since the implications of general relativity such as the need for unification have been dis-
covered and verified [40, 41]. However, theoretical developments [7, 41] and NASA’s discovery of the Pioneer
anomaly imply that Einstein’s theory is clear inadequate [42, 43].

1. A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Minkowski, H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, N. Y., 1952), pp 115-
118, p.162; A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipig) 49, 769-822 (1916).
2. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press, 1954), p. 63, p. 87 & p.. 93.
3. A. N. Whitehead, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1922).
4. A. S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (1923) (Chelsa, New York, 1975), p. 10.
5. H. Bondi, F. A. E. Pirani & I. Robinson, Proc. R. Soc. London A 251, 519-533 (1959).
6. Penrose R., Rev. Mod. Phys. 37 (1), 215-220 (1964).
7. C. Y. Lo, The Principle of Causality and the Cylindrically Symmetric Metrics of Einstein & Rosen, Bulletin of
Pure and Applied Sciences, 27D (2), 149-170 (2008).
8. K. S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps (Norton, New York, 1994), pp. 105, 456.
9. V. A. Fock, The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation, translated by N. Kemmer (Pergamon Press, 1964),
pp 6, 111, 119, 228-233
10. A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16, No. 8 (1921); ibid, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 17, No. 3 (1922).
11. C. Y. Lo, Einstein's Radiation Formula and Modifications to the Einstein Equation, Astrophysical Journal 455,
421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995).
12. C. Y. Lo, On Incompatibility of Gravitational Radiation with the 1915 Einstein Equation, Phys. Essays 13 (4),
527-539 (December, 2000).

13. C. Y. Lo, Special Relativity, Misinterpretation of E = Mc2, and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, in
Proc. IX International Scientific Conference on ‘Space, Time, Gravitation,’ August 7-11, 2006, Saint-Peters-
burg, Russian Academy of Sciences.
14. J. Bodenner & C. M. Will, Am. J. Phys. 71 (8), 770 (August 2003).
15. J. M. Gérard & S. Piereaux, “The Observable Light Deflection Angle, arXiv:gr-qc/9907034 v1 8 Jul 1999.
16. C. Y. Lo, The Deflection of Light to Second Order and Invalidity of the “Principle of Covariance”, Bulletin of
Pure and Applied Sciences, 27D (1), 1-15 (2008).
17. Louise Gardner, Editorial Coordinator, the Royal Society, A Board Member’s Comments (Feb. 25, 2009).
18. C. Y. Lo, Compatibility with Einstein's Notion of Weak Gravity: Einstein's Equivalence Principle and the Ab-
sence of Dynamic Solutions for the 1915 Einstein Equation, Phys. Essays 12 (3), 508-526 (Sept. 1999).
19. Pring F, The Royal Society, “Board Member's Comments” (Jan. 8, 2007).
20. N. Straumann, General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics (Springer, New York, 1984).
21. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
22. C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge. Univ. 1981).
23. S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, New York, 1988).
24. 霍金教授是現代的愛因斯坦嗎?(2006 年 6 月 19 日) www5.chinesenewsnet.com/MainNews/Opinion.
25. P. G. Bergman, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1976).
26. J. L. Synge, Relativity; The General Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971).
27. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, & J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
28. C. Y. Lo, Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and the Einstein-Minkowski Condition, Bulletin of Pure and
Applied Sciences, 26D (2), 73-88 (2007d).
29. C. Y. Lo, The Gravitational “Plane Waves” of Liu and Zhou and the Nonexistence of Dynamic Solutions for
Einstein’s Equation, Astrophys. Space Sci., 306: 205-215 (2006 (DOI 10.1007/s10509-006-9221-x).
30. C. Y. Lo, Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, the Principle of Causality, and Plane-Wave Solutions, Phys. Essays
20 (3) (Sept. 2007).
31. A. Einstein, “E = mc2 (1946),” in Ideas and Opinions (Crown, New York, 1954), p. 337.
32. C. Y. Lo, Misunderstandings Related to Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and Einstein’s Theoretical Errors
on Measurements, Phys. Essays 18 (4), 547-560 (December, 2005).
33. C. Y. Lo, Space Contractions, Local Light Speeds, and the Question of Gauge in General Relativity, Chinese
J. of Phys. (Taipei), 41 (4), 233-343 (August 2003).
34. C. Y. Lo, On Criticisms of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, Phys. Essays 16 (1), 84-100 (March 2003).
35. C. Y. Lo, On Interpretations of Hubble's Law and the Bending of Light, Progress in Phys., Vol. 1, 10 (2006).
36. L. Motz & J. H.. Weaver, The Story of Physics (Avon, New York, 1989).
37. C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 445 (1974).
38. Zhou (Chou) Pei-Yuan, “On Coordinates and Coordinate Transformation in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”
in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meetings on Gen. Relativ., ed. Hu Ning, Science Press & North
Holland. (1983), 1-20.
39. Zhou Pei-Yuan, “Further Experiments to Test Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, International Symposium on
Experimental Gravitational Physics (Guangzhou, 3-8 Aug. 1987), edited by P. F. Michelson, 110-116 (World
Sci., Singapore).

40. C. Y. Lo, The Necessity of Unifying Gravitation and Electromagnetism and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Ef-
fects in Gravity, Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory: Proceedings of International Meeting. Moscow,
2 – 5 July 2007/ Edited by M.C. Duffy, V.O. Gladyshev, A.N. Morozov, P. Rowlands. – Moscow: BMSTU,
2007, p. 82.
41. C. Y. Lo, Limitations of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Force, Phys. Essays
21 (1), 44-51 (March 2008).
42. S. G. Turgshev, V. Toth, L. R. Kellogy, E. L. Lau, and K. J. Lee, “The Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: New
Data Objectives for New Investigation” arXIV: gr-gc/0512121v2, 6 Mar. 2006.
43. C. Y. Lo, The Mass-Charge Repulsive Force and Space-Probes Pioneer Anomaly, in preparation.

Dear Mr. Yen:

I have read carefully your article of 2005 on interviewing me regarding the work of Zhou and
general relativity. You are correct that some of the contents in your article need updated since
three years have passed.

To this end, I have written a short article, 廣義相對論中的問題與愛因斯坦的自相矛盾,

on this subject. My goal is the get the readers being aware of that general relativity is far from
perfect as some media advocated. I hope this article would be useful to you.

Sincerely yours,

C. Y. Lo

p.s. I attached also a Chinese translation of my paper of 2003.


Applied and Pure Research Institute
17 Newcastle Drive, Nashua, NH 03060, USA

譯自:The Chinese Journal of Physics, Vol. 41, No. 4, 233-243 目前大家相信,在相對論中,甚

史瓦西 (Schwarzschild) 解和各向同性解被認為在物理上是等效的。這裏,我指出,如此

04.20.-q , 04.20.Cv

1. 引導

愛因斯坦經常是發現他自己錯誤的第一人,但是也有例外的。在這篇論文,我指出愛因斯坦在 1921 年的
書,"The Meaning of Relativity [1]"中,關於規範的問題上犯了一個錯誤。其錯誤實質是如下:在相對論,
個時空度規解 (例如,史瓦西 (Schwarzschild) 解和各向同性解) 在物理上是等效的。基於事實上史瓦西解
和各向同性解產生同樣的光線的偏移 [1,2] ,愛因斯坦 [1] 評論,”應該被注意到,這結果和相關的理論,

都是有效的, 由於他們給出十分不同的空間收縮。然而,為了處理這個問題,必須首先弄明白,在一個空
間參考框架中 1),空間座標的物理的意義。

個慣性的框架和一個旋轉的參考框架能有不同的,但物理上等效的解。 愛因斯坦 [2] 考慮了一個 Galilean
(慣性) 參考系統 K (x, y, z, t) ;一個慣性系統的度規是

ds2 = c2dt2 – dx2 - dy2 - dz2, (1)

ds2 = c2 dt2 – dr2 - r2 dφ2 - dz2, 在此 x = r cos φ, y = r sin φ, (1’)

式中的單位是釐米和秒,並且 c 是光速度,3x1010 cm/sec。然後,他考慮系統 K'(x', y', z', t') 在相對地對 K

作均勻的旋轉角速度 。這兩系統的原點,並且 z 和 z' 軸永久地重疊著。由於對稱性 2),在 K 的 x-y 平面
上、環繞原點的一個圓圈可以同時被認為是在 K'的 x'-y' 平面上的一個圓圈。這樣, = φ’ + Ωt [3-5]。然
後,計算表明系統 K'的度規是如下列:

ds2 = (c2 - Ω2r’2) dt’2 – dr’2 - (1 - Ω2r’2/c2)-1r’2 dφ’2 – dz’2, (2)

此處 x’ = r’ cos φ’, y’ = r’ sin φ’, r’ = [x’2 + y’2]1/2, 並且 2r’2/2c2 是實效 ”引力位勢”。這樣,愛因斯坦 [2]
總結地說,用一條相對於 K' 在休息的測量捧,那它的直徑與圓周的商將比 要大,並且歐幾裏德幾何學
因此垮掉。正如愛因斯坦所要求的 [1,2] ,時間被如此地定義為“一隻鐘的速率取決於該鐘所在的位置”。
而且,度規 (2) 對此時空坐標系統是唯一的,並且愛因斯坦的等效原理是滿足了。然而, 對度規 (2) 而言,

相對於空間參考框架休息,可是沒有明顯地說出,他們是處於一個自由地掉落的狀態。在另一方面, 對一
裏德幾何結構,作為一個對時空度規的必要補充。這樣,愛因斯坦的黎曼 (Riemannian) 時空有一個類歐
幾裏德幾何結構,作為一個空間參考框架。而且,類歐幾裏德幾何結是構獨立於引力 3) 因而也獨立於物質
的分佈。圓柱形座標是顯著地在 Eq. (2) 中。然而,Eq. (2) 意味協變性 (表達於,從這個方程自由地導出
張量座標轉換) 否定了 Eq. (2) 的特殊坐標軸與類歐幾裏德幾何運作性結構,具有唯一的聯繫。

具有一個在空間參考框架中的類歐幾裏德幾何結構,一個偽黎曼(pseudo-Riemannian) 空間可被稱為愛因
斯坦空間, 命名于在它的創造者。然而,應該被注意到,一個愛因斯坦空間可以不是,滿足他的等效原理的,
物理空間中。然而,如果這失敗於某個度規,如此的一個流形便不是一個物理空間。這樣, 表面上的邏輯

對一全部品質為 M 的球形的品質分發,各向同性的解有下列形式[ 6 ],

ds2 = [(1 – Mκ/2r)2/(1 + Mκ/2r)2]dt2 – (1 + Mκ/2r)4(dx2 + dy2 + dz2), (3)

式中 r = [x2 + y2 + z2]1/2,並且 是引力偶合常數。也注意度規是 r 的函數, 它以一個被定義於子空間 (x,
y, z) 的類歐幾裏德幾何結構,那是獨立於度規 (3) 的。(座標滿足 Pythagoras 法則,儘管根據度規 (3) 沒有
歐幾裏德幾何的子空間。) 因此, 空間參考框架 (x, y, z) 中的類歐幾裏德幾何結構公式 r = [x2 + y2 + z2]1/2 是
必然地被包括在如此的愛因斯坦-黎曼時空中。還有, 對度規 (3),局域光速度是各向同性的。

愛因斯坦 [1,2] 最少在兩個場合中說了光的速度是 ”定義于歐幾裏德幾何學的意義上”。儘管有如此的宣

理論家宣稱了座標並且因此光的座標速度,是沒有物理意義的,儘管他們 [3-8] 接受了一個事實上聯繫了
座標 4) 的光線偏移。因而我抗辨此宣言是可置疑的。

另一方面,著名的史瓦西解[1,2],用坐標系 K'(x, y, z, t), 是

ds2 = (1 – 2Mκ/ρ)dt2 – (1 – 2Mκ/ρ)-1dρ2 – ρ2dθ2 – ρ2 sin2θ dϕ2, (4)

式中 2
= x2 + y2 + z2, x = ρ sinθ cosϕ, y = ρ sinθ sinϕ,和 z = ρ cosθ是以類歐幾裏德幾何結構座標 , ,
和 來定義的。而且,度規 ( 3 ) 和 ( 4 ) 是由

ρ = r (1 + Mκ/2r)2, 如果 ρ > 2Mκ. (5)

聯繫起來 [6]。這樣,度規 (3) 和度規(4)是相亙微分同構 5) (diffeomorphic) [9],雖然在物理上它們是不相容



2. 黎曼時空間中的 類歐幾裏德幾 何結構 , 和試驗實 際規範的需要 。

對一個均勻旋轉的系統,物理空間的時空度規是決定了的。於 1919 年愛因斯坦 [10] 說, 被事件作為空間

參考的物體,稱為坐標系統。另一方面,除埃丁頓 (Eddington) [11] 外的許多理論家,相信了一個規範條
件能被任意地選擇。這樣,澄清規範條件的這個問題便是必要的了。在相對論中,1915 年的愛因斯坦非
線性的場方程 [1,2] 對時空度規 gab 是

Gab ≡ R ab – ½ R gab = –K T(m)ab , (6)

式中 Rab 是 Ricci 曲率張量; 源張量 T(m)ab 是物質的能量-動量張量,可能也是依賴於 gab。 然而,在這十

個張量方程中,只六個是獨立的, 由於

∇aGab ≡ 0. (7)

這樣,解愛因斯坦方程 (6), 需要四個更多的條件。這四個附加的條件被認為是由於在物理黎曼空間有座


在規範條件的問題上有兩個極端的看法: i) 福克 [7] 提出諧和規範條件是唯一的物理上有效的規範條件。

這己為一個均勻地旋轉的系統證明是錯誤的。 ii) 另一個不正確的看法是規範條件狀況能被任意地選擇
[9]。儘管埃丁頓 (Eddington) [11] 拒絕了如此的一個觀點,這個不成立的觀點仍是流行的,因為它與另外
能導致非物理解的接受 [12-14]。

對於品質的球形的靜態的分佈,因為 因果原理 2) [15,16] ,外引力的場有球對稱靜態的對稱。它要求[6] 時


ds2 = F(r) c2dt2 – D(r) dr2 – C(r)(r2dθ2 + r2 sin2θ dϕ2) . (8)

然而,在當前的理論,函數 C (r), D (r),和 F (r) 不能唯一地被決定。如果 D (r) = C (r) 被假定,獲得各
向同性的解 (3)。然而,這不是唯一的解。如果 C (r) = 1 被假定,獲得另外的著名的解, 用坐標系 (x, y, z,
t) 的史瓦西解 (4) (即用 r 代替 )。

上面的計算表明,這兩個解有同樣類歐幾裏德幾何學與同樣的空間參考框架。這意味著那參數“ r ”在度
規 (3) 應該與參數 “ ”在度規 ( 4 ) ,在物理上是一樣的。這樣, 微分同構的度規 (3) 和 (4) 在物理上是
膨脹的差別是第二階,空間收縮 (並且因此局域光速) 很不同:一個是方向性的而另外一個是各向同性的。

為澄清這分析,讓我們從 1916 愛因斯坦的論文的節 22 中,跟隨他推導的一些步驟[2]:

“對於長度為一的單位放在 “平行” 於軸 x,例如,我們應該必須設定(斜體是添加的) ds2 = –1;
dx2 = dx3 = dx4 = 0. 因此 –1 = g11 dx12。另外,如果該單位放在 x 的軸上躺,方程(70)的第一個給
出 g11 = – (1 + a/r)。由這兩關係,正確到第一階小數量,接著得 dx = 1 – a/2r。”
關鍵的詞 ”應該必須設定” 意味著應用他的等效原理,如果它是成立的話。這個假設是必要的,因為對
史瓦西度規 (4),等效原理的有效性沒被證明。(注意:但是對愛因斯坦的均勻旋轉盤,愛因斯坦的等效
原理的有效性能直接地被證明。)處於一種類似的狀況,對一各向同性度規,愛因斯坦 [1, p.91] 使用另

愛因斯坦倚靠他的 1911 的引力的紅移公式和水星近日點作為一時空度規合法化的依據。然而,這沒導致

一個唯一的度規,由於兩個度規 (3) 和 (4) 得到相同的近似結果。而且,這兩個度規對光線彎屈給出一樣
的第一階近似。這樣,這兩個度規, 聯繫到一樣的空間參考框架,但愛因斯坦的三個測試難以區分。而且,
也不困難顯示出光的延遲 (另外的累積試驗 6))也幫助不了這件事 [8]。這造成了這兩個規範條件是物理上
地等效的的一個假印象。而且,根據懷特黑德 (Whitehead) [17] ,愛因斯坦也不知道怎樣澄清時空座標的

關聯的唯一性,己在一個均勻地旋轉的系統的情況中被表明。) 這樣,一個局域性的檢驗 6) 是需要的。為
達到此目的,可用測量局域光速 7) 來決定哪個度規是更現實的。例如, 對史瓦西解,局域垂直和地平線的

dρ 2 Mκ ρdθ Mκ
=1− , 輿 ≈1− . (9)
dt ρ dt ρ

另外地,可以選擇只測量光速度的方向性差別。邁克遜-莫利 (Michelson-Morley) 類型干涉儀 [18] ,具有


3. 垂直的鐳射干涉 儀引力實驗
一個實驗室的光源 S 被聚焦在一薄
薄地鍍銀的玻璃板 P 上,把光劃分成
up 兩條亙成直角的光線。其一反射去鏡
面 M1 且通過板被反映回來到 B1,而
其他射去鏡面 M2 回射到板,並且被
反映到 B2 。從 M1 到 P 的距離是 d1
,並且從 M2 到 P 的距離是 d2 。垂
直的光速度是 cu 和地平線的光速度
是 ch。cu 可認作一個常數,如果 r
M2 (或 ) 的變化與地球的半徑比較是
P 小的話。兩鏡子交替地最高的位置。
當鏡子 M1 在頂時 (或交替地在底部) ,

B2 B1
時間 t1 光從 P 去到 M1 並且回到 P 是 t1 = 2d1/cu ,和時間 t2 光從 P 到 M2 並且回到 P 是 t2 = 2 d2/ch。

d d 
∆t = t 2 − t1 = 2 2 − 1  (10)
 c h cu 

當鏡子 M2 在頂時(或在底部) ,需時間 t’2 光從 P 去到 M2 並且回到 P,t’2 = 2d2/cu ,並且需時間 t’1 光從

P 去到 M1 且回到 P ,t’1 = 2d1/ch。然後,時間差別是

d d 
∆t ' = t ' 2 −t '1 = 2 2 − 1  . (11)
 u c h 
c h − cu
∆T = ∆t − ∆t ' = 2(d1 + d 2 ) (12)
cu c h

是全部的時間差別,對應於一距離近似地 (由於 vu 和 vh 比 c 小得多),

∆d ≈ c∆T = 2(d 1 + d 2 ) , 在此 ∆c = c h – cu . (13)

對各向同性的規範條件, ∆c = c h − cu = 0。然而,對史瓦西解,我們有,

∆v Mκ 8πR e GM
= = , 在此 Re = 6.378x106 meters, (14)
c Re 8πc 2 R e2

是地球的半徑,M 是地球品質,並且 G 是在牛頓的理論的偶合常數。第二個因數是 9.8 m/sec2,由此近似

地 v/c = 6.96x10-10。

可見的光的波長大約是 5000 Å。如果期望的效果是干涉的邊緣移動約十分之一,那麼 d 應該是 500 Å

[18]。然後,要求臂的全部的長度,大過 Michelson-Morley 實驗的,大約是,

(d1 + d2) ≈ 36 meters. (15)

然而,vu 能確實地被當作一個常數,並且兩個規範條件之間的區分是很好地在實驗的精確度以內。實驗
很多鏡子之間被反映 [1]。也請注意:頂,底部,和地平線的選擇位置將幫助檢測機械拉長並且壓縮的效

4. 評論

目前,各向同性的解被用於續-牛頓的近似 (由埃丁頓開始的 [11]),它被用來追蹤太空船[19]。斯坦福實驗,

引力 probe-B [20],也將用,與各向同性的解相容的,弱引力線性的方程來檢查。而且,這個弱引力的線
性的方程能,用獨立於愛因斯坦的 1915 方程的方法,推導出來 [15]。在另一方面, 更簡單的史瓦西
(Schwarzschild) 解是被用於準確的計算 [1,6-8] ,並且也在黑洞覌念的發展中使用 [8,9]。請也注意到那度
規 (2) ,毫無疑問地,不是各向同性的。因此,難以決定地球的度規是準確地各向同性或各向異性,將被

理論上,各向異性的光速度的存在,是被度規 (2) 所表明了。然而,作為附加的證據,將是困難產生一足

夠大的角速度 ,以便由測量局域光速,能直接地驗證度規 ( 2 )。幸好, Sagnac 效應 [21],(在一個旋轉
的物體,兩光線以相反的方向在相同的回路傳播的干涉效果) 為各向異性的光速度的存在,給以間接的支

一個相關的問題是實驗室將繞地球的軸轉。然而,由於地球角速度 (≈ 7.3 x 10-5/sec )是小的,在赤道
上,由於旋轉而產生的有效引力位勢 2Re2/2c2 只是 Mk/Re 的 1.7 x10-3。這樣,在測量局域光速度到第一
[6] ,並且,如果區分他們是必要,這樣如此的旋轉的效果就必須被考慮。

給一些初步的考慮。細節將在另一論文 [22] 發表,儘管一個完全的方案,是實驗物理學家所承擔的工作。

個垂直或一個地平線的位置。由於如此的干擾,限制不明確的變化少於不到臂長的 6.96x10-10,將是很困

嘗試測量垂直的和地平線的光速度之間的差別 8),並宣稱在 1990 得到 10-9 的精確度。他們的實驗,基
於 Fabry-Perot 干涉儀,直接測量了光速度[23]。由於這儀器是設在一個真空管子中,儀器的重量將

1979 年,伊爾馬茲 (Yilmaz) [24] 建議一類似的設計為局域光速度實驗 9)。然而,如此的設計對 Michelson-

Morley 實驗的舊版本是困難的。基於測量干涉移動大小,此舊實驗的基本的設計是 L 形狀。對此設計,
把旋轉的軸放在 L 的角落,似乎更適當,並且可分別測量拉長或壓縮的效果。由於局域光速度能直接地
並且精確地用現代的技術米測量 [23,25] ,為了避免這個機械拉長和壓縮問題,可以比較不同的高度的,

不幸地,周小組的實驗 [23] 在初步的結果獲得以後,中止了。一個主要的問題是,實驗似乎基於相信史

瓦西解和諧和解 10 )是獨立的 [26]。而且,理論家們如劉教授 [4] 自定義一座標光速,對一個正交系統,這
樣的光速度是永遠各向同性的。俞教授 [5, p. 58] 誤導地宣稱:所有的可測量的數量必是標量。面對現存
”理論” 的襲擊,證明他們實驗的正當性,是困難的,因為空間參考框架座標的物理的意義,當時還沒
但這是在這篇論文的範圍以外了。現論文僅限於顯示出需要,並且原則上可行,做如此的實驗 11)。

愛因斯坦的理論的一個主要的問題,根據懷特黑德 [17] ,是時空座標間的物理意義不清楚。這樣,泡利

沒有關鍵性的時空座標的物理的意義,相對論的當前的理論是相當任意的,並且理論上不是一貫的 [12-


The author is grateful for stimulating discussions with Professors A. J. Coleman, P. Morrison, A. Napier, and
W. Oliver. The author is also grateful to the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. In particular,
the author appreciates very much the information about the Sagnac effect and the work of Yilmaz. Special thanks
are due to Mr. J. Markovitch for useful suggestions on the presentation. This work is supported in part by Innotec
Design, Inc., USA.


1) 目前,面對著引力的場存在,時-空的數學的建模是一(偽-)黎曼流形 M,其度規的 g 具有與 Minkowski
度規有一樣的簽名 (+, –, –, –)。這一對 (M, g) 被稱為 Lorentz 流形,並且 g 被稱為 Lorentzian 度規
[8]。愛因斯坦的物理空間是一 Lorentz 流形,而具有一個空間參考框架,和可聯繫局域鐘的一時間座
標 [1,2]。

2) 久經考驗的假設,現象能以可辨別的原因來解釋,被稱作 ”因果原理” 。這原理是所有科學研究調

物理的原因 [15,16]。這樣,如果一個非物理參數存在於度規中,如此的一流形將不能與一個物理空間
是微分同構 (diffeomorphic) 。在相對論中,愛因斯坦和隨後的理論家,隱含地在對稱的考慮中,使用
了這個原理 [1-9]。

3) 儘管愛因斯坦,在他的解中,發現了 ”類歐幾裏德幾何結構”[2] ,他沒有認識到,因為相對論的理


4) 光的偏移是一個角度,使用物理的措施顯式比較,在無窮遠處測量的 (例如,在攝影的板上的毫米)。
參考坐標系統。例如,第一個如此的轉換,便是基於史瓦西坐標系統 [3]。而且,用一個均勻地旋轉

5) 對於兩 Lorentz 流形,如果 f: (M, g)→(M’, g’) 是 C∞,全部一一對應,且有 C∞反函數,f 就被稱為

微分同構函數(diffeomorphism),而且 M 和 M’被稱為 微分同構(diffeomorphic)[9]。這樣, 微分同構
地是一個物理空間,由於一微分同構函數 不能保存所有的物理的要求的有效性。

6) 累積效應測試,例如光彎屈和光的延遲,在長距離上測試局域效果的累積,而局域測試,例如引力的

7) 這局域光速度與在一個 Minkowski 局域空間的光速度不同。

8) 作者謝謝 H·伊爾馬茲 (Yilmaz) 教授,在閱讀這篇論文初稿後,告知此事。

9) 伊爾馬茲 (Yilmaz) 的引力的 Michelson-Morley 類型實驗是一個現代的版本,它基於使用穩定頻率的鐳


10)周培源 [22] 認為諧和條件是一個另外的物理條件。這個未被驗證的覌點可能是很少有對周的實驗同

情的一個原因。史瓦西和諧和解的聯繫已顯示出來 [6]。最近, 彭恒武教授 [27] 澄清了,周教授的建議
只對逐漸平滑 (asymptotically flat) 於無限遠的度規。

11)基於 Maxwell-Newton 近似 [15,28], 可預言在地球表面上的局域光速實驗,將贊成度規的第一階近似

是各向同性的 [29]。請注意,各向同性解與諧和解有同樣第一階近似。


1. A·愛因斯坦,相對論 的意義 (普林斯頓大學出版社, 1954), p. 63 ,p. 87 與 p. 93 。

2. A·愛因斯坦, H·A·洛倫茨, H·民考斯基, H·韋爾, 相對 性原理 (Dover, 紐約, 1952), pp. 115-118 。
3. Y·B. Zel'dovich 與 I·D·諾威科夫,星和相 對論 (Dover, 紐約 1996), pp. 7-16 。
4. 劉遼,相對論 (高教育出版社, 上海, 1987), pp. 26-30 。
5. 俞允強, 廣義相 對論引 論 (北京大學出版社, 北京, 1997), pp. 63-66 。
6. S·韋恩伯格,引力 和宇 宙學 (約翰·威利, 紐約, 1972)。
7. V·A·福克, 空間 時間和 引力的 理論 , 由 N·凱姆默翻譯 (Pergamon 出版社, 1964), pp. 6, 111, 119, 228-
8. H·C·奧漢安與 R·魯芬伊, 引力 和時空 (Norton, 紐約, 1994), p. xi, p. 54, 和背後蓋子。
9. R·M·瓦爾德, 相對 論 (芝加哥大學出版社, 芝加哥, 1984), p. 84-88 。

10. A·愛因斯坦,“什麼是相對論? (1919)”, 在 想法和 意見 (王冠, 紐約, 1982)。
11. A·S·埃丁頓, 相對 論的數 學理論 (1923) (Chelsa, 紐約, 1975), p. 10 。
12. D·克拉默,H·斯泰凡伊,E·赫爾特,與 M·馬薩盧姆, 愛因斯 坦的埸 方程的 準確解 , 編輯 E·斯克赫穆
策 (劍橋大學出版社, 劍橋, 1980)。
13. 魯重賢, Phys 散文, 7 (4), 453 (1994); 魯重賢, Phys 散文, 11 (2), 264-272 (1998)。
14. W·B·本納,J·B·格裏菲特赫斯與 M·A H·馬薩盧姆, Gen. Rel. 與 Gravitation, 26, 7, 1994 。
15. 魯重賢, Phys 散文, 12 (3), 508-526 (1999 年 9 月)。
16. 魯重賢, Phys 散文, 13 (4), 527-539 (2000 年 12 月)。
17. A·N·懷特黑德, 相對性 原理 (劍橋大學出版社, 劍橋, 1922)。
18. J·D·傑克遜, 古典電 動力學 (約翰·威利, 紐約, 1966), pp. 350-352 。
19. C·W·米斯, 納 K·S·瑟內, 和 J·A·惠勒, 引力論 (W·H·夫裏曼, 三藩市, 1973)。
20. C. W. F. Everitt et al. in Proc. Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Gen. Relativ., Stanford, July 1994, ed.
R. Jantzen & M. Keiser, Ser. ed. R. Ruffini, 1533 (World Sci., Singapore, 1996).
21. E·J·波斯特, 現代的物理的評論, 卷 39, 475-493 (1967); 也參考 http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-
07.htm 。
22. 魯重賢 與 王釧,“關於相對論的規範條件的實驗測試”,在準備。
23. 李永久, 趙之貴, 周曉凡, 周培源,“在地球的表面上的地平線並且垂直的方向的光速度的相對的差別
的測量”, 第四個亞太的物理會議紀要, 漢城, 朝鮮, 1990 年 8 月 13-17 日, 2, 1155-1159 。
24. H·伊爾馬茲, Hadronic J., 卷 2, 997-1020 (1979)。
25. A·布裏雷特與 J·L 大廳, Phys. 快信, 42, 549 (1979)。
26. 周培源,”更進一步實驗測試愛因斯坦的引力理論,” 在實驗性的引力的物理上的國際的會議 (廣州,
1987 年 8 月 3-8 日), 編輯 彼得·F·米切爾森, 110-116 (科學的世界, 新加坡)。
27. 彭恒武, Commun. Theor. Phys. (北京), 31, 13-20 (1999)。
28. 魯重賢, Astrophys. J., 455: 421-428 (1995 年 12 月 20 日)。
29. 魯重賢,“關於愛因斯坦的等效原理的批評”,在準備。


1. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press, 1954), p. 63, p. 87 & p. 93.
2. A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Minkowski, H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, N. Y., 1952), pp 115-118,
p.162; A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipig) 49, 769-822 (1916).
3. Y. B. Zel’dovich & I. D. Novikov, Stars and Relativity (Dover, New York 1996), pp 7-16.
4. Liu Liao, General Relativity (High Education Press, Shanghai, 1987), pp 26-30.
5. Yu Yun-qiang, An Introduction to General Relativity (Peking Univ. Press, Beijing, 1997), pp 63-66.
6. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (John Wiley, New York, 1972).
7. V. A. Fock, The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation, translated by N. Kemmer (Pergamon Press, 1964), pp 6,
111, 119, 228-233.
8. H. C. Ohanian & R. Ruffini, Gravitation and Spacetime (Norton, New York, 1994), p. xi, p. 54, and back cover.
9. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984), p. 84-88.
10. A. Einstein, 'What is the Theory of Relativity? (1919)’, in Ideas and Opinions (Crown, New York, 1982).
11. A. S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (1923) (Chelsa, New York, 1975), p. 10.
12. D. Kramer, H. Stephani, E. Herlt, & M. MacCallum, Exact Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations, ed. E.
Schmutzer (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1980).
13. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 7 (4), 453 (1994); C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 11 (2), 264-272 (1998).
14. W. B. Bonnor, J. B. Griffiths & M. A. H. MacCallum, Gen. Rel. & Gravitation, 26, 7, 1994.
15. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 12 (3), 508-526 (Sept., 1999).
16. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 13 (4), 527-539 (Dec., 2000).
17. A. N. Whitehead, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1922).
18. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley, New York, 1966), pp. 350-352.
19. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
20. C. W. F. Everitt et al. in Proc. Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Gen. Relativ., Stanford, July 1994, ed. R.
Jantzen & M. Keiser, Ser. ed. R. Ruffini, 1533 (World Sci., Singapore, 1996).
21. E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 39, 475-493 (1967). See also http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-
22. C. Y. Lo & C. Wong, “On Experimental Test of the Gauge in General Relativity”, in preparation.

23. Li Yonggui, Zhao Zhiqiang, Zhou Xiaofan, Zhou Peiyuan, “Measurement of the Relative Difference of Light Velo-
city in the Horizontal and Vertical Directions on the Earth’s Surface”, Proceeding of the Fourth Asia Pacific Phys-
ics Conference, Seoul, Korea, August 13-17, 1990, 2, 1155-1159.
24. H. Yilmaz, Hadronic J., Vol. 2, 997-1020 (1979).
25. A. Brillet & J. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Letters, 42, 549 (1979).
26. Zhou Pei-yuan, “Further Experiments to Test Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, International Symposium on Ex-
perimental Gravitational Physics (Guangzhou, 3-8 August 1987), edited by Peter F. Michelson, 110-116 (World
Scientific, Singapore).
27. Peng Huangwu, Commun. Theor. Phys. (Beijing), 31, 13-20 (1999).
28. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J., 455: 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995).
29. C. Y. Lo, “On Criticisms of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle”, in preparation.