Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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].
1
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].
References:
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).
2
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).
3
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.
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.
Sincerely yours,
C. Y. Lo
空間收縮,局域光速度,和相對論中的規範問題
魯重賢(C·Y·Lo)
Applied and Pure Research Institute
17 Newcastle Drive, Nashua, NH 03060, USA
04.20.-q , 04.20.Cv
關鍵字:愛因斯坦的等效原理,類歐幾裏德幾何結構,愛因斯坦的物理空間。
1. 引導
4
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,
按愛因斯坦所指出,空間收縮的效果是可測量的。然而,愛因斯坦宣稱,具有同樣的空間參考框架的兩
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,
同樣地,沒有被我們的坐標系統的任意選擇所影響”。
這是不正確的,我反駁道,因為另外的計算可能對這兩個度規坐標系統是不一樣的。原刞上,從一個空
間參考框架中對任何物理量測量,不能有兩個不同的確定性的理論數值。這樣,這兩個解在物理上不能
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。
眾所周知,兩個不同的度規解能夠在物理上是等效的,如果他們聯繫著不同的空間參考框架。例如,一
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
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,
局域光速度是各向異性的。
愛因斯坦用他的等效原理,由測量時間膨脹和空間收縮建立彎曲的空間。他所闡明了測量的儀器應該在
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
條附著於坐標系統的測量棒,由於測量杆和座標承受同樣的引力,所測量的局域距離和時間將現出好像
引力沒有存在一樣。正如愛因斯坦的解顯示出的,基於操作而定義的局域距離和時間組成了一個類歐幾
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,
一個物理空間。由於類歐幾裏德幾何結構只在一個物理空間是物理上有意義的,其有效性接著必須具有
一類歐幾裏德幾何學結構,這似乎引起一個邏輯迴圈的問題。在實踐上,可以首先假定類歐幾裏德幾何結
構存在於被考慮的黎曼時空中。由此,物理的要求被驗證,從而證實類歐幾裏德幾何結構的存在於一個
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
迴圈問題並不確實確地存在於相對論中。
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 ],
5
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。
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
愛因斯坦的錯誤是,他無條件地誇大了微分同構的解,在物理上是一樣的。一個關鍵的問題是,是否這
些度規有相同的空間參考框架。為達到這點,應該首先檢驗規範條件這概念。
∇aGab ≡ 0. (7)
6
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
不同的,因為他們對同樣的空間參考框架有不同的空間收縮。因此,他們不能都是有效的。儘管在時間
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。
另一方面,這兩個度規給出不同的空間收縮,那根據愛因斯坦的意見是可測量的。由於類歐幾裏德幾何
結構弄明白了空間座標的物理的意義,只一個度規可給出現實的空間收縮。(空間參考框架與規範條件
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
光速度將是,分別地,
dρ 2 Mκ ρdθ Mκ
=1− , 輿 ≈1− . (9)
dt ρ dt ρ
3. 垂直的鐳射干涉 儀引力實驗
M1
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。
S
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。
然後,時間差別是
d d
∆t = t 2 − t1 = 2 2 − 1 (10)
c h cu
d d
∆t ' = t ' 2 −t '1 = 2 2 − 1 . (11)
c
u c h
然後,
c h − cu
∆T = ∆t − ∆t ' = 2(d1 + d 2 ) (12)
cu c h
∆c
∆d ≈ c∆T = 2(d 1 + d 2 ) , 在此 ∆c = c h – cu . (13)
c
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
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
的精確度,將隋著臂的長度增加,而增加。而且,有效的臂長度將增加若干倍,如果每條光束來回地在
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
果。
4. 評論
8
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
階近似中,如此由於旋轉的效果將是可以忽略的。然而,諧和解和各向同性解之間的差別在第二階近似
[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。
在節三提及了的實驗只是一種理想化的狀況,目的是表明如此的實驗的在原則上是可能。然而,在實際
的情形,就象其他的精密實驗,有許多實際的問題要克服,例如減少並且估計任何干擾。這裏,我們將
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。
一個嚴重的問題顯然是從引力產生壓縮和拉長儀器的臂的效果,由於他們必須處於,在不同的時間,一
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
難的。如果一隻臂處在強大的壓力下面,由於引力的壓力效果能被減少。而且,由於引力拉長或壓縮得
出變化的規則是可以得到的。
然而,克服如此的引力的效果的干擾並不是全新的問題。一個由北京大學周教授[22]領導的實驗組,曾
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
必然比一隻簡單的臂重。這樣,引力拉長並且壓縮問題將被增加。然而,如果整個的儀器在一個大真空
房間內,這個問題是能解決的。他們的減少拉長並且壓縮效果的方法是把旋轉的軸放在管的中心,如此
在一個垂直的位置,壓縮並且拉長被一些相亙抵消所減少。因為管子是直的,這設計能夠實現。
鳴謝:
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.
注釋:
9
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]。
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)。
然而,這取決於一個坐標系統,因為由攝影的板中兩個點轉變到一個角度,必須用過去拍攝該相片的
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
的系統,不能定義一個光線偏移角度。
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
紅移和局域光速度,測試局域效果。
參考文獻:
10
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。
REFERENCES
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-
07.htm.
22. C. Y. Lo & C. Wong, “On Experimental Test of the Gauge in General Relativity”, in preparation.
11
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.
12