ProtoQuant.com

III. An Argument

Apparently, Cosmology introduced the limited isotropy of Universe as an assumption just because it started directly from a Space-Time metric. Should it start from a Space metric only, the limited isotropy would then be just a natural geometrical theorem regarding our Space knowledge and, implicitly, the freedom in our attitude with respect to Space.

Strange as it may seem, we have lived with the explicit expression of this part of our freedom ever since the Copernicus and Kepler times. The Ptolemy’s cycles, epicycles and such, were no more sufficient in describing Man’s position with respect to Space. With the discovery of new facts, new cycles had to be invented in order to adjust that position, and the multitude of these inventions became embarrassing for the capability of storage memory of those times. Incidentally, perhaps at today’s capability of storage that would not be a problem anymore. (This is why much of the “objective truth” today is decided by computer experiments!). Anyway, the Copernican revolution basically meant changing Man’s position with respect to Space. Then Kepler came, with his geometrical synthesis of planetary motions, and it is here the point where the inversion came explicitly into light. For the equation of a Kepler motion in polar coordinates:

where χ is the eccentric anomaly of the planet, anything else except r being constants, is nothing but the expression of an inversion with respect to a certain sphere. It shows that actually we consider here the equation of motion of the inverse of position vector with respect to a certain sphere dictated by gravitation, not the position vector itself. In time, that sphere has always been misplaced, but it always succeeded to reach us again and again in a form or another, without actually having the chance of being explicitly noticed.

    Another, even more explicit example is the astronomical aberration of light coming from stars. First judged geometrically as a directional effect, it has been soon realized that it can be relegated to some displacement. This displacement has always been put in the charge of the matter, for the old Ether is nothing more than a certain state of an ideal matter. Changing the emphasis and assigning it to the relation between Space and matter may have the merit to reveal its true physical origin, for it seems to be a simple reflection of a general situation.

    Indeed this has always been the case when the extension of knowledge was done experimentally, i.e. by interposing a physical instrument between the object of observation and observer. For, interposing an instrument means, first and foremost, a measurement of Space with another physical unit depending on a physical field, and this measurement may reveal what previously has not been noticed. Such is the Michelson interferometer, helping to establish if the Ether is dragged or not, or any interferometer for that matter. Here the unit of measurement was the light wavelength, replacing the classical meter stick. The Theory of Relativity considers these units completely equivalent, however they are not. The uncontrolled features underlying the transformation (10) become critical in its last step, when going from (8) back inside sphere, for it is here the point where two phenomenological frameworks can collide, and some contradictions may result. This is, for instance, the case of Wave Mechanics, created explicitly to put in accordance Special Relativity, which regards all units of Space measurement as equivalent, with the Theory of Quanta, which discovered places of discrepancy (De Broglie, 1922) and whose results had to be explained in terms of Classical Mechanics.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7