The Light Speed Barrier: Bending the Rules

1. Introduction

Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us that relative velocities beyond ~300 000 km/s are unattainable, and this limitation certainly applies to the recession velocity that can be produced in a test-object by aiming radiation at it directly from the observer's frame. The situation is less straightforward for signals or forces directed at a target via an intermediate object. The special theory responds to a system's variable resistance to indirect communication by redefining the velocity of the target when signals are passed indirectly (velocity addition formula). An examination of the effect indicates that this redefinition is "mathematical" rather than "physical", and that it should be possible to use relay objects to allow the two-way transfer of information or energy across what would otherwise be considered to be a communication "horizon". Since the principle of relativity forbids an object in vacuo from being able to overtake its own signal wavefront, the speed of light must still be considered to be locally constant even though probe chain theory says that it is variable in a wider sense. This implies the existence of gravitational side-effects to relative inertial motion.

Probe chains invalidate flat-space geometry by mimicking acceleration effects within a purely inertial experiment, and reveal the existence of velocity-dependent curvature effects that can easily be overlooked when we only examine isolated pairs of objects.

The method has implications for black hole theory and suggests an alternative law for gravitational shifts.

2. Shift Laws

The two laws considered here are the non-transverse SR frequency shift equation,

. . . (1)

, and the corresponding moving-observer Doppler formula used by emitter-theory,

. . . (2)

, with v being recession velocity in both cases.

Both (1) and (2) produce observed clock-stopping at recessional lightspeed, and both can be used to derive a number of "SR" formulae, including the E=mc² relationship between rest mass and energy. Equation (2) is not normally considered to be a credible basis for the construction of a relativistic theory of motion within flat space, but does seem to have properties suitable for a curved-space theory.

3. The Lightspeed Barrier to Direct Communication

A relativistic model based on either (1) or (2) will include an observation horizon at recessional lightspeed.

If we aim a light-beam at an object receding from us at light speed, special relativity (1) will say that the light-signal (travelling at c relative to us) is never able to catch up with the object and cannot be seen by it. Alternatively, if we consider the same situation from the point of view of the object, special relativity will tell us that the supposed signal does reach its target but has a zero frequency due to the infinite time-dilation of the source, and therefore cannot be detected.

A curved-space model based on (2) will agree that the c-receding source is normally undetectable, but will treat this as a curvature effect.

Both physical predictions agree - the two objects are unable to communicate with each other and are also unable to hurl energy at each other to create an observable response. Each calculates that the other has an infinite resistance to applied force, and therefore has infinite mass.

4. Indirect Communication via Probe Chains

However, there is a way of bypassing some of this time-dilation effect, to allow the two observers to communicate with each other. If we introduce a physical relay stage X between the two observers A and B (which are mutually receding at v=c), then both A and B can still send and receive signals from X, and signals can be passed along the chain AXB and BXA.

We can calculate this in terms of the individual shifts involved. If we take the standard SR recession shift formula (1) then when we divide v into two consecutive velocity-stages of 0.5v, the final shift due to the two smaller stages is only

and the two observers can communicate (in this case, the total shift is now just f '/f = 0.333').

More generally, we can divide the original velocity v into n equal stages, and write the more general SR equation of

. . . (3)

Trivially, any combination of non-zero frequency shift results will multiply together to give another non-zero result. SR interprets this outcome by saying that any number of consecutive velocity stages less than c combine to produce an "equivalent velocity" also less than c. This "equivalent velocity" for an indirectly-observed object can be calculated using a velocity-addition formula.

5. Velocity-Addition Formulae

Special Relativity

Special relativity takes the shift-change attributable to the presence of the intermediate object, and uses it to redefine the motion of the original source. Since the special theory does not allow the idea of curvature or of any sort of variable lightspeed, it has to explain this shift change in another way - as the consequence of a change in the velocity of the original emitter.

The standard formula [1] for this new "velocity" value is

. . . (4)

and we can see that by reworking the example in section 4 we redefine the initial recession velocity for the two outer objects from c down to only 0.8c, which in turn gives a recession shift with (1) of f '/f = 0.333', as before.

We can get the same physical prediction for the superimposition of same-direction colinear velocities by deciding that the properties of the signal path affect the behaviour of light, or by using the addition formula (4) to reverse engineer a new velocity value for the indirectly-observed object. For this calculation the two approaches are equivalent.

Equation (4) is often used to justify the assumption that the speed of a signal is unaffected by relative motion of intervening matter ("continuum spatii et temporis est absolutum" [2] ) and to provide SR with two seemingly significant results:

1. that the addition of two velocities less than c produces a "total velocity" also less than c
2. that the addition of lightspeed to any other velocity results in a "total velocity" that is still lightspeed

These results need to be treated with some caution.

Faking c-Constancy under Emitter-Theory

We can get the two results by applying the same "velocity-addition" approach to a different theory in which lightspeed is supposedly variable. If we had believed that emitter-theory was correct, and had used (2) instead of (1), we would have been able to derive a different velocity-addition formula, of:

. . . (5)

With this alternative addition formula (5) we would have again have been able to claim that the addition of any two velocities less than c results in an "equivalent velocity" less than c, and that the addition of c with any lesser velocity again resulted in the "equivalent velocity" c, even though the theory being used need not have included lightspeed constancy as a feature. We should therefore be wary of using an addition formula to support an assumption that the speed of light is more than locally constant, or that space can be treated as being flat when indirect observations are involved.

Problems with the "Velocity-Addition" Approach

Let us suppose that we observe a distant receding galaxy through an optical telescope whose aperture is fitted with a clear sheet of lead glass whose presence normally creates no significant side-effects. Section 4 tells us that the galaxy's observed Hubble redshift can be reduced by giving this transparent sheet an appropriate velocity relative to the telescope and the galaxy, and conventional theory says that we can get the same prediction of reduced redshift by using a velocity-addition formula to redefine the recession speed of the galaxy according to the motion of the glass in the signal path. This last redefinition is rather troublesome for several reasons.

1. It allows two observers in the same frame to disagree as to which frame the galaxy occupies, if one observer watches directly and the other watches via the moving glass. This disagreement destroys the consistency of a frame-based approach.
2. Similarly, two galaxies with no relative motion (to each other) could be assigned to different frames by a distant observer if one galaxy appears behind the moving glass and the other is observed directly. The mismatch again destroys the consistency of frame-based arguments.
3. It allows an action "here" to immediately affect an event generated "there". By deciding that it is the signal source that is being affected rather than just the in-transit signal, SR gives us a form of "action at a distance" that implies reversed causality.

These problems suggest that it is really the signal that is being affected rather than the distant source, and that relative constant-velocity motion between objects does affect the light-transmission properties of the intervening space, contra Einstein's special theory. The combined predictions of the SR addition formula (4) (which alters a signal's frequency-shift) and the extinction theorem [3] (which alters a signal's flight-time) mean that we have no primary evidence for the sort of universe-wide c-constancy used by the special theory. The principle of relativity requires only that the speed of light be locally constant, and this can be achieved in a different way if we allow relative constant-velocity rectilinear motion to generate deviations from flat-space geometry that generate the usual Lorentz formulae over a round trip.

Because the passage of a signal between the different-velocity components of a probe chain can be modelled as the passage of a signal between objects with no relative motion in an accelerated frame, and the physics of light in an accelerated frame has properties in common with the physics of light traversing a gravitational gradient, we should not be surprised to find what appear to be curvature effects in "probe chain" problems that only involve constant-velocity rectilinear motion.

The effect of forcing a flat-space description onto a curved-space geometry is to allow the illusion of flatness when objects are directly observed (n=1), but not when the observation is indirect (n>1). If we take only two points on a line and allow ourselves the luxury of redefining the distance between them (as SR does) then we can always pretend that the line is straight, so the success of the flatness hypothesis here has limited significance. A better test for curvature would be to see whether the path characteristics remain unchanged when the path is divided into multiple stages (whether the sum of (n>1) smaller straight lines is the same as the value for a single (n=1) straight line between the line's end-points). If the underlying geometry is "curved" then the n>1 cases will produce n-sided polygonal approximations of a curve, the apparent velocity-separation will depend on the value of n, and the theory will need a special velocity-addition formula to compensate. The existence of (4) in the special theory can therefore be taken as evidence of underlying curvature.

The alternative shift law (2) becomes important when we consider curved-space alternatives to special relativity.

6. SR and acceleration

At this point it is worth reminding ourselves of the relationship between gravitational waves and the breakdown of special relativity when accelerated and non-accelerated frames are combined. An attempt to retrofit acceleration terms to the special theory (e.g. MTW [4] chapter 6) results in an object given acceleration towards the observer at a particular distance having an acceleration blueshift that depends partly on the distance at which the acceleration occurs, and which predicts greater-than-infinite blueshifts for sufficiently-large distances and accelerations, where

For greater values we have to either accept that the accelerating object is seen to be time-reversed when the required clock-advancement is greater than the acceleration period, or accept that part of the "extended SR" model is fundamentally flawed and that acceleration blueshifts are capable of "bleeding into" other parts of an object's signal that do not belong to the acceleration period itself (i.e. that the shifts due to the different parts of an object's journey can not always be isolated). The natural explanation here seems to be that the acceleration blueshift is gravitation-equivalent, and that the acceleration-change effectively increases the speed of light (and gravity) along the signal path so that the "fast" gravitational wave caused by the start of the acceleration catches up with some of the previously-emitted "slow" signal and speeds it up (the exact distribution of the observed frequency-increase in the "caught" signal is more difficult to calculate as it involves non-linearities). The "gravitational wave" explanation has the advantage of explaining why the total amount of clock-advancement should depend on the distance at which the acceleration occurs (increase in the amount of signal intercepted by the wave) and also preserves deduced causality and the observed ordering of signals belonging to electromagnetically-observed events. It breaks a literal "observer-space" definition of causality in that it allows an object's later acceleration to affect parts of its earlier signal (specifically, the rate at which the earlier events are observed to happen).

This breakdown in observerspace causality, which allows a "future" event to reach out and affect its "past" signal, is particularly important when we consider the possible black hole escape mechanisms in section 8. With (2) as a shift law, it allows events at or behind a gravitational event horizon to produce observable alterations in a local region of the event horizon even though a static model would tell us that the wave-creation event occurs infinitely far into a distant observer's future. Without this odd side-effect of g-reduction waves, escape from a black hole would probably be inconceivable.

Where conventional wisdom declares that "Black holes are inescapable" it might be safer to add the qualification, "... if you don't accelerate."

7. Horizons and Escapability

Cosmological Horizons

A cosmological horizon (the surface at which Hubble recession speed equals lightspeed) is legally "escapable" by acceleration or by the insertion of a probe chain. An object existing behind this horizon can "re-emerge" by accelerating towards the observer, or can relay a signal to the observer via a chain of communications relay satellites. Sudden acceleration towards the observer implies the existence of a gravitational rarefaction wave that can be used to explain the enhanced ability of the signal to cross the intervening lightspeed gradient.

"Velocity" Horizons

Any other recession-velocity horizon should (according to probe chain theory) also be bridgeable so that an object notionally receding at significantly more than 300 000 km/s can still communicate with the observer. The "original" velocity of such an object would not be definable under special relativity, but could still be represented under a theory that used a spherical velocity-space map.

Black Hole Event Horizons

Black holes are either escapable or inescapable, depending on which theory we believe. Shift laws (1) and (2) can both give us a simplified model with a seemingly inescapable Schwarzchild surface, but (2) allows for the indirect escape of radiation. Interestingly, indirect radiation would have been a feature of the "dark stars" proposed in the eighteenth century by Michell [5,6] and Laplace, before general relativity declared objects with a lightspeed escape velocity to be totally inescapable as a matter of principle. Probe chain theory favours an indirectly-escapable black hole to a Wheeler black hole. Quantum mechanics also seems to favour the existence of indirect radiation from black holes (Hawking radiation), but there seems to be no classical mechanism for black hole escapability if we apply the SR shift law.

8. "Dark Stars" vs "Black Holes"

"Visiting" Particles

... enhanced emission

"Virtual" Particles

In the context of probe chain theory this creation-point would represent the position of the intermediate physical stage and both trajectories would represent the path of a single particle originating at or behind the horizon and only becoming "legal" as it changes trajectory at the probe stage (the intersection point of both trajectories). Hawking radiation sounds rather like a statistical description of indirect radiation from a Michell star, in the context of a static model that forbids particles to exist at speeds greater than c_observer, where c_observer is the speed of light in the distant reference-observer's own frame. These supposedly "illegal" particles (which would only be indirectly detectable) fit within Hawking's popular definition of a "virtual" particle [9].

... enhanced emission

Escapability and Shift Laws

... special relativity

If we calculate gravitational shifts by representing gravitational gradients by their terminal velocities and applying a velocity-shift law (e.g. [12] ), then we have to conclude that probe chain theory produces results that are difficult to explain if the shift law is (1).

The SR shift law implies that if we have two stationary observers, one at the event horizon of a black hole and the other at a very great distance from the hole, the outer observer will see the inner one to be clock-stopped and the inner one will see the outer to have an infinitely fast clock-rate. Any attempt by the inner observer to escape in a finite amount of local time will only succeed after they have already seen an (effectively) infinite amount of "outsider" time to elapse, so there might not be much of a universe left outside to escape to. To an outside observer with a limited lifespan, this event horizon is (for most intents and purposes) genuinely inescapable.

Another consideration is that an observer hovering at the event horizon would (with the SR shift law) be facing an infinite inward radiation pressure from light falling into the black hole. As it would take an infinite amount of force to oppose this inward pressure, we could conclude that (1) provides no practical way for a particle to leave the horizon and make use of a waiting probe chain unless the outward acceleration of the probe beyond the horizon produces a significant pull on the region and reduces the inward blueshift to a finite value.

... emitter-theory

In this scenario we have effectively reverted to a "dark star" model and allowed for the function of probe chains and for the existence of indirect radiation.

shift laws - comparison

If we assumed a fixed speed of light for a particular observer, assigned suitably different first-order Doppler equations to the outgoing and incoming signals, and included a Lorentz redshift for each journey, we would get a round-trip result of:

whereas if we discarded SR's idea of an arbitrary flat-space reference frame and instead just applied (2) throughout, we would get a round-trip frequency-shift of:

which is obviously the same result.

Since the square of the terminal velocity is v²=2gh, we can rewrite this frequency-change v²/c² as 2gh/c², which is the accepted experimental result [13]. Popular descriptions of black hole behaviour describe the inner observer as seeing blueshifts far greater than f '/f =2 (e.g. Thorne [7, p.44]), and do not seem to be using (2) as the shift law.

Existing experimental and theoretical disproofs of the emitter-theory shift law [14, 15, 16] appear to be based on the assumption that the geometry of space is wholly undistorted by relative motion, and therefore do not appear to be reliable in the context of a curved-space model. Since no experimental data is known to the author that can tell (1) and (2) apart without assuming flat space, the known inferiority of conventional emitter-theory to special relativity may not automatically mean that the emitter-theory shift law (2) is itself incorrect, only that previous attempts to build a credible model around it have been unsuccessful.

Einstein does appear to have tried to rewrite field theory without using SR ("I do not believe that it is justifiable to ask: What would physics look like without gravitation?" [17] ), but established models still base their choice of shift law on the assumption that space is necessarily flat within inertial systems, and that a curved model must therefore reduce to the SR equations over vanishingly-small regions of space (e.g. MTW [4] chapter 6, Will [18] ). This approach seems to be responsible for some of the current disagreements between classical and quantum field theory.

9. Conclusions

Since existing disproofs of shift law (2) assume flat space, it is still possible to conceive of an alternative relativistic field theory based on (2), if c-constancy is a purely local effect regulated by velocity-dependent curvature. Such a model appears to be compatible with current experimental data, and may allow the reconciliation of some of the more seemingly-radical predictions of quantum mechanics (such as Hawking radiation) with classical field theory.

A convincing resolution of these issues appears to require a more accurate experimental determination of the shift law.

REFERENCES