RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

Ives: central claims

Source gap (rewritten 2026-10-07 after QE round 2). The manifest now holds 38 documents: the 7 original ones and 31 papers by Ives (Ives-papers/, 1924-1951). Every one has a facts.json entry. Depth of reading differs and later steps must say which applies: - Deep-read from the text and page images: the 1938 and 1941 Ives-Stilwell clock papers, the 1937 transported-rods-and-clocks papers (27:263, with 27:310) and the 1938 closed-path and 1937 clock-aberration papers (28:296, with 27:305), the 1939 gravitation paper (29:183), the 1945 Phil. Mag. derivation, the 1947 Birkhoff paper, the 1948 planetary-orbit paper (38:413) and the 1949 rod-and-clock paper (39:757). The 1938, 1937 and 1938 deep reads used the Investigator's copies in research/files/ (the same papers). - Digest only (every page summarised, no deep read): the 1924-26 photoelectric papers (4), the 1933 Ives-Fry paper, the 1937 papers 27:177 and 27:389, the 1939 chronotopic-interval and double-Fizeau-wheel papers, the 1940 moving-mirror paper, the 1942 radiation-pressure paper, the 1943 and 1944 wave-packet papers, the 1947 historical note, the 1948 one-way-light paper (38:879), the 1950 extrapolation paper, the 1951 Rumford lecture and "Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations", and the 1941-42 moving-medium papers (3). QE round 2 also read specific passages of several of these from the extracted text (the 1951 photon passage, the 1942 ripple-tank numbers, the 1939 disk passage, the 1947 note); where a claim below rests on a digest or QE's quoted lines alone it is tagged so. - Known digest errors (QE round 2 section 4): Ives-Stilwell 1938 calls the line H-alpha (the text says H-beta, 4861 A) and prints "He" for H2; the 1941 digests print the factor as (1 - v/c^2)^(1/2); the 1942 digest gives the ripple-shortening exponent as 1/2 where the paper compares with (1 - v^2/c^2). The 1948 digest garbles the mass formula and the orbit equation (corrected from page images in the deep read). - Still NOT obtained or read: Ives's JOSA 42:540 (1952, in copyright, cited by reference; the derivation was read by the Mathematician and Contrarian, not by the fact-finder or QE), the 1953 JOSA 43 notes, "Unsymmetrical Doppler Effect in Hydrogen Canal Rays" (Rev. Sci. Instr. 9:283, 1938), the 1951 clock-paradox letter (Nature 168:246), Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. 26:9 (1952), Hazelett and Turner (1979), Bridgman's 1959 memo and Lalli 2013 (both known only through Lalli 2014 or an abstract), R. C. Jones JOSA 29:337 (1939) and Otting's paper (known only through Ives-Stilwell 1941), the full Pobedonostsev papers (Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 1989, issue 3; Khlopin preprint PU-199/L). Ruderfer's appendix in Moray's book (5th ed. pp.271-274) is not in this folder; it was read by QE in review/Morray-TH/_text and is quoted here only as QE quotes it. The README counts "34" papers; the folder and manifest hold 31. - Conclusions about claim 4 no longer rest on bibliography titles or an abstract: they rest on the read 1939, 1947 and 1948 papers. Claim 7's photon, radiation-pressure and disk items rest on digests plus QE's quoted lines.

  1. Moving clocks run slow. The Ives-Stilwell canal-ray experiment (1938) measured the shift of the centre of gravity of the Doppler-displaced H-beta lines (from H2 and H3 canal-ray particles, 6,788-18,356 V) against the undisplaced line, expected lambda0 V^2/(2c^2) (about 0.01-0.05 A), and found agreement with the predicted clock-rate change within its precision. Two numbers must be kept apart: the scatter of the eight Table III points (about 5% statistical, probable error 0.0025 A; observed/computed ratios 0.91-1.04, mean 0.96, a 3-4% mean deficit that is a reviewer's calculation, not discussed by the authors) and Mandelberg and Witten's 1962 reassessment (the points fit to 2-3%, real uncertainty 10-15%; their own repeat gave exponent 0.498 +/- 0.025 against 0.5, second hand through Giuliani). The authors' own 1938 caveat: every shift is smaller than the 0.09 A H-beta doublet separation, so a varying intensity ratio of the doublet components could fake part of it. Part II (JOSA 31:369, 1941), now read, answers that caveat on the authors' own numbers: the tube was run up to about 43,000 V and the H2 shift reached "over 0.11 A as against the previous maximum of 0.047 A" (observed 0.113 and 0.1145 A at 42,260 and 42,280 V against 0.1098 and 0.1073 A computed), about 1.2 times the implied doublet separation, with "the relationship previously observed ... maintained". The points are on coarser, faster plates (less precise); nine H2 points sit on average about 3% above the computed curve (six above, three at or below), which the authors attribute to a mirror under 100% reflecting; one H3O table entry looks misprinted (0.0012 for about 0.0118). Part II also takes up R. C. Jones's 1939 objection (energy imparted to the "stationary" particles could give them a velocity along the motion and shift the reference line): with the mirror in, no central-line displacement within error; with it covered, a displacement corresponding to about 750 m/s at 14,000 V; a double-ended tube with the optical arrangement reversed gave 0.0744 A against 0.0717 A computed at 28,300 V (one point, no error bar), which the authors say "completely disposes of" Otting's criticism. Dissent in the record: Pobedonostsev and Parshin (SPIE 1989), a repetition at 150-300 keV and 1.5-2.0 MeV, report the second-order shift 40-82% smaller than special relativity at 150-300 keV and within about 10% at MeV energies (deep read of the 6 pages; no systematic-error budget; separate optical arms; their own classical model does not explain the deficit). Faraj (an emission-theory advocate, citing Gezari 2009 and Kantor 1971) says the experiment measured only an asymmetry in the longitudinal Doppler effect, not a transverse one; that attribution is not Ives's and Faraj's supporting algebra is invalid (see deep/gsjournal). [read: 1938 deep read, 1941 deep read, Pobedonostsev deep read]

  2. The result shows a real slowing in a fixed ether. Ives and Stilwell read the result as a positive measurement of clock rate, nu = nu0(1 - V^2/c^2)^(1/2), with nu0 "stationary in the ether", "the necessary optical complement to the Michelson-Morley experiment", and with Kennedy-Thorndike fixing the contraction of the apparatus along its motion (Ives's 1937 papers JOSA 27:177 and 27:389 show Kennedy-Thorndike alone "cannot by itself test the Larmor-Lorentz hypothesis" and propose the canal-ray experiment to fix the clock-rate exponent, crediting "Einstein and Ritz" with seeing its role thirty years earlier [read: digest; qe.md round 2 section 3.12]). They called the result more decisive for the Larmor-Lorentz theory than null experiments, but their own text says the null results could equally be explained by an entrained ether or a ballistic theory, so the comparison the experiment actually makes is against entrainment and emission theories. The ether-versus-special-relativity comparison is not testable by it: Jones (1939) re-derived the same predictions from special relativity, and Robertson (1956) reads the same data as confirming special relativity. Ives himself concedes the ether's "elusiveness by any measurements of the sort we have been considering" (1937) and calls his aberration evidence "not metric" (1937); in 1945 he calls aberration and the Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments "direct proofs" of the motion of matter relative to the light-transmitting medium (note 11), which special relativity also predicts. Part II's discussion credits the prediction to Larmor and Lorentz and uses neither the word ether nor relativity in its six pages. On the clock paradox he held (JOSA 27:305, 1937; Nature 168:246, 1951) that relative motion alone does not say which clock is behind; the ether frame does, a clock's lag being set by its motion relative to the ether (shown by stellar aberration, "clock aberration" proportional to (v2 - v1)T/c); the usual special-relativity resolution (the travelling clock changes inertial frame) is not discussed in the 1937 pages. His 1947 historical note says the clock-rate test is the most conclusive because Michelson-Morley can be explained by entrained ether and mass variation by charge variation, and that only Einstein "believed the equations' predictions" and named the canal-ray shift an experimentum crucis [read: digest and QE round 2 section 3.11].

  3. Ives's alternative theory can be built from classical ether physics, and it is special relativity in different clock-setting conventions. Three routes are in the record. (a) The 1937 transported-rods-and-clocks route: from an ether, FitzGerald-Larmor-Lorentz contractions of rods and clock rates, and clocks synchronised by transport at a finite observed speed, Ives derived clock retardation, length contraction and measured lengths and times that depend only on the observed transport speeds, reduce exactly to the Lorentz transformations as those speeds go to zero, and for finite speeds equal what special relativity predicts for the same transport-synchronisation procedure (a 40-digit check of the 1937 equations; the difference is a synchronisation convention, first order in the transport speed: about 1.7 ps over 1 km at 300 m/s). Robertson reports he checked the deductions, found them valid, and judged the theory "completely equivalent in substance to the special theory of relativity". The 1937 papers carry misprints (eqs. 14, 25, 33, 34, 38-40) that do not change the conclusions. (b) The 1943-45 conservation-law route (JOSA 33:163, 34:222; Phil. Mag. 36:392): mass-velocity law, length contraction and clock slowing from Maxwell radiation pressure, moving-mirror reflection, mass equivalent E/c^2 for radiation, and Newtonian conservation of mass, momentum and energy, keeping "the space and time concepts of Newton and Maxwell"; Ives writes that the Lorentz transformations are deducible from fifty-year-old principles, which "classes the 'Special Principle of Relativity' as a superfluous hypothesis". Deep read of the 1945 paper: no special-relativity formula is put in by hand, but three premises do work the conservation laws alone do not (the inertia of energy; an unexplained step that the extra term "must drop out", equivalent to the relativity principle for that process; and clock universality and isotropy, equivalent to Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike). No measurable difference from special relativity is named. (c) The 1948-51 operational route (JOSA 38:879, 39:757, 40:185; Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 95:125): Ives reserves "velocity" for quantities measured in the ether and defines the "rod-clock-quotient" (first defined in 1948, not 1953), argues that Einstein's statement that c was firmly established by experiment is invalid because only out-and-back light speed has been measured, and says the constant ratio in his revised transformations "is not equal to c and should not be called the velocity of light", so that abandoning the constancy principle "removes the basis for geometric theories claiming fusion of space and time". His 1949 charge: the special-relativity derivation "leads to an internal inconsistency if clocks are admitted for distant time setting", and the Lorentz transformations are "an approximation, owing their simplicity of form to the exclusion of clocks in the determination of epoch". Deep read of the 1949 paper: his equations (19)-(20) are term for term the Lorentz transformation written with clock readings lagging Einstein time by k r' (SymPy); special relativity predicts exactly his one-way result c/(1 - ck) for a clock carried at speed q, about c + q/2, which tends to c as q goes to 0; the offsets are tiny (a clock walked at 1 m/s over 10 m: 5.6e-17 s; fractional change in light speed 1.7e-9); no experiment separates the two, and Ives names none (his 1950 and 1951 papers cite only Michelson-Morley and Ives-Stilwell). What survives of the charge is the conventionality of one-way simultaneity, a recognised point in the mainstream literature. Ives's case throughout is about explanation ("offers no explanation of what lies behind the particular choice of operations"). Bonizzoni and Giuliani's "approach but never coincide" is accurate for the formulas, not for the predictions. [read: 1937 deep read, 1945 deep read, 1949 deep read; digests of 1943, 1944, 1948, 1950, 1951]

  4. Ives's gravitation theory is the Schwarzschild solution of general relativity expressed as a fixed ether with absolute space and time, and he says so. Replaces the earlier version of this claim, which rested on bibliography titles and one abstract. (a) JOSA 29:183 (1939): from his assumptions (equivalence of a stationary field to motion in field-free space; rods and clocks in the field behave as on the equivalent moving particle; invariance of an interferometer's null reading) he derives for a small interferometer ds^2 = c^2 y dT^2 - R^2 dtheta^2 - dR^2/y, y = 1 - 2GM/(Rc^2), which he calls "the Schwarzschild formula of general relativity". Deep read: exact Schwarzschild in Schwarzschild coordinates (not a 1/c^2 approximation); red shift and bending of light are stated in words with no numbers, and his light-speed field gives the full general-relativity limb deflection 1.7516 arcsec (0.8758 arcsec, the "half" value, if radial contraction is dropped) [calc]. An isotropic-light-speed ether is rejected because it gives no star displacement, "in conflict with observation". His limits, in his words: "of purely optical significance"; "no non-Euclidean geometry, nor new law of gravitation"; it "calls for anisotropy of the ether ... but makes no suggestion as to how this anisotropy affects other than optical phenomena". He expects invariance to hold for large interferometers; if not, "a sufficiently large and sensitive interferometer could be used to detect motion in a gravitational field". (b) Phys. Rev. 72:229 (1947): Birkhoff's flat-space equations, rewritten in ordinary time and force, contain a transverse force of size v^2/c^2 times the normal part of gravity; Newton gravity on Lorentzian mass gives only a fraction (one sixth) of Mercury's perihelion advance, the transverse terms give the full value; Ives does not endorse Birkhoff as physics ("an independent physical derivation of these transverse forces would be welcome") and notes that an infinite number of energy-neutral extra terms could be written; he compares the force to Gauss's velocity-dependent law, with c^2 from finite-speed transmission. (c) JOSA 38:413 (1948): one postulate (a body at rest in the field has the dimensions, clock rate and mass of a body moving with the velocity acquired in falling from infinity) gives the force equations; the planetary orbit equation d^2u/dtheta^2 + u(1 - 6G^2M^2b^2/(c^2h^2)) = K-bar and a perihelion advance 6 pi GM/(c^2 a(1 - e^2)), which is 42.98 arcsec per century for Mercury; plain special-relativity mass increase gives 7.16 arcsec, "one sixth the advance". No constant is fitted; but two steps are Ives's own choices (F_theta = 0; splitting the transverse force into a pair by analogy with Birkhoff) and his footnote 9 concedes that general relativity alone gives "no ground for favoring" his force pair over Birkhoff's symmetrical one. The three governing integrals are exactly Schwarzschild's; the printed force equation and orbit equation are first order in 1/c^2 and differ from the exact Schwarzschild equation only in terms that give no perihelion advance. Ives: "The force equations are actually implicit in the general relativity solution." He keeps absolute space and time and notes general relativity "is commonly claimed to negate the concept of force". Ruderfer (in the Moray book, as QE quotes it) calls Ives's work "a classical derivation of the Schwarzschild metric, hence ... an identical explanation of the three famous tests of relativity", says "any Lorentz-ether theory of gravitation which provides the static Newtonian gravitational force is necessarily equivalent observationally to general relativity", and says "the continued neglect of Ives' gravitational theory is unwarranted". Not addressed by Ives: Shapiro delay, binary pulsars, gravitational waves (all later); Shapiro delay would follow from the same light-speed field. Earlier statements in this project that the velocity terms were "chosen to reach 43" and that Ives's gravitation theory prediction was unknown are overtaken. [read: 1939, 1947, 1948 deep reads; Ruderfer via qe.md round 2 sections 1 and 9]

  5. Einstein did not derive E = mc2 in 1905. Ives (JOSA 42(8):540-543, August 1952; Ohanian's "Am. J. Phys. 42, 540" is his slip) argued Einstein's derivation is defective: his abstract credits Poincare (1900, 1904) and says Einstein's reasoning, "questioned by Planck [1907], is defective", and the paper ends "The relation E = mc2 was not derived by Einstein" (printed as E = m_M c^2, m_M the mass of matter). Ives accepted the relation and gave his own derivation; "circular" is the Stachel-Torretti (1982) / Ohanian label, and Ives narrowed the charge in 1953. Stachel and Torretti answered that Einstein's argument is not circular; Ohanian (2008) agrees but finds a different flaw (a non sequitur valid only for slow internal motions) while accepting E = mc2. Jammer (1961), Arzelies (1966) and A. I. Miller (1981) supported Ives's charge (via Ohanian). Related: Ives's own 1942-45 derivations use m = E/c^2 for radiation as an input (a 1900 Poincare result, [memory: medium]); whether that input is already relativistic is an open question for the Mathematician (QE round 2 section 3.4).

  6. Atoms are not clocks (secondary authors' dissent). Bonizzoni and Giuliani and Giuliani argue the experiment tests relativistic dynamics plus quantum photon emission (Schroedinger 1922), not clock rates, so it supports the Lorentz transformations only indirectly and does not itself decide between ether and special relativity. This is their claim, not Ives's.

  7. Ives makes some physical claims that are not only a different explanation of relativity's results. Each states whether it is a different prediction or a different explanation. (a) Photon (1951 Rumford lecture): "I venture to predict that this will be done, and that the photon will go the way of the 'caloric' that Rumford demolished". Basis: standing waves (photons would have to exist and not exist alternately in loops and nodes), Lorentz's 1910 coherence objection, Poincare's "vestibule" (the quantum in the atom, not the radiation), wave mechanics placing h in the atom, and Beck and Sommerfeld bipartition-angle data said to favour the wave picture. He concedes "the difficulty of arriving at an explanation of all optical phenomena, such for instance as the Compton effect". A different prediction (against mainstream photon physics, which treats the photon as established [memory: high]). Kept in the record whatever the verdict. [read: digest; qe.md round 2 sections 3.9, 4]. (b) Radiation pressure on a moving absorber (1942): earlier published results (Lorentz P = E_i; Poynting-Abraham P = E_i(1 + v/c)) are wrong; correct pressure on an absorber moving toward a source is E_a(c + v)/(c - v). A different prediction, not checked against textbook results here. [read: digest; qe.md section 3.8]. (c) Rotating disk dishes (1939): the Wood-Hackett "twist" follows from FitzGerald contraction alone, and a rotating disk "dishes" like a saw blade with a paraboloidal profile at small angular velocity. A stated physical deformation; whether it differs from special relativity with real elastic stresses is not settled in the documents. [read: digest; qe.md section 3.6]. (d) Ripple-tank analogues with Stilwell (JOSA 31:14, 32:25): capillary waves on mercury, medium moving at v/c = 0.585 (11.28 cm/s against 19.20 cm/s), reproduce the stationary interference pattern when lengths are scaled by the FitzGerald factor and periods by the Larmor-Lorentz factor, with Fresnel drag and aberration also appearing; one measured ratio, 0.852 against (1 - v^2/c^2) = 0.658, is attributed to capillary-wave dispersion. A classical-medium analogue, not a test of light; the clearest physical picture in the record of what a Lorentz ether means. [read: digests; qe.md section 3.7, check 7]. (e) Measured-velocity statements (1948-51): a different explanation, not a different prediction (claim 3). (f) Interferometer in a gravitational field (1939 and 1948): Ives's one open door (large interferometers) is a conjecture he expects to close in general relativity's favour; no measurable difference claimed (claim 4).

What the documents say about the owner's questions (Why Ives matters to Moray; does a Lorentz ether add forces). Why Moray: M. Ruderfer's appendix "Neutrino Structure of the Ether" (Lett. Nuovo Cimento 13:1, 1975, reprinted in Moray's The Sea of Energy, 5th ed. pp.271-274), as QE quotes it, argues (1) the rejection of an ether applies "to a Galilean ether, but not to a Lorentz-invariant ether since its description of observation is necessarily identical to that of relativity"; (2) Ives gave "the most direct verification of the validity of a Lorentz ether ... independent of relativity": a classical derivation of the Lorentz transformations (1945) and of "the Schwarzschild metric, hence ... an identical explanation of the three famous tests of relativity"; (3) an admissible ether "focuses attention on its properties", defined by Ruderfer as "the totality of all the presently unobservable forms of energy that may exist in the microcosm", proposed as a sea of low-energy neutrinos whose "total unobservable energy ... may far exceed the total energy contained in matter, i.e. the vacuum is then a plenum rather than a void". The energy content is Ruderfer's and Moray's addition; none of the 31 Ives papers digested assigns the ether an energy content that could be tapped, and the deep reads of 1939, 1945 and 1948 state the ether supplies a frame and a mechanism, not a field, force or energy source. No Ives paper mentions Moray. Forces: for the core theory Ives and others say the same ("completely equivalent in substance", Robertson; "no ... new law of gravitation", Ives 1939; "implicit in the general relativity solution", Ives 1948; Ruderfer's "necessarily equivalent observationally"). Qualifications recorded: Ives names forces that general relativity hides in geometry (the 1947 transverse force, and the 1948 position-dependent mass factor, which his paper says are the same effect seen two ways); relative to special relativity alone, gravity needs position-dependent mass, clock rate and length, not only speed-dependent ones (the one-sixth result); and Ives's separate physical claims in claim 7. [read: qe.md round 2 sections 1, 9; deep reads]

Also in the record: - Sagnac and rotation (verdict 2D). In his 1938 closed-path paper Ives derives the standard first-order Sagnac difference (4 A w/c^2) himself and agrees that transported "local time" clocks give c; he objects to the interpretation (two clocks, two readings at one place) and holds the effect tracks rotation with respect to the stars. He does not say there that special relativity cannot compute it; "Einstein's scheme applies only to uniform motion" is from the 1953 "Genesis" paper. In 1945 he names Sagnac and Michelson-Gale as direct proofs of motion through the medium. - Standing-wave photoelectric work (mainstream, uncontested). Ives called his photoelectric work "probably my most important contribution to science"; he explained the "selective" photoelectric effect of thin alkali films as standing-wave patterns of the incident and reflected light, an idea traced to his 1908 Lippmann colour-photography thesis, and found the emission proportional to the standing-wave intensity in the film (NAS memoir; and now his own papers: ApJ 60:209 and 60:231, 1924, with selective/normal ratios of 15-25 against at most about 4 from absorption and Elster and Geitel's 70 for Na-K at 70 degrees; ApJ 64:128, 1926, photoemission peaking 5-10 times above room temperature near 650 K; Bell System Tech. J. 5:320, 1926, the commercial potassium cells for picture transmission; Ives and Fry, JOSA 23:73, 1933, the quartz-wedge photoelectric probe, where Ives expected "only positional and qualitative agreement" and called the result "very satisfactory"; the 1951 Rumford lecture, where the same theory is "confirmed to fine detail"). Bears on follow-up Q10 (Moray's interest in standing waves and photoelectric conversion). The memoir's "hunch was right" can be compared with Ives's more guarded 1933 wording. No energy-conversion efficiency is given. - Related work and later use. Neo-Lorentzian line: Builder (1957-58), Ruderfer's 1960 Moessbauer aether-drift proposal and the Preikschat rotor experiment (Birmingham PhD thesis, October 1968; limit 2.0 +/- 5.2 cm/s; both theories predict the same null at first order), Prokhovnik, Dingle, Janossy; Dirac, "Is there an aether?" (Nature 168:906, 1951); the US Naval Research Laboratory bibliography (Benton, 1959) listing Ives-Stilwell as verification of clock retardation; later citations in Nieper's free-energy book, in "Galileo Was Wrong" and by the Chinese Academy of Sciences "Relativity Criticism Group"; Butterfield's letters at the Library of Congress on anti-Einstein feeling. The 1948 paper builds on Eddington (1917), McCrea (1935) and H. B. Phillips (1922) [memory: medium for the Phillips identification]. - Reception. Ives's account of a hostile reception at Princeton in 1938 (letter of 24 Oct 1950, quoted from Hazelett and Turner, one published source, Ives a party). In a 5 Oct 1951 letter to Elmore Butterfield, as Lalli quotes it, Ives wrote of championing "the classical English school of physical thought ... against the paradox of the Semitic school"; Lalli writes that the sentence "seems to imply" an "implicit anti-Semitism", discussed in Lalli 2013 (not read; only this one sentence of the letter is quoted). Bridgman's unpublished 1959 memo called Ives's real-but-indeterminable absolute simultaneity "a complete negation of the operational attitude" (Lalli's quotation; memo not seen). - Biography. Career in television and facsimile at Bell Labs. Death 13 November 1953 (NAS memoir, Wikipedia) or 15 November (Optica); the place is the Century Club, New York (NAS memoir) or Upper Montclair, NJ (Wikipedia). The 1927 Hoover demonstration is dated 7 April (NAS, Wikipedia) or 27 April (Optica). Patents: "no fewer than one hundred" (NAS prose). The NAS bibliography stops at 1951, so its omission of the 1952 mass-energy paper says nothing about that paper.