Electromagnetic rules and regulations as per Maxwellian style are form-invariant , but not scale-invariant . It so appears that that SR works "backwards" - we start from the postulate(based on observation) that the (two-way) speed of light in vacuum is measured the same by all observers, then we work out the Lorentz transformations that would enable that to happen. The starting hypotheses at the beginning were :

(i) That in an inertial frame space is homogeneous, isotropic, and Euclidean, and time is homogeneous;

(ii) The principle of relativity;

(iii) A condition of absolute causality or even absolute pre-causality [ instead of more phenomenological approaches like , say , that of Q_Physics.

Relaxation of these tacit assumptions opens a way for interesting generalizations of special relativity ( rather than into general relativity ) . From this specific standpoint , Voigt transformations are to be preferred, though it is undeniable that they ,too , are opening the path for some sort of Relativism .

Voight trasmformations are roughly the same as LT, they are based on const c. They have the retardation term as well.

Despite the fact that the idea of invariance was used to generate both transformations, they are significantly unlike from one another. In order for Voigt to derive his transformation, the wave equation regulating the transmission of a signal through an elastic solid medium must take the same shape in both the stationary and the moving coordinate systems. The Lorentz transform is what happens when the shape of a spherical wavefront is thought to be preserved.

So again , fortunately or unfortunately ,it becomes even yet more vivid to what extent mereological considerations have been disregarded and they still are . . . . ... . .......

Dear Stefano,

A problem what transformation of the coordinates is true has one connection with future practical application.

Even a moving body moves with the constant velocity, the coordinates transformations of Einstein and of Lorentz predict very different results if we consider deformation of the moving body when co-moving with it.

According to Einstein, for the observer co-moving with the body, the latter conserves its shape (the relativity principle).

According to FitzGerald and Lorentz, this observer should see the deformed body because the sizes of the charges (only charges) should contract.

Now let us assume we are being in a spaceship moving with very great velocity to some star. According to Einstein, we cannot detect any changes in this spaceship.

But if Lorentz is correct, some changes in the structure of the material of the spaceship should occur. Change of the sizes of the charges (any material is formed by the charges, ions and electrons) can lead to crucial change in the electronic properties of working devices. If the electronics begins to operate in wrong way, the spaceship loses a control.

If it can be so? It could be good to determine whether such a possibility can be realized. There is one fact in favor of it - all cosmic rays consist of elementary particles but not of molecules. If Lorentz's prediction is true, the molecules cannot be stable at the velocities comparative to the speed of light.

Vladimir

Stefano Quattrini

Dear Stefano ~

I haven’t looked through Onoochin’s paper in detail, but I think I have a general idea of what he is saying. I always come at these these things from Minkowski’s formulation, which for me always gets to the root of these kind of questions. Of course, Einstein and Lorentz, working before Minkowski came to their rescue, struggled over the the details of how the theories they were proposing should be physically interpreted.

Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations for ”free space” (a 4D space with metric signature + − − −) are astonishingly simple:

∂jFji = Ji, Fij = ∂iAj − ∂jAi

They are self-evidently invariant under SO(1, 3) transformations of the coordinates xi.

The “Lorentz transformation” equations found by Lorentz and Poincaré and then by Einstein in 1905 (and attributed by him to Lorentz) are merely a special case (a “boost” representing the transformation between two inertial frames with relative velocity v along a chosen axis).

That’s just the maths. How to interpret it physically?

(1) Lorentz derived “length contraction” from his transformation law and accepted it as a real distortion of objects caused by their motion relative the the aether. But he was unwilling to abandon the interpretation of the t in his transformation law as Newtonian “absolute time”. This got him into a muddle - he seems to have regarded t′ (“local time”) as a mere computational device without any clear physical meaning.

(2) According to Einstein, the Lorentz transformations represent changes of coordinates. Two inertial frames in relative motion have different appropriate coordinate systems (xi and x′i). Coordinates systems, of course, have no physical content. So what we call “length contraction” and “time dilation” must refer to recorded observations, not to actual changes in “rods” and “clocks”. The transformation laws specify how the observations of the same physical phenomenon, made by two “inertial observers” in relative constant motion, relate to each other.

Einstein recognised, as Lorentz did not, that the Lorentz transformations imply the “relativity of simulaneity” and the consequent need to abandon Newtonian “absolute time”.

As the Minkowskian formulation of SR later made abundantly clear, every moving object carries its own time, given by the Lorentz-invariant τ, where dτ2 = dt2 − dx2 − dy2 − dz2.

Dear Vladimir,

Eric Lord

Dear Eric,

I well understand what you want to mean,

what is instead quite likely devoid of a Phyiscal meaning, at the end of the day, is the resynchronization term vx'/c2 in

t'= gamma-1 t - vx'/c2

unless somebody properly operates resychronization, such thing cannot occur.

I will have a close look at Vladimir paper who makes the comparison between the two derivations which are indeed different if we consider the transformation of the fields.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

if you want to have a look at the inertial transformations which you suggest as the one which Lorentz actually used, there is this old thread.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Tangherlini-Transformations-have-less-limitations-than-Lorentz-Transformations-why-arent-they-used-instead

LT time transform can be written equivalently in this way

t'= gamma-1 t - vx'/c2

in accelerators the term vx'/c2 is negligibly small : the dimension in which the collisions occur x' are very small, so x'/c is a very short time.

At the end of the day what is used in accelerators becomes

t'= gamma-1 t

Dear Reza Sanaye ,

exactly...the term vx/c2 does that.

According to LT every inertial frame is supposed to see spherical wave fronts of EM waves wherever they are emitted...

According to what Vladimir found, this should not occur in Lorenz ED, the re-scaling factor should guarantee the covariance, since everything gets rescaled one cannot distingush in which inertial system he is located...or rather at what speed he is going

Einstein's and Lorentz's approaches differ in a manner that is of crucial importance. Einstein removed the aether, hence rendering the remaining theory riddled with paradoxes due to there being no absolute standard of rest.

Stefano Quattrini

"According to LT every inertial frame is supposed to see spherical wave fronts of EM waves wherever they are emitted...

According to what Vladimir found, this should not occur in Lorenz ED."

Brother Stefano*

Thanx for the forums which you set up over here in RG . I have seen and read ( and written in ) some of them .I have learnt points from you and from other interlocutors .

Quote :

"According to LT every inertial frame is supposed to see spherical wave fronts of EM waves wherever they are emitted...

Yes .. . . .That is true . .. LT is supposed to do that . ..

However :

Quote :

According to what Vladimir found, this should not occur in Lorenz ED."

My understanding is that Vladimir is correct . Sphericity in LT necessitates shared motion of three items at the same time :

The system of coordinances

The first-person observer

The third-person reporter-observer

Even according to the depth core of relativity itself , such a thing is impossible to take place . Relativists [ I am not precisely one of them ] claim that even such a simultaneity is relative . This means that it is not true that LT sometimtimes and under certain circumstances takes place ; ; ; ; ;and sometimes and under another set of circumstances does not take place .Rather , this spells that LT CANNOT take place .

Dear Stefano,

>

Let me explain one point of original transformations of Lorentz (as I can understand after studying his works).

The crucial difference between the coordinate transformations used by Lorentz in his series of papers 1892-1904 and the transformations used by modern scientists is that

Lorentz did not accept that in two inertial frames time passes in different way. So always t' = t

Other transformations including Tangherlini's ones accept that the time passes differently in two inertial frames t' = \gamma t +...

Yes, Lorentz used t' = t/gamma but it is only change of the time scale.

To state that the time can pass differently, one has to have very solid experimental evdence. Unitl now - during 110 years of dominance of the special relativity - the only fact which can be treated in favor of diffrent passing the time is the delay in the atmospheric muons decay. But for example, Jefimenko gave alternative explanation of this experimental fact.

Jefimenko's explanation can be applied for some time delay in GPS too.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

it is experimental evidence that twin atomic clocks at rest keep their synchronization but if one of them departs from the same position and then rejoins, they do not keep any more their synchronization. There is dynamics behind.

There are several experimental evidences, one of which is the muon ring experiment, maybe the most compelling one with Hasselkamp Modry and Sharman Article Direct observation of the transversal Doppler-shift

The result, in any case, is that the time-stamp of atomic clocks behaves according to t'= γ-1 t

that is to say that the periods of atomic clocks change according to

𐤃T/T = γ - 1

or

𐤃T/T = 𐤃K/E0 the relative variation of the period of an atomic clock is due to its relativistic kinetic energy per unit of its rest energy.

Tangherlini explains in the simplest and most straightforward way the fact above, that's all.

yes, infact there is no way in principle to affirm that. LT implies that since every IRF has its own proper time we can say that time passess in a different way.

Dear Stefano,

You wrote

> it is experimental evidence that twin atomic clocks at rest keep their synchronization but if one of them departs from the same position and then rejoins, they do not keep any more their synchronization. There is dynamics behind.

When any mechanical (or electrodynamical) system containing the charge and masses begins to move masses of the units of this sytem change - in fulll accordance to Lorentz's theory

m(v) = \gamma m_0

which had been confirmed in the experiments of Kaufmann.

If the mass of the oscillator changes, its period of oscillations changes too. So to explain ths experimental result, one doesn't need in the hypothesis

t' = \gamma t.

Jefimenko explained the time dellay effects in his book 'Electromagnetic retardation and theory of relativity', Ch. 10. I attach a copy.

The quantum mechanics gives the other alternative explanation of such effects. In semiconductors there are many examples of seeming mass change of the electrons and holes. But nobody treat this mass change as the relativistic effects. The carriers interact with the fields of the ions of the lattice.

Lorentz's mass change m(v) = \gamma m_0 is of the same origin - the electron interacts with the ether (or in modern scientific language, with the field oscillators. The Casimir effect sayss in favor of existence of this ether in a form of the field oscillators.

On Tangherlini transformations:

x' = \gamma(x - vt)

t' = t/gamma

Their form fully coincides with the form used by Lorentz in his work of 1904. But the meaning of t' = t/gamma is different.

Lorentz used this transformation only to apply them to uniformly moving systems where the change of time variable is not essential. For Lorentz it is enough to use x' = \gamma(x-vt) - going to the frame where the contracted charge looks like a spherical one.

Tangherlini used t' = t/gamma to explain some astronomical data, as I understand, and his change of time is real.

But the coordinate transformations are needed to transform the EM fields. How are transformed the EM fields of a charge moving with variable velocity under Tangherlini's transformation?

During 110 years of the special relativity there is no one example of verification of correctness of the relativistic transformations of the EM quantities. The only attempt to prove the relativistic covariance of the EM fields had been made by Poincare in his paper of 1906. But it is not the strict math proof.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

Dear Stefano,

I wish to give a link to more recent paper where the author reports that the relativistic transverse Doppler shift hasn't been detected

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3090684_Absence_of_the_relativistic_transverse_Doppler_shift_at_microwave_frequencies

The author gives short review on this subject too. So the connection between the times t' = t/gamma is not confirmed.

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

the paper does not report the results of KUNDIG and others till2015. It is well known by several experimental evidences also performed nowadays that transverse doppler was found indeed.

More than that, the absence of the transverse Doppler would imply an infringement of the conservation laws, which is much more serious than a simple time dilation.

For sure the pure transverse doppler can be put in relation with a preferred frame as the paper says in the same way Tangherlini does for his transformations.

Even the so-called pure transverse doppler cannot be put in relation with a preferred frame : Not any preferred frame, to say the least . If it were otherwise , coordinances of preference would have most likely been able to reproduce results of , say ,BigBang , too : As first-person phenomenologic observation might demand it to . We obviously see things do not proceed like that . Any metric reproducibility of ang registered Event , not excluding KUNDIG and others till2015 , necessitates reproducibility thru the monitoring of both first-person and third-person narrative . Analyses of such nature shall not remain standard unless and until a minimal number of two differing physicalistic manifolds were overlaid to make it possible for us ,as physicists , to look for merely spatial [ and not spatiotemporal ] third manifold applicable in ALL other cases , too .

Dear Stefano,

Can you say

1. What do you mean that the absence of the transverse Doppler shift should lead violation of the energy conservation law?

2. what is the experiment of Kundig?

3. what are new results on the transverse Doppler shift?

You can see form the paper of Hartwig Thim how difficult to extract the factors which say in favor of the presence of this effect.

For example, such an effect as 'de-synchronization of the clocks in the GPS satellites.

The follower of the general relativity can say that the clocks are being in the curved space (because their frame in non-inertial)

The follower of the classical mechanics can say that the clocks are being in free fall - they fall into the center of the Earth every instant of time like in Galileo experiments. And the difference in passing the time is due to different external conditions for the clocks in the Earth and on the orbit (no mechanical stress for the latter).

Who is right?

Dear Vladimir,

the transverse doppler is also a consequence of an inelastic scattering. Imagine a source in the center of a rotating disk and on the disk is placed an absorber.

Preprint ENERGY SHIFT OF PHOTONS IN ROTATING DISKS

Horizontal pre-Orbifoldic transvrsing of Doppler Event is ipso facto some genre of vertical energy-versus-temporality dynamics . After a very long period of time, maybe up to 30,000 years for horizontal Event transfer to take place , higher-dimension tradition [ like 4D in Einsteinianism & 10 or 11D in string theory ] comes in to notify us of the electric force playing a relatively significant role in a strongly pseudo-contractive map with open domain . As a result , conservation regulations in post-Newtonian era appeared to be solutions of nonlinear operator equations involving strongly accretive maps.

Real Banach space with a uniformly convex dual, and where there would be a nonempty closed convex and bounded subset, is not predetermined in terms of relativistic evidence to what is actually taking place in abandoned electrodynamics . Standing in line as a 2nd alternative to traditional electrodynamics would logically be low energy {{and low rate energy depositions}} physicalistic to prognosticate the retrospective causality in a fully phenomenological way of electric working(s) for future electric science without the suffix "dynamics" .

Dear Stefano,

I looked at original text of Tangherlini (his dissertation). As I think, it is too abstract.

Lorentz, Einstein, Poincare, when they derived some rules for transformations of the fields, made some transformations of the equations.

Tangherlini does nothing. What he does is write-up some expressions for the EM fields and potentials. He offers to trust that his expressions are right.

I check one of his expression (pdf file). So it is hard to trust his transformations.

I repeat that the difference between Lorentz's approach and the approaches of Einstein and followers (except Tangherlini, there are some other authors who propose similar transformations) is that

- Lorentz did not state that the E field in one frame can transform into the B field in the other frame (his work of 1904 is some reply to Poincare; the EM fields in one frame look like the fields in another frame but with contracted sizes);

- Einstein, Tangherlini and others are sure that the E field should transform into E' and B' fields.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin,

due to the fact that the one way speed of light has never been tested, Tangherlini made his transformations such as the simultaneity is invariant , the two-way speed of light is an invariant, the one-way not an invariant.

In other words he assumed that thanks to infinite speed synchronization (possible nowadays with entanglement), from this simple equation which is also the LT

t'= γ-1 t + vx'/vr2

one can make the second term (which is nothing but a resync term with signal speed vL ) go to 0 for vL arbitrarily high.

One remains with t'= γ-1 t which works fine in all experiments with accelerators as LT do. In such case infact the term vx'/c2 in the LT is negligible since x'/c is very very small.

So this is the universally valid transformation of time

t'= γ-1 t

which involves according to Tangherlini a PREFERRED FRAME

and it is quite likely the transformation envisaged by LORENTZ as you mentioned.

Happy Holidays

Stefano

Dear Stefano,

I accept that Tangherlini's transformations are correct. But they are correct in application t the problem of synchronization. As I think, it is more or less some abstract problem that is interesting but without any connection to the electrodynamics.

Unfortunately, on current technological level, we have the only accessible inertial frame of reference - the frame connected with the Earth. All experiments to verify the special relativity, or in attempts to detect the ether, were made in the lab frame (the frame rigidly linked with the Earth).

All what the experimentators are able to do is to turn the experimental setup (in parallel or perpendicular direction to motion of the Earth with respect to the microwave background radiation frame).

So I don't understand how one is able to conclude that time can pass in other inertial frame if this person is able to operate with the experimental results obtained in the frame of the Earth. This person cannot 'transport' the measurement devices to other moving frame.

On time dilation. I found two works. The first one is a copy of the paper published in Phys. Rev. Lett:

arxiv.org/abs/1409.7951 where the authors state that they are able to extract the component of the relativistic Doppler shift.

And in E-print: arxiv.org/abs/2212.13107 it is stated that the parameters of the laser beam are not sufficient to make a conclusion of detection of the Doppler shift.

It is the example how are complex modern experiments and it is difficult to eliminate all 'loopholes' for incorrect interpretations of the obtained results.

Have good New Year holidays!

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

I asked prof. Frank Robert Tangherlini to read your paper and this is his reply.

It would be interesting to find such paper..

Dear Stefano,

The reply of Prof. Tangherlini is interesting. But I don't think that Lorentz made mistake. He used Galilean transformation when he introduced new inertal frame moving with the velocity w,

V_new = w + u_x

(Eq. 11 of my preprint or unnumbered equation on a bottom of p. 4 in his paper).

I wish to clarify Lorentz's concept. Since his paper of 1892, he tried to explain that his idea of contraction of the moving bodies explains all null results of Michelson-Morley's experiments and of some others.

Lorentz couldn't justify his idea because he couldn't know what is the structure of the material (the crystalline lattice). If he would knew, he would explain the contraction even without his 'local time' (transformation of the time variable) because the moving bodies should change their sizes due to the properties of the EM potentials (for moving bodies the Coulomb potential is transfoormed into so called convection potentiaal). Change in potentials (or in forces between ions of the crystalline lattice) gives change in interatomic distances and therefore in the sizes of the bodies.

It follows from the basic equations of the classical electrodynamics - I think nobody has doubts in correctness of these equations.

I wish to say that actually, Lorentz did not need in transformation of the time, and his transformation of the coordinates - it is only to explain why the charge should change its sizes.

Could you ask Prof. Tangherlini how he can explain why - according to my calculations (the attached file) - his transformations give incorrect result for the transformed vector potential?

If he says that my calculations are wrong, where do I make error?

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

It does not surprise me at all that, according to TT , charges radiate in longitudinal accelerated motion.

With TT the application of the Equivalence principle (as reformulated by Einstein) in one specific case, does not hold : the simultaneity Invariance forbids that twin clocks in synch in a rocket after acceleration get desynchronized. It is at variance with the prediciton of LT which predicts a desync as a first approximation, the same as in gravitation.

The bad thing though is that the Doppler shift, in accelerated motion, basically a Doppler shift for approaching/departing observers, if it depends on the variation of the observer's clock it would not depend anymore on the energy/momentum (which is the only rigorous way to obtain the effect) but on different frequencies of oscillators in the front and the back, a total absurdity.

To my humble opinion the vector potential derived from TT should be correct.

I will send your page to Prof. Tangherlini..

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Unfortunately, it is hard to verify experimentally if the EM fields of uniformly accelerated charge are transformed in accordance to Tangherlini's expressions.

When the electrons are accelerated their velocity becomes to be near the speed of light for short time (in accelerations with strong accelerating EM fields). Then they move like the charge with v = const and v ~ c.

But when such electrons enter into some liquid they begin to radiate (the Cerenkov radiation). So their E fields form like a shock wave.

Schott's expressions predict such a behavior of the electrons. Actually Schott considered a case when the charge moves faster the speed of light.

But I don't know how to obtain the shock-like wave of the E field in both LT and TT transformations.

If it would be possible to obtain, then, yes, the TT are correct in this case.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

to my understanding the LT can also be written as follows

t'= γ-1 t + vx'/c2

which in accelerators where they received experimental verification, inevitably approximate to

t'= γ-1 t which is the time TT .

By the way it is enough to look at the interpretation of the synchrotron radiation to understand that Lorentz interpretation about a preferred frame is the right one.. there is no equivalence of IRFs other than in Galilean transformations which is a first order approximation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_experiment_performed_in_a_Lab_tested_the_aberration_of_light_emitted_by_a_moving_source_the_foundation_of_Einsteins_light_clock

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

it is interesting the following article,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512196.pdf

Dear Stefano Quattrini

Yes, work of Drs. Abreu and Guerra is of certain interest. But I see one weak point in it, i.e. how to detect the time dilaltion: "The compatibility between Special Relativity and Lorentz-Poincar´e view of a preferred reference system experimentally inaccessible was shown to hold and exemplified with the case of time dilation" (from the Conclusion of that work).

The second point. They write:

"...many other classic examples are illustrated, such as the “reciprocity” of time dilation and space contraction, the “relativity of simultaneity”, the twin paradox, the problem of Bell’s accelerating spaceships, the propagation of spherical electromagnetic waves and the electric field of a moving point charge".

If they accept the 'space contraction', it is nothing that the special relativity. In Lorentz's concept, the space contraction is absent.

If you look at some of NASA reports, (copy of one of them is published in Acta Austronautica) they tried to find any evidence of the space deformation (in spatial points accessible for observation and measurement) but without results.

Unfortunately, all space contraction is only in physicitsts' mind.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

to my understanding and according to your narrative we have two situations described in your paper:

Eq. 5 is the one obtained by applying the Lorentz Transformations of coordinates where the right side becomes multiplied by 1/gamma (beta in their notation is usually represented by gamma)

K = U/gamma

Eq. 6 is the one made by Lorentz and copied by EINSTEIN, it differs from the previous by the gamma which multiplies the right side.

K= U*gamma

Using 5, one does not obtain the correct transformations between fields

while using 6 one obtains the correct transformations between fields.

So 6 are the right equations.

Lorentz, as you said, made a mistake (Poincarè corrected some mistakes of Lorentz actually), the proposed transformation (12) is just wrong in all senses and its further change of variable does not have a justification. Although what is eventually obtained wrongly is the LT.

had he used simply the t'=t gamma-1 , x'=gamma(x-vt) the Inertial transformation and made the right mathematical passages, he would have got the right answer about the field transformations.

CONCLUSIONS:

The correct transformations of the fields although have the form of the Lorentz transformations cannot be obtained with Lorentz coordinate transformation but with inertial transformations. So there is no Lorentz invariance...

If it is like that, it is a huge result!!!!!!!!!!!

The mere fact of entailment by Lorentz's and Einstein's electrodynamics of so varied mathematical pluralities , is the best signification for ontologically differing schools . Ultimately, regarding Minkowski’s paper (Minkowski, 1908), it is interesting to focus on the first 2 sections (see Appendix). Also, in this case the excerpt is quite long, but analysing it all allows us to really understand his vision about the relation between mathematics and physics. The first sentences of the first section are a manifesto for Minkowski’s thought. Here in fact, he explains his goal, his method, and his view about the relation between physics and mathematics and the reason why he felt necessary to elaborate his new approach. For him, the foundations of his “view of space and time” reside in “the domain of experimental physics” and this is in his opinion the real strength of this new view.

The method that he uses is presented in the third sentence of the first section, i.e. “I want to show first how to move from the currently adopted mechanics through purely mathematical reasoning to modified ideas about space and time”. After this he considers the equations of Newtonian mechanics, focusing on their invariances. These two invariants, that are preserving their form “when subjecting the specified spatial coordinate system to any change of position” and “when any uniform translation is impressed upon it”, represents a certain group of transformation, but as Minkowski said they were never studied together maybe for their “entirely heterogeneous character”. The turning point of his theory comes now, because he says that it is the “composed complete group as a whole that gives us to think”.

From this point on, he proceeds in a geometrical demonstration using a graphic approach to explain why this new vision can unite space and time as a whole. In doing so, he introduces a different way to describe objects in space and their movement (i.e., worldpoint and worldline), and he does this starting from experimental evidence that motivates his choices and allows him to proceed with his mathematical demonstrations.

Dear Reza Sanaye,

It is only my private point of view but I think that Minkowski's theory has no connection with the physics. Despite it is the perfect math theory.

Why - I think - doesn't it have connection with the physics. According to Minkowski, all physical quantities are either four-scalars, or four-vectors and four-tensors. So most of the physicists are sure that the elementary charge and current form the four-vector (of the four-current). But the elementary current is absent in the nature. You can look at Einstein's original paper how the author introduces transformation of the current in the Maxwell equations. He uses some complex construction of the charge and the velocities.

But in modern science the current is a component of four-vector. Moreover, some authors are sure that the LT of the current can create the charge. They prefer to ignore that there is the law of the charge conservation. that is still absolute law of the physics. Even in Purcell's textbook it is possible to find how the LT of the current creates some 'additional' charge.

The second point. In the quantum mechanics, the definition j = v*\rho is absent. In this area of physics, the elementary charge is some parameter and the true physical quantitiy is the wave function of the electron (or the proton etc.). The electron itself (as the charge) can be determined only in very stationary systems. It is at least incorrectly to use the four-vector of the current in the quantum mechanics.

As I know, the ideas of Minkowski were developed by Born (his work of 1910). But in such a simple case as a motion of the classical charge with uniform acceleration, the calculations give the violation of Gauss's law for the EM field crated by this charge. It is well known defect of the uniformly accelerated motion (since work of Milner of 1921). This defect is removeable in Schott's solution but Schott's solution is non-relativistic. In the relativistic solution of this problem obtained by Born, this defect cannot be eliminated.

So either we have correspondence to the Maxwell equations and violation of the relativistic invariance or we have the relativistic invariance but violation of one of the maxwell laws.

If my manuscript can be acceptted in Indian Journal of Phyisics, I will upload a part the text to explain why it is so.

Dear all,

E', B'

LT(X,t) = Xa', ta' but E,B to E', B' is not correct

Mr Vladimir Onoochin has been caring enough to write in full detail his views regarding Minkowski's theory . I appreciate the time he has spent on this . Mr Stefano Quattrini has replied with another (differing) explanation , laying out his own account in his post . I thank him for that . I myself have the strong guess that this transformation has the following lineage :

The Lorentz Transformation, which is considered as constitutive for the Special Relativity Theory, was INVENTED by Voigt for the first time in 1887, adopted by Lorentz in 1904, and baptized by Poincaré in 1906. Einstein probably did not pick it up from Voigt directly. I have more to say on some issues regarding coordinate transformations in general .

Dear Reza Sanaye,

probably yes...although he derived them as well in his own way

Article On the Origin of the Lorentz Transformation

in any case the invariance of the wave equation remains under LT...

so the wave equation is not invariant under the right coordinate transformations...

Mr Stefano Quattrini

wave equation is not invariant under the right coordinate transformations..... This is most probably because :

Coulomb Force and Lortentz force cannot exactly match one another on the coordinate system which takes the responsibility to represent them from place to place . In electromagnetics, Lorenz force is a very classic formula. Almost all textbooks give this formula, but none of them give a detailed corresponding theoretical derivation related to its coordinance system’s variations .

The solution to long standing problem of deriving Maxwell’s equations and Lorentz force from first principles, i.e., from Coulomb’s law, lies in scrutinizing its coordinance system(s)’ variations . This problem was studied by many authors throughout history but it was never satisfactorily solved, and it was never solved for charges in arbitrary motion. Relativistically correct Liénard–Wiechert potentials for charges in arbitrary motion and Maxwell equations are both derived directly from Coulomb’s law by careful mathematical analysis of the moment just before the charge in motion stops. The electrodynamic energy conservation principle is derived directly from Coulomb’s law by using similar approach.

From this energy conservation principle the Lorentz force is derived. To make these derivations possible, the generalized Helmholtz theorem has been derived along with two novel vector identities. The special relativity may be completely left to its own [ could be fully ignored ] in such series of derivations. And the results show that electromagnetism as a whole is not the consequence of special relativity, but it is rather the consequence of time retardation.

Dear Reza Sanaye ,

I think you are quite right:

> And the results show that electromagnetism as a whole is not the consequence of special relativity, but it is rather the consequence of time retardation.

Jefimenko in his book 'Electromagnetic retardation and theory of relativity' gives very detailed analysis of all 'relativistic effects' (including the time dilation) by means of the retardation of the EM field.

Vladimir Onoochin

you are absolutely correct . . . . . . . . . .

AND then the world : Scientists and lay people alike : are led to believe there are time distortion events taking place all around us , , , , , , , ,, , ,

dear Vladimir Onoochin

time dilation does not depend on the retardation of light at all. It is an experimentally verified phenomenon and depends instead on the kinetics...

the time dilation is in bi-univocal relation with energy and strongly connected to energy conservation laws

ΔT/T = ΔK/E0

the relative variation of the period of an atomic clock in an inertial frame corresponds to the variation of its relativistic energy on unit of its rest energy.

That can be eventually attributed to the variation of the speed of light which in the inertial transformations is actually a fact.

What is strictly related to the retardation of light is the term of vx'/c2 which is peculiar of SR and is nothing but a retardation, which corresponds to the right retardation of the field.

Vladimir Onoochin

Our teams' empirical evidence confirm your statement ..........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

We do not have time distortion , time retardation , time dilation , time contraction ;;;;;;;;;;;;

WE HAVE retardation of the EM field'S ( SIGNAL PROCESSES ) ********

Reza Sanaye ,

"WE HAVE retardation of the EM field'S ( SIGNAL PROCESSES ) ********"

we have that but experimental evidence of time dilation is yet another totally different thing and has nothing to do with retarded fields. What was relevant to retarded fields is the term vx/c2 in LT which very likely it was understood that it does not exist, with the best happyness of Wolfgang Hengelardt.

Very Dear Stefano Quattrini

I cannot agree with you .............

Alternative versions of the well-known “light clocks” experiment have been conducted , ,,, The so-called Lorentz transformations, backbone of the Special Relativity theory, are thence deduced by resorting to the above-mentioned experiment, albeit with a different meaning. Time dilation and length contraction are not to be considered as being real phenomena.

Time, in fact, is postulated as being absolute. Nonetheless, this strong assumption does not imply that instruments and devices of whatever kind, finalized to measure time, are not influenced by motion. In particular, although the “light clock” in the mobile frame ticks, so to say, more slowly than the one at rest, it can be easily shown how no time dilation actually occurs. The apparent length contraction is considered as being nothing but a banal consequence of a deceptive time measurement.

Dear Reza Sanaye ,

the light clock is really a bad example in fact, it does not work, it is based on an even wrong aberration of light.

It has been experimentally verified the slowing down of atomic clocks due to motion in a lab, That show that there is a preferred frame.

Stefano Quattrini

the slow down of atomic clock is , as a matter of fact , due to variations in gravity level(s) . . . . .

Reza Sanaye ,

gravity level is potential (potential energy)

there is the same effect in absence of gravitation... at the end of the day a squared speed is a potential...

time dilation depend on levels of energy:

DT/T = DK/E0

the relative variation of periods of an atomic clock in absence of gravitation is due to its relative variation of kinetic energy.

Vladimir Onoochin > "The follower of the general relativity can say that the clocks are being in the curved space (because their frame in non-inertial)"

Sorry, for this late response, I noticed this thread only now:

Please consider the following article and the information given below:

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

On GPS, please see what the two Engineers Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond DiEspositi, (of the GPS Joint Program Office), who were involved in the development of GPS, back in 1997, had to say in the following link publication. Their conclusion:

“Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no ‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed."

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1997ptti.conf..189F

If you believe in the two engineers I cited above, then you have to accept the fact that all the claims of the theoretical physicists on GPS or on Einstein’s theories of relativity are either honest confusion deceived by confirmation bias or outright false claims, motivated by the lure of fame fortune and fund. On the question of GPS alone, you can see how even some prominent theoretical physicists (aka, charlatans) are engaged in propaganda in the following video: the difference of 2/3 mm of the engineers of the GPS system, becomes 10 km of a prominent British theoretical physicist Brian Cox!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc]

Abdul Malek ,

Thank you for the links. I should study this information.

As I remember, the General relativity has no one experimental confirmation (without explanation of the experimental fact by alternative theory).

Even well known calculated shift of the Mercury orbit by the GR looks like artifact - Einstein obtained about 1200 seconds per century. Only Boppo corrected the calculations to the needed result

Vladimir Onoochin : The Real Story Behind Mercury’s perihelion advance:

[Long after Newton’s law of universal gravitation was generally accepted as the basis of the planetary motion in the solar system, the French astronomer Le Verrier in 1859 announced (based on many years of careful observations and calculations) that the perihelion of the planet Mercury evidently undergoes precession, at a slightly faster rate than can presumably be accounted for by Newtonian mechanics, given the known distribution of the planets and the other objects in the solar system. Since Newton’s laws allows only a unitary and centrally directed force, an explanation for Le Verrier’s finding was arbitrarily attributed to a perturbation caused by the secondary effect of the gravitational forces from other planets; but did not explain why the precession rate varied with different planets, especially the high precession rate of Mercury. The perihelion precession of Mercury is 5,600 arcseconds (1.5556°) per century relative to the Earth. Newtonian mechanics, presumably taking into account all the effects from the other planets, predicts (without strong basis, since it is a very complex many-body problem)a precession of 5,557 arcseconds (1.5436°) per century, but the rest 43 arcseconds (a mere0.076%!) remained un-explained.

In 1898 a German school teacher named Paul Gerber [13] wrote a paper in which he proposed a velocity-dependent propagation of gravity that predicted non-Newtonian 43 arcseconds advance of orbital perihelia per revolution given by the expression k(pi)M/(Lc^2); where c is the posited speed of propagation of gravity, M is the sun's mass, L is the semi-latus-rectum of the orbit, and k is a constant depending on the precise form of the assumed potential. Although there are controversies about this formulation, Gerber showed successfully that a value of the constant k = 6 gave the correct additional 43 arcseconds of Mercury’s perihelion advance.

Albert Einstein in his 1915 - 1916 publications [14,15] claimed to have given a precise account of the discrepancy of precession of Mercury, and deduced Garber’s above relation based on his newly proposed theory of general relativity (GR). The understanding that Einstein’s GR based on impeccable mathematics and a totally different and novel perspective of space and time gave an exact account of the expression given by Garber for the non-Newtonian precession of Mercury; became an instant cause of celebration by Einstein himself. This purported achievement by Einstein is considered [16] a poetic marvel in modern physics and the strongest “proof” of GR! Einstein retroactively admitted (after questions were raised) that Gerber obtained the correct expression for Mercury’s perihelion advance before him. But Einstein dismissed any possibility that someone could explain the additional 43 arcseconds precession of Mercury or that Gerber’s expression for it could be obtained, without using his theory of general relativity.

According to Einstein [17], “Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that the Perihelion shift of mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity. So there are two possibilities. Either you invent special interplanetary masses. [...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of mercury before me. The experts (?) are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I have not mentioned the work by Gerber originally, because I did not know it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it".

Einstein’s claim of Mercury’s perihelion advance was contested by so-called “100 authors against Einstein” led by Philipp Lenard, Gehrcke, Silverstein, Reuterdahl et all, who opposed Einstein’s theories accusing him of many things, such as incorrect formulation, plagiarism etc.,and questioned his priority. Ironically, W.W. Engelhardt in his recent publication [18] uses similar reasoning like Einstein and raised the controversial issue that Gerber’s expression cannot be derived from Einstein’s GR. Engelhardt claimed that instead of GR Einstein used a modified Newtonian theory to derive Gerber’s expression and not from his theory of general relativity; hence contest the justification of the claim by Einstein of the proof of his theory of relativity. Engelhardt using purported Einstein’s modified Newtonian mechanics derived an expression for the Gerber’s equation, which is one-third of Gerber’s formula.]

This is a copy of a section, extracted from an article, For the references please see the following article:

Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

Vladimir Onoochin : Please also see the following RG forum on this issue, as it would probably be out of topic here:

"Is there a General Relativity based n-body simulation that can calculate Mercury’s total perihelion advance or precession?" :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_General_Relativity_based_n-body_simulation_that_can_calculate_Mercurys_total_perihelion_advance_or_precession

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

Just a short summary of the topic of the thread...

Although the fields B and E transform according to the "form",

a) B'norm = γ(B - vxE/c2) verified field relations of Lorentz.

while t' = γ(t - vx/c2) is the Poincare'-Einstein coordinate transformation of time or LT (known also as Lorentz Transformations, as named by Poincare')

b) E'norm = γ(E - vxB) verified field relation of Lorentz.

while x'=γ(x - vt) is the Poincare'-Einstein coordinate transformations of space or LT (known also as Lorentz Transformations, as named by Poincare')

The form of the field relations looks the same as the LT (coordinate transformations).

This sounded like a strong confirmation of the validity of LT as a coordinate transformation.

But unfortunately, the coordinate transformations which allow a)

is not the Lorentz Transformation of time, but the inertial transformation of time...

t' = γ-1 t

which expresses the "time dilation" directly.

So LT is not the right coordinate transformation of Physics.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

There is one problem with the verification of the field transformations.

Lorentz made such a verification only for the fields created by uniformly moving charge, or system of uniformly moving charges (the electrons and ions of some moving body).

He did not check correctness of such transformations for other types of the fields.

Lorentz’s aim was to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley and other experiments. In these experiments, all units of the experimental setup move uniformly (move with the Earth). So it is the static experiments and Lorentz didn’t need in transformation of the time variable.

But he had to justify his contraction hypothesis so he assumed that the coordinates of the charges in the units of the setup are transformed (from the frame connected with the absolute ether to the frame connected with the Earth) as

x'=γ(x - vt)

where v is the velocity of the Earth with respect to the absolute ether.

In this situation, when the transformation t' = γ^(-1) t is absent, the transformation of Lorentz and Einstein’s transformations are the same – but only in this case.

One more point. According to Lorentz, the contraction x'=γ(x - vt) is valid only between the atoms of the moving body. According to Einstein, all space is contracted.

I repeat that there is no one proof that similar transformations of the fields are correct for charges moving in arbitrary way. Einstein’s paper does not contain such a proof.

In intuitive terms, beyond preserving the interval: A physically acceptable transformation is expected to transform any linear uniform motion into a linear uniform motion. LT ,as I see it , maps every linear uniform motion that passes through the origin into a similar one, BUT does not do so for arbitrary linear motions that do not intercept the origin.

I shall be very pleased if Mr Stefano Quattrini be kind enough to explain why and how he believes in time dilation while he rejects LT and rejects Einsteinian Relativity ,as well . . .. . . .. . . ..

Appreciations beforehand ;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Vladimir Onoochin

Are you , after all things being taken into consideration , rejecting or admitting LT ??

I cannot make out your respectable stance on this important issue ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Respectfully

reza

Reza Sanaye ,

I certainly accept as being right the Lorentz relations of fields as found by Lorentz himself from the Maxwell equations.

I accept the verified phenomenon of the relativity of times which needs for sure in 3D a preferred frame.

On the other hand I reject the Lorentz Transformations as found by Einstein and Poincarè as the general transformations valid in physics, I reject the relativity of simultaneity at the base of the mixing of space with time in the 4D space-time, devoid by the way of any onthology.

Stefano Quattrini

Dear Friend ;

I have absolutely NO intention of possibly picking on you '''''''''''

But I guess you have to admit that your position is a VERY "patchy" one indeed ............

Respects

reza

All modern treatents have an integrated approach of SR and the Maxwell formalism, both for waves or steady fields. I dont see anything new emerging in such discussions, thought this was long over.

ie see Jackson, Reitz Milford, etc. The covariance of the Maxwell formalism has been proved.

Reza Sanaye ,

as Lev Okun used to say "subtle is the Lord".

Time dilation as variation of clock rates hence the "twin effect" is what is obtained in experiments in 3D space, hence a consequence of a preferred frame in 3D space (the one of the Lab or the ECIF).

That is due to the simple transformation:

t' = γ-1 t

TANGHERLINI, SELLERI, EAGLE, MARINOV et al

which differ from LT by the resynchronization term vx'/c2 .

It is well known that the fields in different frames are related by

a) B'norm = γ(B - vxE/c2) field relations of Lorentz.

b) E'norm = γ(E - vxB) field relation of Lorentz.

it also emerges that Einstien and Poincarè found independently, the following transformation of time

t' = γ(t - vx/c2)

x'=γ(x - vt)

both of them found such relations by "forcing" the equivalence of the IRFs in order to comply with the principle of relativity.

They called them Lorentz Transformations due to the similarity with Lorentz transformations of the fields and the fact that Lorentz partially worked on coordinate transformations too.

Unfortunately x,t are not the same as B and E, and the transformation of time which allow B and E to transform correctly into B' and E' is not

t' = γ(t - vx/c2)

but

t' = γ-1 t

as verified by Vladimir. I'm still checking to make it clear with new notations.

Simple as that...

Dear Reza Sanaye ,

You wrote:

> Are you , after all things being taken into consideration , rejecting or admitting LT ??

First, I see no any meaning to use any transformations except of Galilean (for the inertial frames). A reason is very simple - we are able to do experiments only in the inertial frame linked with the Earth. If we are not able to have the experimental data obtained in the other frame, what is a reason transform something?

The Galilean transformations were suffcient to develop the classical electrodynamics. If this theory is incorrect? No. So what is a need to use the LT? To write one more 'outstanding scientific paper of XXI century'? Can you call me a paper which:

- is 'outstanding scientific';

- predicted new physical effect that had been detected;

- is based on the LT?

Except the paper of Dirac where he prediced that it can be exist a state similar to the state of the electron but with negative energy, I know no one such a paper.

From the other side, Dirac (with Fock and Podolski) could not correctly explain how to eliminate the scalar photons. So until now the QED is not able to operate with the Coulomb field. Of course, this field alwasy exists between two charged particles but it would be better to avoid its description.

Shortly, I think the LT are not applicable to the electrodynamics.

Vladimir

Juan Weisz ,

In sec. 16 of Landau-Lifshitz, Theory of Field, it is written 'The properties of the field are characterized by a four-vector A_i, the four-potential..'

Can you prove that the EM potentials of the charge being in arbitrary motion form the four-vector?

I am sure with 100% that you cannot do to. You never will able to do it even if you read all textbooks on the SR and classical electrodynamics. If Poincare couldn't do it...

The only thing you will be able is to write the Maxwell equations in 4D notation as it is given in the textbooks. But 4D notation still doesn't mean that the potentials form the four-vector.

Vladimir

It is simply that nothing impedes me, forming the vector Ai, that I can see, same as the fields forming a tensor Fij. It is simply organizing all equations in this way. It looks better that way. This part involves the fields alone.

Read the references I gave.

Then there are equations giving the interactions of the fields on a charge, so far treatable as far as I can see.

What is not competly self consistent in EM theory, is incorporating the field created by moving charges back into the picture. This is a problem discussed with approximations in the later chapters of Jackson. It is indeed a topic for research.

Juan Weisz ,

I don't need in your advices to read the textbooks.

You not me do the statements that the EM quantities can be easily presented in covariant form. Please, demonstrate it, for example, taking the Lienard-Wiecher potentials.

I hope nothing will impede you to show that the expressions for the LW potentials written in one frame and corresponding expressions for the LW potentials are connected by the LT.

I hope you understand what is the term 'covariance'.

It is a small problem that these potentials are written partly via the retarded time. But I am sure you will read the textbooks and understand how to avoid this difficulty.

If you ask me to include

Radiation reaction of particles

Obviously i cannot

Juan Weisz ,

You wrote

> If you ask me to include Radiation reaction of particles Obviously i cannot

For example, Poincare tried to prove the covariance in the general case, including the radiated components of the EM field.

But we can consider a point of our discrepancy in the simpler way. You wrote that

> The covariance of the Maxwell formalism has been proved.

I have a question: where, in what textbook this proof of is given?

For example, the textbook of Moeller 'The theory of relativity'. In Sec. 53, Moeller writes the four-tensor for F_ij (Eq. (V.12). Then he writes something like the Maxwell equation for F_ij and after it he claims that F_ij represent the EM fields?

Why?

Why can Moeller state it? He implicitly refers to Eq. (IV.81). But the correctness of Eq. (IV.81) should be proven too.

I hope you will explain me how the famous 'covariance of the EM fields' is established.

You can use any textbook to prove the covariance. It is not problem. All textbooks contain the same 'proofs'.

Section 11.9 jackson

Edition 2

Juan Weisz ,

> Section 11.9 jackson Edition 2.

It is Poincare's proof

The key point of the proof is '...are invariant'.

But the sources can be covariant or cannot. Please, prove.

Poincare obtained his 'ellipsoid' which means that the moving charge should increase its sizes. In the SR and Lorentz's theory it is not so.

Thus, I am still waiting from you

Now confused with ans

It is putting eqs

In tensor form

What does it mean?

> Now confused with ans

I need in definite answer - how about transformation of the sources?

I dont know about that

It is to write maxwell in

Tensor form

You still have div j plus d rho over

Dt as zero

In the electrodynamics, the elementary current is absent. You should use

j = v*\rho

and separately transform v and \rho

Please, do it

Conservation of charge -current can be treated as a 4 vector

(j, rho) with the mentioned differential equation in tensor form also.

It is similar to conservation of matter. The derivatives are partial.

What do you mean by absent current?? Currents are real.

Juan Weisz ,

"elementary current' is always the velocity multiplied by the elementary charge.

I am waiting for your transformation of this quantity.

Until now you cannot present any proof of your words that 'the covariance....' etc

Maybe this way?

One 4 vector is

(x, y, z, ct)

take d/dt of it all

(vx, vy, vz, c) is left

Then simply Lorenz transform as usual,

mutiply by rho to get

(jx,jy, jz, rho c)

Note that you must actally transform an entire 4 vector. Perhaps rho included.

Or multipl by just charge q, that does not change.

I repeat that there is no elementary current as a physical quantity.

When you multiply (x, y, z) by J - what is J?

In Ch. 11.9 of Jackson only the 'wave operator' has the invariant form. The sources haven't As a consequence, it is impossible to prove that the LW potentials are Lorentz-covariant.

I did not multiply (x y z) by J. , read the post. J=v rho, like you said.

and ev is already an actual current.

So I leave off this discussion now.

Dear all,

going back to the topic of the thread, Einstein clearly stated that

a presence of an Aether would prevent an equivalence of inertial frames. Any equivalence of inertial frames would single out the Aeather.

Aether-like background --> non-equivalence of IRFs

Lorentz and Maxwell derived the equations of electrodynamics assuming the presence of an Aether, namely the Lorentz Aether theory (LET)

LET --> non-equivalence of IRFs

Lorentz Transformations (LT: Einstein/Poincarè coordinate transf) are built on the postulate of the Inertial frames.

LT --> equivalence of IRFs

not equivalence of IRFs implies that LT cannot be the transformation of LET.

What are then the transformations of LET?

The transformations of LET are the inertial transformations found by several authors beginning from EAGLE ending with SELLERI that involves the presence of the preferred frame where the clock rate is the fastest.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

In modern physics, the absolute inertial frame is associated with the microwave background radiation frame.

Another point of view on this frame is that it is the frame where the field oscillators are at rest. The existence of these field oscillators follow from the existence of the zero oscillations of the vacuum. The other evidence of this existence is the Casimir effect where mutual attraction of two metallic plates can be explained only by these oscillators.

The field oscillators are not the EM fields and not the EM potentials - the potentials are the displacements of these oscillators (in terms of the coherent states).

So the physicists even don't try to write the Lorentz transformations for these quantities. In the other words, it is much easier to think that these oscillators are rigidly fixed in the space. Despite it is in contradiction to the special relativity, or its principle of equivalence of the frames.

So it looks like this 'absolute frame' does exist and at the same time it is better to don't state on its existence.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

although CMBR is used as as a REST FRAME to measure speed of celestial bodies and it makes sense, it is a global preferred frame, we cannot spot it by staying on earth. That is not the aether which Lorentz would suggest, has little to do with the hypermedium at the base of the physical phenomena.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

On the preferred frame. It seems the existence of this frame is in contradiction to the principle of equivalence of the frames (the relativity principle).

As you know the relativity principle is now established as one of the pillar of the physics. But nobody knows why this principle is important.

Most of the modern physicists know nothing why it is so. In the best way, they have read on it in the textbooks on the special relativity. But Einstein wrote nothing why this principle plays a crucial role in the physics. He only mentions this principle in his paper of 1905.

I think that before stating that possible existence of the frame rigidly connected with the absolute ether, it would be good to understand why the existence of this frame is so bad.

Does its existence contradict to some physical law? No.

Yes, it cannot be determined in the experiments - but Lorentz explained why it cannot be determined in the experiments where the detectors are linked with the frame of the Earth.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

the situation is quite subtle. I can take any IRF as a reference for me and refer all the objects to that, this is not forbidden anywhere. So the CMBR makes no exception, with no contradiction to the equivalence of IRFs.

It is comfortable to set it like that because anywhere in the universe I can say how fast I move in regard to it thanks to the gas of photons which is omnipresent and stationary.

What would make the CMBR a preferred frame or better an absolute rest frame which in this case would violate the equivalence of IRFs, is the measurement of the clock rate of atomic clocks.

Atomic clocks could discriminate that for sure.

If atomic clocks, stationary in CMBR, ran at the fastest rate in comparison to others belonging to other IRFs then CMBR would be indeed the preferred frame.

The transformations which you discovered that Lorentz had inadvertently used, imply a preferred frame in a physical problem.

Then there would be an hierarchy of frames more preferred than others and also gravitation would play a big role in disguising the frames...

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

I wish to explain some difficulties with the practical realization of your idea.

Your arguments are right. But they are not applicable to practice. What we have is the only frame, the frame of the Earth. We even cannot arrange the experiments where the atomic clock is rigidly linked with the frame of the Sun, another inertial frame. How can we provide a flight of some space apparatus which has the constant distance to the center of the Sun and this apparatus does not move in the circular orbit around the Sun? Only under these conditions the space apparatus would be being in another inertial frame.

I wish to say too that the only scientist who was concerned of the correct choice of the preferred frame is Poincare. Poincare proved that if the Lorentzian frame of the absolute ether exists, the physical processes should occur differently in this Lorentzian frame and in the other frames. But again, we only can know how the physical processes occur in our frame connected with the Earth. We don't know how these processes occur in the Lorentzian frame.

When the physicists discussed a problem of detection of the ether (or some preferred frame), they found that Hertzian model of the electrodynamics predicts some effects (due to different realization of the physical processes in two frames) which were not detected. So Hertzian model was accepted as incorrect. But in Lorentzian model of the absolute ether, especially when he suggested a concept of the contraction of the moving bodies, all experimental data were in agreement with his model. And Lorentz mentioned that under corrent technological level, it is quite impossible to determine the frame of the absolute ether. It is impossible now too - how can we detect that the Earth contracts with 6 cm twice a year (a period of rotation around the Sun)?

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

if the right coordinate transformations are the inertial transformations and not the Lorentz Transformations as you pointed out, there is not equivalence between Inertial frames.

That relative motion or equivalence of IRFs is just a first-order approximation, it would be like discovering the warm water: dynamics and gravitation are hierarchical...

By the way did you have a chance to look at this?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/437/1/012014/pdf

beside that, a question on your paper from the image attached:

according to Maxwell equation it is the divergence of B =0,

not the one of E.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Let me explain the problem with the equivalence of the frames as I understand it.

In XIX century the physicists didn't consider this problem since this problem didn't exist. There were two concepts of the 'action-at-a-distance' and of the ether. The ether is the medium to transfer the EM interaction. The concept of the ether was separated into two concepts, of the moving ether and absolute ether.

The moving ehter (of Hertz) was no good because Hertzian electrodynamics predicted some effect which were not detected. I don't know the details but one can find their description in works on history of the electrodynamics.

Lorentzian theory of absolute ether predicted that with accuracy to (v/c)^2 the difference in the experiments could be detected. It means that one could determine the absolute velocity of the Earth (Michelson's device moves with the Earth)with respect to the ether.

But the experiments gave the null results. You can read it in dissertation of Janssen of 1995 'a Comparison Between Lorentz's Ether Theory and Special Relativity in the Light of the Experiments of Trouton and Noble' https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/litserv/diss/janssen_diss/TitleTOC.pdf

Then Lorentz in 1892 developed his idea of contraction of the moving bodies (FitzGerald suggested the same but he didn't consider how it helps to explain the null results).

Then in both frames (when the interferometer is directed toward the Earth motion and when the device is directed in perpendicular) the result of the interference pattern is the same. Both frames are equivalent. Lorentz in 1892 introduced the only coordinate transformation - to go to the fictitious frame where the contracted charge (ellipsoid) looks like a perfect sphere. But it is fictitious transformation.

In 1900 Poincare wrote a big paper where he showed that if Lorentzian absolute frame exist, some radiation processes in it should differ from prcesses in other moving frame. In the other words, Poincare introduced the principle of equivalence.

So Lorentz in 1904 wrote a paper which can be treated as a reply to Poincare because the only new material Lorentz added is transformation of the coordinates. Lorentz showed that if one uses two transformations of the coordinates,

- Galilean, x' = x - wt

- Fictitious t'' = t/gamma, x'' = gamma(x' - Vt)

the Maxwell equations in this new fictitious frame have the same form as in the original frame of the absolute ether. So Lorentz explained that the physical processes in both frames occur identically.

In the other words, if we make the Galilean transformation of the coordinates and then take into account that in new moving (with respect to the frame of the absolute ether) frame the charges should contract, we obtain the same results as we mesure something in the frame of the absolute ether.

Thus, the equivalence (in a meaning introduced by Poincare) exists .

On Ivezic's paper. There are some works where the authors try to resolve so called Lorentz's paradox of the special relativity - with the straight wire loaded by the steady state current and the charge moving along the wire. The paradox is described in Purcell's textbook. But in recent paper D'Abramo shows that Purcell (and other authors) didn't resolve this paradox.

Curiously but Poincare's objection to Lorentz can be incorrect. The paradoxes with the Lorentz force (you started this discussions) arise doubts that the action-reaction princile is fulfilled in the electrodynamics.

Maxwell's equating’ in this place new untrue frames having the alike form as in the original frame of the categorical one , led to Lorentz interpreting that the tangible processes in two together frames happen evenly. In case we form the Galilean shift of the matches and , therefore , allow for the possibility that in new re-adjusted frame the charges bear contact, we get the alike results as we measure entity in the frame of the categorical coordinances . Thus, the similarity (in signification imported by Poincare) still endures . {{ On Ivezic's paper. }}

I dont think that modernly the conception using LT is any different than imagined by Einstein, the real developer of SR.

So until such difference is explained the question is meaningless.

Since the aether is not found, you do not know all its physical effects.

Either its not there or its effects are merely those of free space.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

I prepared the file, just one page, about the covariance of E,B hence invariance of the Maxwell equations through LT.

It emerges that at variance from what you derived, the Lorentz relations between E,B and E', B' are a necessary consequence of the Lorentz Coordinate transformations...

Maybe you can spot an error on the derivation..

Juan Weisz ,

You are absolutely right - the question of the usage of both LT (in interpretation of Poincare) and own transformations of Lorentz are meaningless.

Lorentz introduced his own transformations for the sole purpose of responding to Poincaré.

LT is useless for any practical calculations - in the classical electrodynamics, I do not see any work where these transformations are applied and it gives numerical estimate of some physical effect, and corresponding comparison to the experimental data is made too (especially in a reference frame that moves at velocity of order of the speed of light relative to the solar system).

Of course, LT is very useful for writing a certain type of article. But everyone understands the purpose for which such articles are written - to show the management of the university that "the author is working hard."

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Your transformations are correct. I think it is because the LT have a property of duality - (x',t') = LT of (x,t) but (x,t) = LT of (x',t') too.

But to be sure that all Maxwell equations are invariant under the LT you should verify transformation of other Maxwell equations. The problem arises in transformation of (1/c)@E_x/@t + (4pi/c) v_x \rho = [curl H]_x.

I show in my preprint that (1/c)@E_x/@t gives (gamma/c) @E_x//@\xi and this 'gamma' prevent to obtain the correct relativistic connection between the fields for this equation.

But greater difficulties appear with the current, v_x\rho. Einstein writes on transformation in such a way that it is impossiblle to reconstruct the way of his thinking.

He gives the expressions

J = u_x \rho = [(u_x - v)/(1- u_xv/c^2)] * \beta *( (1- u_xv/c^2) *\rho

The term [(u_x - v)/(1- u_xv/c^2)] is transformation of u_x.

\beta corresponds to Lorentzian contraction of the size of the charge. But Lorentz derived this factor. Einstein does not give any explanation why this factor is introduced.

Finally, what is the term ( (1- u_xv/c^2) ? What is the reason of appearance of it?

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

good.

I understand that such symmetry is quite relevant to the wave equation which is invariant under LT for sure, hence it is explained why it works in that case.

But if by using LT I get the correct field transformations, I will not get the correct ones if I use the Inertial transformations.

So at the end of the day I would have LT coordinate transformations for waves and Inertial transformations for fields???

ok, I will.

But it seems it arises also with the homogeneous with rotor of H.

You should explain me the passage you made in the picture.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

There is one thought experiment firstly formulated in 1880 as a counter-example to Clausius' force formula. This counter-example calls into question a relativity principle - the physical quantities will be non-equivalent in different frames. The existence of the absolute (true) frame doesn't follow from this counter-example, but it creates certain difficulties to the special relativity.

Shortly this counter-example is as follows:

- A straight wire is loaded by the steady-state current (v is the average velocity of the conductivity electrons in Drude's model). A charge moves in parallel to the wire with the same velocity v i the lab frame. In this frame the magnetic force acts on the charge. F =/= 0.

- In a frame, comoving with the charge, no forces act on the charge. The magnetic field from the positive ions, which 'move in opposite side', do not act on the charge at rest. The electric field from the wire is equal to zero since the wire is electrically neutral F = 0.

- The frames are not equivalent.

This paradox was known in 1910th as a Lorentz paradox:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Principle_of_Relativity_and_its_Application_to_some_Special_Physical_Phenomena

and its 'resolution' is given by Purcell (Ch. 5.9 of his Electricity and Magnetism').

But Purcell's explanation, who used idea of Lorentz to resolve the problem, is questionable too. After Purcell, some papers with attempts to resolve it were published. The main idea is to justify extra-charging the wire by the current.

So the basic principle of the physics, i.e. equivalence of the frames, can be questioned and the absolute frame of reference can exist.

Stefano Quattrini

I can only guess that Vladimir Onoochin's position can come into some sort of compromise with mine , as follows , to apply the best of HIS/my wordage :

This counter-example calls into question the relativity principle - the physical quantities will be Maxwell's equating' in this place new untrue frames , having the alike form as in the original frame of the categorical one , led to Lorentz interpreting that the tangible processes in two together frames happen evenly. In case we form the Galilean shift of the matches and , therefore , allow for the possibility that in new re-adjusted frame the charges bear contact, we get the alike results as we measure entity in the frame of the categorical coordinances. The existence of the absolute frame does not follow from this counter-example, but it creates certain difficulties to the special relativity. Shortly this counter-example is as follows: - A straight wire is loaded by the steady-state current (v is the average velocity of the conductivity electrons in Drude's model). A charge moves in parallel to the wire with the same velocity v within the lab frame. Another point of view on this frame is that it is the frame where the field oscillators are at rest. The field oscillators are not the EM fields and not the EM potentials - the potentials are the displacements of these oscillators (in terms of the coherent states). In the other words, it is much easier to think that these oscillators are rigidly fixed in the space. Despite this , it remains is in contradiction to the special relativity, or its principle of equivalence of the frames. So it looks like this 'absolute frame' does exist and at the same time it is better to do not depend on its existence.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin and Reza Sanaye ,

results about Electromagnetics provided by Lorentz Transformations "may not" be questioned due to the verified form invariance of the wave and covariance of the fields as also supported by Redzic. On the other hand for matter (atomic clocks) the term vx/c2 is missing for sure.

There is no effect on clocks at the first order in v/c.

A resychronization does not occur without light beams....

Paradoxically this paper (a twin paradox for clever students)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511126.pdf

should not contain mathematical error and should apply SR correctly but gives disturbing consequences...if a clock changes its counting after receiving a signal, that clock will not change if that signal is not received.... so LT would not work in this case, unless signals are transmitted...hence cannot work as coordinate transformations.

I think it is very interesting the following paper about the Invariance of Maxwell equations...

On the Low Speed Limits of Lorentz’s Transformation — How Relativistic Effects Retain or Vanish in Electromagnetism

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.10242.pdf

and this too

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2202/2202.13768.pdf

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

In E-print gr-qc/0511126 the authors omit (don't consider) problems of a time and position detection of the moving rocket. How can the observer being in the frame A detects (measures) a motion of the rocket which velocity changes? For example, when the rocket B is being in a deep cosmos, it is impossible to determine its velocity with good accuracy - no neighbour bodies which can be used a points of references.

Ideally, the rocket B sends radio signals. Unfortuatenly, the mankind has a negative practice of such a control - the flight of Pioneers 10 and 11. These spaceships regularly sent radio signals to NASA. But when a period of these signals changed, different theories appeared what is a reason of this change. Immediately some theories of 'anomalous acceleration' explanation appeared.

From my point of view, the authors implicitly accept a tool of ideal exchanging by information between the observers. It is incorrect approach. They should consider a tool of exchanging information limited by finiteness of the speed of transferring this information (like NASA used in Pioneer program).

Atomic clocks are not perfectly accurate due to various systematic effects that slightly modify the atomic transition frequency from the "unperturbed" frequency. A good example is a drifting magnetic field. The presence of even a mild magnetic field changes the transition frequency. Often atomic clocks may be operated at a static non-zero magnetic field, but the magnitude of this field can be measured and accounted for occasionally. But, if the field drifts over time, this can result in uncompensated drifts in the transition frequency and thus uncompensated drifts in the counted time. In professional statistics' term we name this "confounding" .

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

by the way there is no room for a time dilation approximation at v/c in General Relativity whose relations are in v2/c2 and well tested , there is only relativity of time.... I don't see why this kind of thing should be in electrodynamics...

this is quite intersting

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2202/2202.13768.pdf

Stefano Quattrini Vladimir Onoochin T. H. Ray In this chronology paper in the section dealing with the period 1889-1905, I have given my opinion on Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz Transformation.

Article Electromagnetism and Optics - Historical Chronology