The great Louis de Broglie understood what the limitations of SRT are, and he wrote it down in his 1937 book “La Physique Nouvelle et les Quanta”: He wrote :
"There is, however, one essential difference between Lorentz-Fitzgerald's contraction and that which, according to Einstein, results from the transformation of Lorentz: the first, indeed, was supposed to be a real contraction provoked by the absolute movement of the body. in the ether, while the second is an apparent contraction relative to the second observer: it derives solely from the way in which the various observers measure their distances and durations, and from the Lorentz transformation, which mathematically expresses the relationship between the measurements. Thus, the apparent contraction of the lengths is complemented by the apparent slowing down of the clocks."
He continued:
"In particular, we can perfectly justify the paradoxical fact that the contraction of the rules and the slowing down of the clocks are reciprocal appearances, that is to say that if two observers in uniform relative motion are each equipped with a rule and a clock, the two rulers and the two clocks being of identical construction, each of the observers finds that the rule of the other is shorter than his own, and that the clock of the other retires on his own. Surprising as this reproach may seem at first sight, it is easy to explain when one examines the theory carefully."
Hence, deBroglie clearly speaks of a fictive result of SRT, limited to the deformation of the measurement signals, in accordance with Einstein's thoughts.
Was he right?
Dear Thierry,
I think De Broglie was right...to a very good extent...infact the time dilation is not due to that fictitous effects but it is due to the Relativistic Lagrangian Energy.. in other words you need a priviledge frame for SR which is possible according to Masouri and Sexl, hence the time dilation does not descend from the Lorentz Invariance.
Dear Thierry,
The results of special relativity theory(SRT) are real, i.e. systems moving at high velocity with respect of the one of light, must be contracted. One example is the radius of the gold for relativistic electrons. The results of Fitgerald-Lorentz are the same as the ones of SRT although explained respect a fixed aether which is not necessary.
Dear Daniel,
"One example is the radius of the gold for relativistic electrons. "
could you clarify on this experiment?
Dear Stefano,
I suppose that Daniel refers to a feature explained in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry
Color of gold and caesium
The reflectivity of Au, Ag, Al is shown on the figure to the right. The human eye sees electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength near 600 nm as yellow. As is clear from its reflectance spectrum, gold appears yellow because it absorbs blue light more than it absorbs other visible wavelengths of light; the reflected light reaching the eye is therefore lacking in blue compared to the incident light. Since yellow is complementary to blue, this makes a piece of gold under white light appear yellow to human eyes.
The electronic transition responsible for this absorption is a transition from the 5d to the 6s level. An analogous transition occurs in Ag but the relativistic effects are lower in Ag so while the 4d experiences some expansion and the 5s some contraction, the 4d-5s distance in Ag is still much greater than the 5d-6s distance in Au because the relativistic effects in Ag are smaller than those in Au. Thus, non-relativistic gold would be white. The relativistic effects are raising the 5d orbital and lowering the 6s orbital.[11]
A similar effect occurs in caesium metal[citation needed], the heaviest of the alkali metals which can be collected in quantities sufficient to allow viewing. Whereas the other alkali metals are silver-white, caesium metal has a distinctly golden hue.
However, the retardation of the fields in electromagentism result in the same "relativistic effects", as was proven by Oleg Jefimenko and by the Liénard–Wiechert potential.
How could special relativity, whithout any form of energy interaction, possibly supplant electromagentism?
Dear Stefano,
Thierry is right, this was what I tried to say, but we have made many calculations with DFT to high atomic number and the relativistic corrections are very important. One of them is the atomic radius for the relativistic electrons another is the spin-orbit interaction which is also a relativistic effect that I didn't mentioned it because Thierry only asked about the lengths.
Dear Daniel,
are you sure that the relativistic radius of electrons through the Dirac equation has something to do with length contraction? It has for sure to do with the relativistic energy and the retardation of the fields inside the inner electrons of atom, but length contraction it puzzles me...
Hello all,
DeBroglie and Einstein, famously, have the right view.
Daniel Baldomir wrote: "The results of special relativity theory(SRT) are real, i.e. systems moving at high velocity with respect of the one of light, must be contracted."
This is no longer the view in physics, for more than 50 years now, just as no one talks about relativistic mass, see
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_worse_yet_enduring_misconceptions_about_mass_and_energy_in_special_relativity
In particular, a sphere remains a sphere, in SR, no matter the speed of a neutrino nearby, and we do not explode either when an electron flies by at 0.7c.
Quoting Wheeler, op. cit. In the qestion linked, "Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.", in Edwin Floriman Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics: introduction to special relativity.
Cheers, Ed Gerck.
Dear Ed,
" Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.", in Edwin Floriman Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics: introduction to special relativity. "
this is the interpretation of SR about relativistic dynamics.
I ask you now, according to your opinion what is the reason why twin atomic clocks manifest delays...the reason of the time dilation???
Dear Stefano,
No, I was not speaking on spinors, I was speaking on simple electrons with charge and mass moving at velocities close to the light velocity. If you calculate the atomic radius for such electrons, using DFT as we were doing you can see how there is a contraction. But if you do it for Pb or Bi which are nowadays very important elements in the topological insulators, the effect is much higher because their atomic number the important parameter for making them relativistic elements.
Dear Ed,
In particular, a sphere remains a sphere, in SR, no matter the speed of a neutrino nearby, and we do not explode either when an electron flies by at 0.7c.
Obviously, but we were speaking on a very different thing, if you want to traslate to your sphere, the question is what happens if the sphere where moving at 0.7c or 0.9c?
Stefano, I attach you a link where you can see more explicitally some what was speaking on:
file:///C:/Users/daniel/Downloads/9781402099748-c2.pdf
Dear Daniel,
but as you know it is the Dirac theory to predict with accuracy the orbitals of the relativistic electrons which is also relevant to the Dirac Spinors, due to the fermion half spin model.
I still do not see the link with the length contraction which by the way by SR is the contraction of lenght of different IRF, here everything is described in the same IRF centered in the nucleus of the atom.
Dear Stefano,
You are right that the quantum relativistic effects as Lamb shift in hydrogen needs Dirac equation or in Casimir effect. But here the effects are just using special relativity on electrons under a Coulombic potential and therefore having an associated velocity (relativistic of course). But if you want you can refine the results of the relativistic orbitals using Dirac-Fock approach or a Dirac-Sham approach for calculating the exchange-correlation energies. But these are just quantum corrections and what I was trying to say for answering to Thierry is just tha concept of a particle for the electron within a simple Bohr model.
Dear Daniel,
I am not aware of the fact that there was a different explanation of the orbitals than Dirac's.
I still doubt that length contraction is able to explain such effect.
I repeat what is predicted by SR is the lenght contraction as seen from another IRF, so a possible prediciton is:
if a system at speed v travelling in the lab at rest has H dimension, it will be able to enter a gap of
H/gamma if travelling at relativistic speed in the lab, always in the case the length contraction is real.
In the example of the big atoms, there is a relativistic particle wandering around a fixed center. If there is a relativistic correction of its radius, a shrinkage, in comparison to the classical prediction, it is certainly not due to that length contraction but it is due to some other physical effects predicted by the Dirac equations which are relevant to the energies at stake... for example the fact that by travelling close to the speed of light the coulomb interaction becomes weaker and allows same speed for lower orbits.
Dear Stefano,
I afraid that we have a problem of language. Orbitals are defined in Quantum Mechanics in very beginning courses without needing at all Dirac's equation. They are determined by three quantum numbers (n,l,m) and correspons to the probability of finding any electron of an atom within certain regions around the nucleus. Schrödinger equation is more than enough for finding s,p,d,f,...
Going to SRT, the rest system is put on the nucleus and the velocity of the electron is given with respect to it. This velocity in one atom is not easy to see if we have the electrons distributed in orbitals. Even though one can get a speed from the energy level the electron occupies, it is the usual trick, because the basic level is quantum mechanical and probabilistic. Once you have this velocity it is straightforward to calculate gamma and the length contraction. This is all.
Stefano, this is quite well known and accepted, but you have more literature than the one that I have sent. But let me to say that this not the only form to calculate it. You can do it using Bohr, the easiest, Dirac or even more generaly with QED, but the difference is not too much among the different methods. The reason is because we only want to c, alculate a space contraction.
Dear Stefano,
The mathematicians tend to see the Lorentz transformations as just relations among observers and that is true. But there is a Physics behind such transformations; for instance, a mass cannot never reach the velocity of the light and it must move much slowly close to c or other variables as the proper time. This is measured everyday in labs as the CERN for characterizing particles and the SRT is taken seriously as a fundamental tool.
Coming back to my last post, there is a point that perhaps needs more explanation and its related with how the energy of the electrons is determined in the orbitals. This is much more difficult than in Bohr model that Thierry has shown as, but can be calculated with great accuracy. Schwinger has proposed a method to find the leading relativistic correction to the binding energy on the basis of the Thomas-Fermi (TF)-model in:
Schwinger, J.,Thomas-Fermi model: The leading correction, Phys. Rev.A 22. 1827 (1980).
Dear Daniel,
" I afraid that we have a problem of language. Orbitals are defined in Quantum Mechanics in very beginning courses without needing at all Dirac's equation. They are determined by three quantum numbers (n,l,m) and correspons to the probability of finding any electron of an atom within certain regions around the nucleus. Schrödinger equation is more than enough for finding s,p,d,f,... "
I meant the additional relativisitc effect, not the shrodinger equation, since we were talking about that. I thought that only with the Dirac equation it was possible to get to the behavior of faster orbitals. I really don't think that lenght contraction has something to do, no matte what is the interpretation and use of SR as you describe below.
"The mathematicians tend to see the Lorentz transformations as just relations among observers and that is true. But there is a Physics behind such transformations; for instance, a mass cannot never reach the velocity of the light and it must move much slowly close to c or other variables as the proper time. This is measured everyday in labs as the CERN for characterizing particles and the SRT is taken seriously as a fundamental tool. "
I totally agree with you, there is certainly and undoubtley a big chunck of important Physics behind the phenomena which are modeled by SR, a tangible and important Phyisics behind the phenomenon of time dilation in particular.
Unfortunately if you use the Lorentz Transformations, everything is reduced to sync procedures and relativity of simultaneity, unsuitable to get anything Phyiscal of such phenomena, it is a sand-box.
The only way to explain coherently time dilation in a credible way, in total agreement with a relativistic dynamics, is to use a relativistic Lagrangian of the system to model clocks/system in motion and in gravitation in reference to a fix IRF. What I say is stricly in agreement with the results of Schwartzschild solution of GR and is in relation also with the rest energy.
But it is a totally different concept which breaks donw the lorentz invariance which does not have a clue in the explanation of time dilation...
Dear Stefano,
I thought that only with the Dirac equation it was possible to get to the behavior of faster orbitals. I really don't think that lenght contraction has something to do, no matte what is the interpretation and use of SR as you describe below.
Let me just to repeat that the contraction of the radius of heavy atoms is not my invention and it is in the literature calculated with different approaches, but you are absolutly free to have different ideas on this topic. From my side I have not more to say.
Have a good Sunday!
Dear Daniel,
what is also written in wikipedia and reported to be at the base of the further contraction of the radius of the atoms is the relativistic energy/ momentum (relativistic mass is not a proper expression) which is the Relativistic lagrangian energy of the electron.
Dear Stefano,
Please what do you mean by Relativistic lagrangian energy of the electron?
Dear Stefano,
Agree. The dangerous word was Lagrangian. This functional is not necessary in this question because we know the equations of movement. The problem is that electrons have no trajectories if you go to quantum mechanics and, therefore, you need a kind of trick to apply relativity. Obviously, Dirac's formalism does not help overcome this difficulty and only gives us more accurate values.
Although formally it is not the best method, what I do to do the calculation of contraction of the radius is to accept the simpler atomic quantum model of Bohr and find directly the velocity that in the case shown by Thierry is 0.58 c and apply it to the contraction of Lorentz . This is very simple but it gives you an intuitive idea of the movement of electrons. After that, if you wish, you can directly use the Dirac equation (which is very difficult to solve because there are many electrons) or Schrödinger for obtaining an eigenvalue which is also not accurate but which can help to obtain at velocity.
In any case you can compare these values with the experimental values known in the tables (mainly given by chemists)
Dear Daniel,
You wrote: "The mathematicians tend to see the Lorentz transformations as just relations among observers and that is true. But there is a Physics behind such transformations; for instance, a mass cannot never reach the velocity of the light and it must move much slowly close to c or other variables as the proper time. This is measured everyday in labs as the CERN for characterizing particles and the SRT is taken seriously as a fundamental tool."
As explained in the details of my question, deBroglie and also Einstein see SRT as only the modification of the light signals between the inertial reference frames.
You don't agree with that, spites deBroglie's evident demonstration.
You give the example of CERN measurements and you could also have given the example of the muons at 'relativistic' speeds.
However, every textbook of electromagentism that copes with the retardation of the fields by the speed of light (Liénard-Wiechert potentials and Jefimenko retarded fields) gives the reason of the above effects.
How does it work?
The retardation of the fields will modify the shape of the electric field about the charge: it becomes more radial and less longitudinal. Close to the speed "c", the field is almost entirely radial. Hence, there are no means to accelerate it in the longitudinal direction by the use of electromagnetic fields. That is the true reason of the impossibility of a continued acceleration and of the apparent "mass increase".
Also with the fast muons, the electric field becomes radial, with a very small longitudinal component, and the field induces a strong magnetic field about the surface of the muon.This magnetic field induces a Lorentz force on the muon's surface that is also radial, and pointing inwards. It is a strong compression force.
That is the true reason of the delayed decay. The muon is held together by the strong compression force.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Stefano and all,
Wikipedia should not be cited in these discussions, because it has neither a short-term trustworthiness (anyone can edit before you read) nor a long-term (see my own study, in progress, at [1]).
Anyone who denies SR being important in daily life, faces a difficult problem when saying, for example, "we don't move at relativistic speeds". Such people are not careful enough, they may use but have not yet understood a simple permanent magnet, for example, where any magnetic field B actually does not exist per se (B is unlike a tree in a forest) but is an illusion created by a relatively moving charge -- for example, the electrons in an atom, or an electron- inside a neutron (which is not an elementary particle, see beta decay).
To answer your question, then, one of the most clear ways is to realize that we do not change when a neutrino passes nearby, near c, and they pass very frequently. Also, we do not change when an electron passes nearby at 0.7c, or when many, many electrons pass nearby, even at a much lower fraction of c.
In SR, the same happens if you are near c, or if you are at rest. Nature has no preferred reference frame, the physical results are all the same for all inertial reference frames. Because an inertial reference frame also moves with a neutrino, at zero relative speed. But, to the neutrino reference frame, you are near c. However, your shape, mass, time in your clock, life, does not change in either case!
SR, when people are careful, is valid also when you are in your eigenframe, you are at rest. That's why the text by deBroglie is still useful, and resolves all apparent contradictions -- e.g., to each observer, when the other is seen moving in the direction of their meterstick, the moving meterstick seems shorter relative to the stationary one, for any angle of movement, even though they have exactly the same length when they were at rest relative to each other. The same condition applies, mutatis mutandis, for time, energy, mass, momentum, and shape; the only quantity that does not change irrespective of observers, moving or not, is the speed of light in vacuum, always at c.
Regarding time dilation, we can see that happening everyday, e.g., when a particle accelerator at CERN or Fermilab sends pions .. .to a target much further distant than their lifetime at rest on Earth would indicate... but... they arrive, even though much exceeding our time for their lifetime at rest, confirming Lorentz's equation. The sent pions did not change their lifetime at rest, in their eigenframe, though, and a twin pion, produced at the same moment on Earth but not launched, would have the same lifetime at rest.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286676558_The_Wikipedia_Experiment_falsification_and_knowledge_decay_dynamics_in_physics_and_mathematics_online
Dear Ed,
I am following this thread and without trying to enter in sterile discussions, let me correct you some basic concepts:
or an electron inside a neutron (which is not an elementary particle, see beta decay)
No, this is wrong. The electrons are not inner part of a neutron. They can form after the weak interaction as a beta particle.
where any magnetic field B actually does not exist per se (B is unlike a tree in a forest) but is an illusion created by a relatively moving charge
No, this is very wrong and you follow without learning this basic concept.. The electric currents are not producing the magnetic field in a magnet. It is the spin of the atoms and their configurations which carry magnetic moments. In the last source it is the exclusion Pauli's principle and the Weiss field.
when you are in your eigenframe, you are at rest. ??????
Dear Thierry,
Are you telling me that in the CERN they only use the electromagnetic interaction for taking into account the SRT? Are you telling me that Liénard-Wiechert potentials can explain their SRT behaviours?
Dear Daniel,
"Are you telling me that in the CERN they only use the electromagnetic interaction for taking into account the SRT?"
I don't know what they exactly do.
"Are you telling me that Liénard-Wiechert potentials can explain their SRT behaviours?"
Yes, indeed. I add herewith the chapter about the shape modification of the fields about fast moving charges.
The equations (1-4.6) and (1-4.7) give the retarded values of the electric and the magnetic fields.
As you can see, when theta is at 0° for high speeds, the longitudinal value becomes zero, and for 90°, it is maximal, tending to infinity.
Hence it is impossible to continue accelerating it.
Since the Lorenz factor is involved in some similar way as in SRT, one can believe that it is caused by SRT.
However, it is not true.
Best regards,
Thierry
Dear all,
Another representation of the same equations, due to the retardation of the E-M fields by the speed of light, from another author, is given by the annexed paper.
The figure 4.5 of my last post is coming from that online book, chapter 4, edited online by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This can be downloaded from the internet.
It is clear that these effects are real, and that they take precedence on any other alleged process, due to the high forces from E-M involved.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-105-electromagnetic-interactions-fall-2005/readings/chap4.pdf
Hello Thierry and all,
As the MIT documents you attached say, let's go carefully! Not careful enough people believe we are not affected in daily life by SR, when we are speeding by at 0.7c relative to an electron that seems stopped, nearby. Velocity is relative, except the speed of light. Of course, propagation is not instantaneous and we will see relativistic effects, even at rest, even with EM.
Daniel Bolodimir says, "The electric currents are not producing the magnetic field in a magnet.", trying to motivate us to see a difference he sees, between spin of charges and electric charge movement. There, we find truth, until we change references, and move with the electron, for example.
And, yes, we can see what is inside a nucleus when it decays in vacuum, and "" are not needed around the word inside. In the same way, we talk in physics of what is not inside a magnet, and we find no magnetic sources there. In English, the term "inside" has various meanings, such as situated within the confines of (something), as in "a song was playing inside the apartment". So, it does not need to be physical to be inside, it may be just within the confines of it, it is not externally sourced.
Least variation is important here, to understand possible scenarios in SR, what is real versus what is fictional -- an illusion. But our discussions tend to be interrupted by citing Wikipedia, so let me say ahead of time, that, for example, people might affirm that the principle of least action should be, more accurately, called the principle of stationary action. This is not the usage in physics, where action does not refer to the function value itself but, rather, to the variation.
But, in discussing these topics, we are not doing science in RG. That has been settled long ago, without possible confusion, as your attached files show. Maybe that is becoming.
Cheers, Ed Gerck.
Dear Ed,
You wrote: "Not careful enough people believe we are not affected in daily life by SR, when we are speeding by at 0.7c relative to an electron that seems stopped, nearby."
Is it about belief or about knowledge, Ed?
Do you agree with deBroglie in what he wrote, and to what Einstein agreed, or not? Do you agree with the MIT calculus of electromagentism or not? If you agree, what is the problem then?
You wrote: "Velocity is relative, except the speed of light."
What velocity is relative to what, Ed?
As deBroglie has written it, and Einstein agreed, it is only the relativity of velocity between local inertial reference frames, as seen by a light signal between the inertial reference frames.
This means that only in the case of the use of light signals between inertial reference frames, one can consider the inertial reference frames as being relative, with the corresponding transformation equations.
Does this mean that for any other case than with light signals, the inertial reference frames can be considered as relative?
And if so, does it automatically follows that the equations of transformation of the signals, are identical as for light?
NO !!!
It has been proven that for electromagnetic fields between inertial reference frames, the transformation equations depend from an additional factor: the induction of the fields.
Hence, it can be proven that when an electromagnetic harmonic oscillator at a certain velocity emits its field, the received field at the other inertial reference frame has not the same transformation equations in many cases!
Hello Thierry,
As I see, to a physicist, belief is the probability that the evidence supports the claim (Dempster–Shafer). Light here means electromagnetic waves. All measurements in physics are relative, including the speed of light, but the calculations give the speed of light a value that is the same in all reference frames, hence, it is called absolute. That value is c=1, in a proper unit system, without error or uncertainty, it is an integer number, it in adimensional.
I hope this helps, in your search of the truth.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Hello all,
Wanting to understand SRT, it is the best to start with studying sine-Gordon model.
It is just 1+1D: phi_tt = phi_xx - sin(psi), can be realized with lattice of coupled pendulums. Its basic particle-like solution: kink undergoes Lorentz contraction (becomes narrower while gaining speed), with mass/momentum scaling exactly like in SRT. Oscillating solutions (breathers) slow down while gaining speed exactly like in SRT time dilation. Slides 6-9 here contain images and formulas: https://www.dropbox.com/s/aj6tu93n04rcgra/soliton.pdf
Dear Jarek,
Your reference is precisely imitating the retarded potentials as explained in the Liétard-Wiechert equations, or the Jefimenko retarded field equations. However, instead of using this retardation of propagation of the fields, your reference is suddenly injecting the Lorentz factor.
That is a wrong approach. The correct approach is to use the retarded fields due to their limited propagation speed, and this gives transformations that are close to the Lorentz factor in many cases. Why? I explain that in my former post.
An excellent introduction is given in the annexed paper from Jefimenko. It is not very easy, but straightforward science.
If you look at the line of thought, you will see that this is the only correct approach to the problem.
best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
Thank you, I will look closer tomorrow.
Sure sine-Gordon is not an ultimate model (and much older than me), just one of the simplest Lorentz-invariant models with both massless "photons" and stable "massive" solitons due to nontrivial topology of vacuum (potential minimum) - simple idealization of particle, which:
- has pair creation/annihilation - "particles" can be created from pure energy coming from massless photons, total charge has to be conserved. Here is a nice "rubber band model of universe" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5Qq5kUbEE
- they have short-range interaction: repulsion/attraction for identical/opposite charges (in 2 or 3D they can get long range Coulomb-like interaction),
- massive particle cannot exceed speed of massless particles, and approaching this propagation speed it becomes narrower up to step function - its mass/energy and momentum scale exactly like in SRT,
- oscillations become less frequent for moving breather - exactly like for SRT time dilation.
While SRT is far non-intuitive, this simple model allows to trace and clear all the conflicts with standard human thinking.
With best regards,
Jarek Duda
Dear Thierry,
Reading the attachment, I still don't understand your criticism. I completely agree that we should use retarded fields, but it is also there in soliton models - any causality is limited by the propagation speed there, e.g. c=1 for phi_tt = phi_xx - sin(psi) sine-Gordon.
While sine-Gordon seems too simple to see the need of such retardation (?), in 3D we can recreate electromagnetism with topological solitons - using Gauss-Bonnet theorem in place of Gauss theorem (integration of curvature over closed surface returns topological charge inside - which has to be integer), getting electromagnetism with additionally enforced charge quantization as topological charge (and regularization of field of charge to finite energy).
Now imagine pair creation - massless photons bringing energy sufficient to create two particles/solitons, which need to have opposite (topological) charges. These charges fly away creating electric dipole (E~1/r^3) ... but this is not immediate dipole in the entire Universe - we need to use retarded situation - configuration of this dipole propagates with c velocity.
With best regards,
Jarek Duda
If you make your reference frame with respect to the center of momentum frame, the two views are equivalent. Even if you have some type of underlying medium or fabric (aether), along with the center of momentum frame moving with respect to such ‘aether’ (including rotation), you wouldn’t notice a difference. Einstein himself admitted that his theory of general relativity introduces a new form of 'aether'.
It is simply difficult to define a center of momentum frame with a limited view of the universe as a whole (or even smaller systems). That is why it is easier to just consider the relative motion between two or more frames without necessarily considering a background or reference frame.
In another form, this is Mach's principle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
Dear Jarek,
From the particles point of view, one should of course make the distinction between Qm calculus and 'classical' calculus such as Bohr's, because it is not exactly known how the orbits move in atoms, neither are the exact physics' details of entangled particles known.
DeBroglies' statement was indeed not dealing with that.
Dear Michael,
"If you make your reference frame with respect to the center of momentum frame, the two views are equivalent."
However, SRT was not meant to be reduced to such a very specific case.
The text of Louis deBroglie accounts for the local speed of light being "c". Hence, the presence of aether is not relevant in this context, but it might complicate the study.
DeBroglie was essentially saying that SRT only accounts for the deformation of the light signals between the inertial reference frames, and does certainly not for the modification of intrinsic parameters of the objects in the inertial reference frames, such as mass, time, or length.
Special relativity is based upon there being no preferred reference frame; this doesn’t mean one cannot choose the center of momentum frame as a reference for conceptual simplicity; SRT in fact says such choice is completely valid. You can easily transform between the frames of both observers and the center of momentum frame. If one wants to talk in terms of an ‘aether’, then you are certainly working in terms of the center of momentum frame. Time dilation has nothing to do with length contraction however and rest mass never changes; only relativistic energy does via momentum.
What DeBroglie was stating is with respect to both observers inferring length contraction of each other relative to some type of fixed ‘aether’:
- “the first, indeed, was supposed to be a real contraction provoked by the absolute movement of the body in the ether.”
- “while the second is an apparent contraction relative to the second observer.”
- “each of the observers finds that the rule of the other is shorter than his own”
He did not at all imply that SRT doesn’t account for relativistic energy or time dilation. He doesn’t say the results of SRT are fictive but instead states that it makes sense when carefully examined:
- “Surprising as this reproach may seem at first sight, it is easy to explain when one examines the theory carefully.”
There is no mention of 'signals' in any of what he says here, which is a more complicated concept than simply measuring length contraction with respect to two frames of reference. Time has no role in simply measuring length contraction or local 'rulers'. It has a role in things like the sending and receiving of electromagnetic signals; which is 100% equivalent to the use of retarded potentials.
- "Liénard–Wiechert potentials describe the classical electromagnetic effect of a moving electric point charge in terms of a vector potential and a scalar potential in the Lorenz gauge. Built directly from Maxwell's equations, these potentials describe the complete, relativistically correct, time-varying electromagnetic field for a point charge in arbitrary motion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liénard–Wiechert_potential
_____________________________________________________________
Proof: They have flown atomic clocks around the world and then compared them side by side on the ground next to each other. They have proven time dilation exists due to relative motion; such is perfectly described by SRT. Time physically slows down including the decay of atoms; it is not due to an interpretation of signals between two observers and has nothing to do with length contraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Dear Thierry,
Indeed to get toward QM, we need some de Broglie's clock/Zitterbewegung, which was directly observed for electron, e.g. Article A Search for the de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means...
Hence, modeling particles as solitons, they need to have some intrinsic oscillations like breathers.Then there are great experiments started by Couder's group (~200 papers also in PRL and Nature) - recreating many quantum phenomena for such classical corpuscle coupled with surrounding wave it creates - starting with interference pattern for particle statistics in double-slit, tunneling with exponential drop of probability with barrier width, a few types of quantization - including Zeeman effect, and double quantization: of both radius and angular momentum like in Bohr-Sommerfeld, and finally recreating wavefunction with statistics of trajectory. Their materials: http://dualwalkers.com/ A popular video with 2.3M views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
Dear all,
One must not consider what deBroglie said or didn't said as a lawyer in a court case.
It should be considered as scientists do.
Moreover, one must not mix up the case of SRT with aether and without aether.
Finally, one must not call a “proof”, a mathematical apparency of similar equations, when there is no physical ground for it.
Since deBroglie found that each inertial reference frame (IRF) can mutually consider that the other inertial reference frame is shorter, and consequently, according to SRT, have a shorter time and larger mass, there is a problem in the case of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and there is no problem in the case of the Lorentz contraction.
Hence, it are only the light signals of communications that Einstein used in his thought experiment, that give this impression of length contraction, whereas there isn't any.
The pure retardation of signals, either light signals or electromagnetic fields, will result in either SRT of the signals themselves (not the very objects in the IRFs) or in transformations of transmission signals of the electromagnetic fields.
However, in electromagnetism, assuming that the IRFs are electromagnetic devices of emission and detection, there exist two fields, which can give very different results, depending from the emission pattern of the first IRF.
In a first case, if the first IRF is moving and the second is standing still, one gets a transmitted magnetic field from the first one, which however cannot act, because the second reference frame is not moving.
In a second case, if the first IRF is standing still and the second is moving, there is no magnetic field transmitted, but the second IRF will discover an increasing or decreasing electric field, which also result in induction.
However, the transmitted fields of transformation are different in both cases! It is only when the second IRF discovers the growing electric field, that the second IRF can be induced. This tells three things:
1) the final result in electromagnetism remains the same, as we know;
2) the transmitted fields are however different in every case;
3) the definition of velocity is not “at wish”.
From then on, we can wonder if the definition of an aether is appropriate, which would maybe clarify that, and then, we get the following issues:
1) how should the Michelson & Morley null experiment be interpreted?
2) How can be interpreted that the speed of light is constant in non-local cases?
With respect to Michael's alleged “proof” of Hafele and Keating, it is well known that:
1) they used fraud in order to get to the required results: one of the four clocks was showing totally different results, opposite to what was expected. Nevertheless, they used these data in order to get the results.
2) Atomic clocks are in the first place electromagnetic devices. So, it might be a proof for electromagnetism in the first place, not for SRT.
The Liénard-Wiechert equations can of course be written as Lorentz invariant, such as the Jefimenko retardation fields can, but that is an inadmissible injection.
Why? As deBroglie has shown: there is no physical reality with respect to the very objects of the IRFs when one uses light as signal between IRF's. No change of lenght, time or mass;
However, with charges, there are indeed fields and forces that come into action between them.
Dear Thierry,
Length contraction is not just an impression, but a physical fact, concerning down to structure of nuclei collided in LHC - see e.g. attached photos of mechanical realization of sine-Gordon model (lattice of coupled pendulums) - on the left there is standing kink, on the right it is moving - and you can see it is narrower: formulas are exactly like in Lorentz contraction.
In modern physics aether is called 'field', e.g. electromagnetic - the only difference is that fields are Lorentz invariant - you cannot measure its absolute speed like in Michelson & Morley.
Dear Jarek,
You wrote: "formulas are exactly like in Lorentz contraction."
That is just a coincidence, as I have explained in my former post.
You wrote: "In modern physics aether is called 'field', e.g. electromagnetic"
Maybe. Still has to be explained which field (electric, magnetic) accounts in which way.
You wrote: "the only difference is that fields are Lorentz invariant"
Lorentz invariance implies the falsification of what deBroglie has written in 1937, in accordance with Einstein's thoughts. However, deBroglie's explanation according to Einstein's thoughts have not been falsified.
You wrote: "you cannot measure its absolute speed like in Michelson & Morley."
That is wrong. Michelson's and Morley's experiment have only tested the following hypothesis: assuming that light is conveyed in an aether and that this aether is global and assuming that the Earth is moving with respect to this aether, the experiment will give the orientation and speed of that aether.
So, the experiment only says that this hypothesis is wrong about either in the following: assuming that light is conveyed in an aether or that this aether is global or assuming that the Earth is moving with respect to this aether. A combination of several parts is allowed as well.
Dear Michael,
"Proof: They have flown atomic clocks around the world and then compared them side by side on the ground next to each other. They have proven time dilation exists due to relative motion; such is perfectly described by SRT. Time physically slows down including the decay of atoms; it is not due to an interpretation of signals between two observers and has nothing to do with length contraction. "
I agree to a very good extent.. time by itself is not defined physically unless using clocks, it does not slow down, it is the period of the clocks which does not stay the same in regards to the ECI frame, hence we have different time counting. No more and no less. The twin effect gives evidence that one clock counted differently between same events of start and stop (simultaneous) of both clocks.
Dear Thierry,
Having a standard Lorentz-invariant wave-like equation, e.g.: d_tt = c^2 laplacian - grad V, its basic propagation has speed c, and no causality can exceed this speed. Now if potential V has nontrivial topology, there appear stable localized configurations like kinks in sine-Gordon, which have some nonzero rest energy: mass. Such massive particles cannot exceed c, and approaching this speed, there is Lorentz contraction up to step function for v->c, mass and momentum scales exactly like in SRT, if like breathers it has internal oscillations, they undergo time dilation exactly like in SRT. This is not just a coincidence, but a mathematical consequence of using this kind of wave equation - in many places in physics (e.g. EM, Klein-Gordon).
Being Lorentz invariant means that it mathematically does not distinguish any frame of reference, we can transform between them using boost.
However, there remains possibility of measuring relative velocities, e.g. in our galaxy or evolving Universe ... or relative to average velocity of water molecules if using it to model water surface.
Dear Jarek,
You wrote: "Being Lorentz invariant means that it mathematically does not distinguish any frame of reference, we can transform between them using boost."
Einstein used light signals between the inertial reference frames.
As deBroglie explained, only the light signals between the inertial reference frames can be affected.
Light cannot affect the very properties as length, time and mass of any object in that reference frame.
Hence, there is no physical modification at all.
Knowing that, it is so that for light signals between the inertial reference frames, one can mathematically not distinguish any frame of reference.
However, since it doesn't affect any object, it is useless in the physical world of the very objects themselves, and can only be used for the examination of light signals.
Hence, the effects that are observed, and which are imitated by the SRT equations are in reality effects provided by electromagnetism, more specifically by the retardation of the fields, which, in contrast to light, will effectively affect the properties of charges, the constituents of atoms.
Hi Thierry
I like your provocative posts. I do not know if you really believe that, but it does not matter because it gives margin to students who read Researchgate to have the opportunity to go back in time, metaphorically, and have the opportunity to understand subjects so dear to modern physics. It is about the evolutionary process involving our understanding of such fascinating subjects that have often taken decades to be understood in the way we do today. For me is nice, because I can think a bit out the box.
DeBroglie was completely mistaken in that he believed in the existence of ether as a mechanical means of propagating electromagnetic waves. The Michelson-Morley experiment conclusively proved the non-existence of ether. I have already done with undergraduate students, dozens of times the Michelson-Morley experiment. Ether does not exist. Electromagnetic waves do not require mechanical means for their propagation. So, while admiring the stupendous scientist he was, he was wrong about his beliefs about the need for some material medium to propagate electromagnetic waves.
What is most incredible is that scientists of such a high standard of excellence, like him, have taken so much time to understand the true nature of electromagnetic waves. The Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out in 1887. The publication you quote from DeBroglie was published in 1937. 50 years later ...
And it's not fair to mix in the same theme DeBroglie and Einstein. While the great scientist DeBroglie believed like every mechanist of the time, in the need of a material medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves (including Lorentz), Einstein was a revolutionary in defying this dogmatism so dogmatized at the time ... but this is the past. Scientists today know much better about the nature of electromagnetic waves. Our current problems without answers are much more complex.
Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,
It is funny that you call an exercise of logical reasoning "provocative" and "out of the box. It isn't. Shame for the nowadays' science, 130 years after Michelson's and Morley's experiment.
You wrote: "The Michelson-Morley experiment conclusively proved the non-existence of ether."
That is of course total nonsense.
Michelson and Morley tested the following hypothesis: assuming that light is carried by an aether and that this aether is global, and that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, what is its direction and velocity?
The experiment was negative, which confirms that: either assuming that light is carried by an aether or that this aether is global, or that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, is wrong.
Hence, many possibilities remain open w.r.t. aether.
So, I pity your students who are told rubbish.
That being said, it is then clear that what you said about deBroglie is totally false.
Never in deBroglie's text, which I cited with my question, any reference to aether was made, so your remarks about deBroglie are totally inappropriate. DeBroglie's reasoning is perfectly right, until the opposite is proven. You have, as always, not the least of a beginning of a proof of the opposite of what deBroglie advocated.
Then, you wrote: "And it's not fair to mix in the same theme DeBroglie and Einstein."
Would you insinuate that deBroglie would have an opposite meaning than Einstein, while he nevertheless explicitely wrote in his book: "There is, however, one essential difference between Lorentz-Fitzgerald's contraction and that which, according to Einstein, results from the transformation of Lorentz".
So, deBroglie wrote that, according to Einstein, it is NOT Lorentz-Fitzgerald's contraction. Do you really believe that deBroglie would write that down against Einstein's will?
The conclusion, dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos, is that there is a big difference between tea party talks, and a real scientific debate!
Dear Thierry
Read again your text
"There is, however, one essential difference between Lorentz-Fitzgerald's contraction ... absolute movement of the body in the ether... "
Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,
Yes, you are right, deBroglie mentioned the word "aether" as part of the interpretation of the believers of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, which he doesn't follow, neither Einstein, and which contraction was allegedly tested by the Michelson & Morley experiment.
However, (and that was the meaning of my sentence), deBroglie has never used the aether for his own reasoning, where he states that the Lorentz interpretation, (and Einstein's) is right.
So, please, don't modify the meaning of what deBroglie has explained.
Dear all,
The conclusion seems to be that Louis de Broglie was entirely right, and that every alteration of this is a violation of sound physics.
We must conclude that there is no real mass increase, no real time dilation and no real ruler shrinking.
Dear Thierry,
I could basically agree with DeBroglie about length contraction which is impossible to detect and does not have a permanent effect, but time dilation is a bit difference since the twin effect is an experimentally verified phenomenon.
Was it actually defined what is intended as ruler shrinking and time dilation in a unambigous way?
De Broglie was right on assuming a preferred frame since circular motion for example and tangential Doppler effect (second order) implies the existance of a "local preferred frame".
Dear Stefano,
You wrote: "the twin effect is an experimentally verified phenomenon."
Oh yes? How then?
Also: "length contraction which is impossible to detect". Why would there be any in the context of SRT, as correctly explained by L. de Broglie?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Depends on what you want to call real. Effects in one give frame seem real enough.
The rest mass of a particle is indeed real and frame independent.
Energy is frame dependent, so in a given frame you see mass energy increase with speed.
EE/cc -pp is lorenz invariant.
Would you call real the speed of a racing car, or do you just think that the car is stationary, but that the land is moving
underneath the car? (so it not real because it is frame dependent?)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics