It is known that to explain the results of the experiments to detect the ether drift made at the end of XIX century FitzGerald and Lorentz suggested that some parts of the devices oriented along (possible) motion of the ether should contract. Both FitzGerald and Lorentz couldn't give physical explanation of their idea.
The excellent explanation of the null results of these experiments was given by the special relativity.
But despite the excellent explanation, one point was unclear - if this contraction of the bodies is physical effect. Thus, (from Wikipedia)
In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that one sees the length contraction in an objective way, according to Lorentz, while it is "only an apparent, subjective phenomenon, caused by the manner of our clock-regulation and length-measurement", according to Einstein.
So now the dominant concept is the the contraction of the moving bodies is a 'seeming, apparent effect' and it is cause by impossibility to measure the lengths of the moving bodies in the right way when the observer is at rest.
However, if we take into account original treatment of the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiments, a question arises. In these experiments, the measurements of the moving bodies had not been made. It was necessary to explain the equality of the travel times of the light beams along the arms of the device. So it unambiguously follows from the equality of the travel times that one arm of the interferometers must contract. Therefore the contraction must be the real physical effect.
So, my question: what is a physical meaning of this relativistic contraction?
I give some simple calculations in the attached file to explain why this effect should be physical.
It's a coordinate transformation, nothing more mysterious than rotating a bar to make it go through a door whose height is less than the length of the bar.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,
Einstein's clock travels normally to the direction of the beams.
If you make it travel longitudinally the effect on time must be the same.
If Longitudinally you have the length contraction effect, it should shorten the path of the beam emitted horizontally.
In principle the time taken by the beam in the moving frame should be shorter by the gamma factor.
that is not in agreement with what actually occurs (TIME DILATION is the physical effect of the twins which find themselves in absolute non simultaneity)...
by the way there is the following discussion ongoing about length contraction
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_a_Spinning_Loop_Shrink
Stam Nicolis ,
Coordinate transformation does not solve the problem.
1. It is known that our Solar System moves relative to the frame of microwave background radiation (or the frame of the "stationary ether").
We are not able to make any measurements in this MBR frame, but in accordance with the principle of relativity (in original version of Poincare), we can be sure that in this frame the time of passage of light beams along the arms of the (uniformly moving) device must be equal - otherwise we can determine the preferred frame.
2. Some coordinate system is chosen in this MBR frame. This coordinate system is chosen for all objects, regardless of whether these objects are moving or are at rest.
In this coordinate system, the light beams move along the arms of the device and count their own passage time. Finally, when the light beams return to the starting point of their motion, both times should be equal.
3. According to calculations, the paths of light beams are different. To make these paths the same, we have to accept that one arm of the device is contracted.
So, we found that when a device moves, its units contract in the direction of motion.
We do not perform any coordinate transformation, but we have to come to the conclusion that there should be a contraction of the bodies. In other words, it should be a physical effect.
4. Now let us consider the objection that the arm is being contracted because in the frame where it is at rest, this arm of the device has its natural size. OK.
Let's assume that the device is initially at rest in the MBR frame, and then it starts accelerating to speed v. After that, the device moves uniformly for a long enough time for all transient processes to be completed.
If the device is moving and the detector (photo element) in the device continuously checks the equality of the travel time, one should conclude after this detector data that for a moving device, its units are contracted in the direction of motion.
The process of accelerating and establishing uniform motion is a physical process.
Coordinate transformation is only a thought process or an agreement that people make measurements according to certain rules, and all people follow these rules.
Agreement between people is not a good explanation for the physical effect.
Lorentz transformations are coordinate transformations and what matters are the invariants.
A Lorentz transformation, more precisely a Lorentz boost, is the linear transformation, connected with the identity, that mixes the time and one of the spatial coordinates in such a way that the d'Alembertian operator remains invariant.
A rotation is the linear transformation, connected with the identity, that mixes two spatial coordinates in such a way that the d'Alembertian operator rmains invariant.
``Lorentz contraction'' is the statement that spatial coordinates become shorter (and the time coordinates become longer) under a boost; this isn't any different than the property that spatial coordinates don't remain invariant under rotations. What matters, hwoever, are the invariants: The spacetime interval for boosts and the spatial distance for rotations. Individual coordinates are defined in any given frame; it doesn't make sense to compare them between frames, unless it can be shown that the particular combinations of coordinates are invariant under boosts or rotations; only these combinations don't depend on the frame. That' why ``Lorentz contraction'' doesn't make sense as a ``physical effect'': It depends on the frame and isn't invariant under Lorentz boosts.
This is very simple, yet many people still don't get it.
It's not surprising,if they haven't studied it; what's surprising is that they don't realize that they have to, before making statements that are trivially wrong. That many ``famous'' people were, also, confused, isn't an excuse.
Everything people do are thought processes. Physical systems, for which the invariants under coordinate transformations are equal, are equivalent, those for which the invariants take different values are not.
To describe accelerating systems and cosmology in particular one needs general, not special, relativity. It's just not possible to relate accelerating systems by a global Lorentz boost. To understand the properties of the CMB and how these can be measured is known and it is now a standard part of textbooks and courses on the subject and it would be a good idea to study general relativity from a textbook and not imagine that it's possible to understand it from popular articles.
An unambiguous and mathematical-physical explanation of Null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment is made in the book Special Relativity is Nonsense.
Talking about length contraction and time dilation is pointless if you don't show a picture of how the light signal moves in the respective device/model.
Possibly check my post, there I show three pictures of the light clock. Analyze these images and comment.
“…I am only repeating Lorenz's consideration. To conclude that the contraction effect is real, I don't need any coordinate transformations. I am not "measuring the length of moving rods". What is measured indirectly is the lengths of the light beams paths. Due to the properties of light, these "indirect measurements" are reliable. Where do I make logical error?…..”, etc.
- here is no logical error; the contraction of moving bodies lengths is real physical effect. Though that above isn’t correct in that really the real length contraction was proposed/as a dozen sentences passage was published in “Nature” - in those times “Nature” was really scientific journal, firstly by FitzGerald in 1889, and further by Lorentz in 1892 , more see, say, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
As well as in the link above it is pointed that
“…Albert Einstein (1905) is credited [4] with removing the ad hoc character from the contraction hypothesis, by deriving this contraction from his postulates instead.[5] Hermann Minkowski gave the geometrical interpretation of all relativistic effects by introducing his concept of four-dimensional spacetime.[6] …..”
- and that is standard point in mainstream physics till now; while, of course, FitzGerald-Lorentz proposal was also derived from experimental [M&M experiment] data. Besides, this [1905] derivation was made from the postulates that really were non-adequate to the objective reality; and the Minkowski “geometrical interpretation” really was/is too non-adequate to the objective reality illusion.
Again - the contraction of moving bodies lengths is real physical effect, while, say, “geometrical space contraction” fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist.
More see Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Twin_effect_from_relativity_of_simultaneity_alone_provides_a_totally_wrong_prediction_Is_somebody_aware_of_it/19 is relevant to this thread question/
Cheers
Dear Jan Slowak ,
>
How can I analyze these images without explanation what is given in them? What expressions describe propagation of the light?
In the picture 1b of my file, the effect of (possible) time dilation isn't essential. I consider the optical paths of the light beams in the moving device. Time dilation, if it occurs, must be the same for both optical paths.
What should be explained - how the lengths of the optical paths can be equal if one of the arm of the device does not contract?
I consider the only frame - where the interferometer moves. It is necessary to explain what occurs with the optical paths (the measurable quantities) in this frame.
The lengths of the arms cannot be measured correctly, but the lengths of the optical paths can - Michelsn and Morley did it.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
In my third image in Fig. 3, I show how the light signal moves in reality: the straight line from the floor to the ceiling to the floor. It is the light clock that moves to the right and the light signal moves at right angles to the direction of movement.
The light does not move diagonally inside the light clock!
The Michelson-Morley experiment has failed because of its design. The device was not suitable for recording the movement of the Earth.
A careful analysis of this experiment is made in the book Special Relativity is Nonsense.
Dear Jan Slowak ,
Any experiments with the moving interferometer cannot be realized because it is impossible to provide a motion of the device with the velocity 30,000 meters/sec. It is a thought experiment and a conclusion about contraction of the interferometer arms was made based on some reasonable assumptions and well confirmed experimental data (on properties of the light).
A geometry of the light beams in this thought experiment is accepted by both followers of FitzGerald-Lorentz and the relativists. Its design and the optical paths were discussed still in 1880th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
If you wish to disprove this scheme, you should show it not only by demonstration of some drawing but by calculations.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin,
1) The Earth's speed around the Sun is about 30 km/s. It is this value that is used for the Michelson-Morley experiment from 1887.
2) You write in your attached document:
Therefore, this contraction must be real. The question: what is the physical reason of change of the sizes of the moving bodies?
There is no length contraction and no time dilation when material objects are in motion.
I have done the calculations regarding the experiment and they are published in my book Special Relativity is Nonsense.
3) But to understand how I have reasoned and how I did the calculations, we need to agree on how light moves in a moving light clock.
That's why I attached the three figures.
Fig. 2 is basically the same as your Fig. 1 b.
4) My argument against: the light does NOT move obliquely between the two mirrors (in my figure the floor-ceiling-floor).
Dear Vladimir Onoochin 1) The value of this velocity is not important. All physicists in XIX century and in our times realize that such a velocity is not accessible to accelerate some device to it. So the experiments to detect (v/c)^2 effects - in the frame linked with the Earth - were made with the only aim - to be sure that the frame with immobile ether exists.
How can you say that the Earth's speed around the Sun is not important in this context? It is about the value v from your formulas. It is the velocity with which the interferometer moves in space.
2) If you state this, can you show the error in my consideration?
This is what I want to explain (and it is not only about your consideration but everyone else who shows the path of the light signal in a device in motion): Light does not move askew!
You are the one who must explain why the light goes askew in your Fig. 1 (b).
3) Since I didn't read your book I cannot accept your arguments. Can you extract some pages with this proof from your book and upload here?
When I was working on the book, I bought 15-20 books that dealt with SR, in addition to the ones in the university library.
The question is: why are you interested in this topic? What do you think about time dilation and length contraction, about the derivation of Lorentz Transformations, LT, about SR?
4) There is no point in attaching parts of my book here in this discussion unless you want to comment on my three figures!
Talking about the Michelson-Morley experiment, about how light moves inside the device, makes no sense if you don't understand how light moves inside a moving light clock.
“…Talking about length contraction and time dilation is pointless if you don't show a picture of how the light signal moves in the respective device/model.
Possibly check my post, there [https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_special_theory_of_relativity_Special_Relativity_SR_The_time_dilation ] I show three pictures of the light clock. Analyze these images and comment..….”
- about what are “three pictures of the light clock” where “it is proven that “Special Relativity is Nonsense” – see recent SS post in the linked above RG thread. Let’s hope that in this thread such “explanations” of real physical objects/events/effects/processes will stop, since are only a spamming.
The other point is that really all material objects/events/effects/processes have real parameters values, including objects “bodies” lengths, only in the absolute reference frames that are at 3DXYZ space rest in the absolute Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct).
So moving in the absolute 3D space bodies are really contracted. However if there is some inertial reference frame that moves in the 3D space, for it a body that is at absolute rest is observed as the moving body – what I, of course, unreal,
- however, if the observer in a moving frame will measure an at absolute rest body’s length, the result will be that this body is contracted – despite that really that isn’t so. That happens because of action of the really extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle. Since the SR is based also on this principle, though in the SR this principle’s power is illusory absolutezed up to mystic “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc.,
- since really in humans practice practically only real material bodies, etc., are observed – in physics described and analyzed – that in everyday physical practice turns out to be inessential, and the SR is applied well adequately to the reality.
However the fundamental transcendence/non-adequacy of the SR reveals itself at attempts to describe/analyze really fundamental objects/events/effects/processes, more in this case see 2-nd main paper in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
More see the SS posts and links in the posts.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Please give me an example of an absolute reference frame
Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,
Maybe I don't completely understand all your ideas exxpained in your (interesting) work 'The Informational Conception and the Base of Physics' but the main problem of the scientists, who don't follow the SR, is how to detect the absolute reference frame.
Poincare in times 1900-1904 was sure that such an absolute reference frame doesn't exist. He wrote special paper on this subject (where he introduced well known form of the EM momentum \int [E x B]dv) to opposite to Lorentz who thought that such a frame exists.
Even people in XX century who don't follow the SR (for example Tom Phipps) couldn't detect this frame
With the best wishes,
Vladimir
1: UNPHYSICAL ANSWER ("just because"!):
If we plot a ray diagram for signals leaving a moving body, based on the relativistic aberration formula, and SR (or NM) Doppler equations, we end up with a plotted wavefront that is elongated on the X axis compared to its width, by a Lorentz factor.
W Moreau - American Journal of Physics, 1994
Article Wave front relativity
If we are not be be able to measure whether it's "really" us or them that's moving, we mustn't be able to measure this elongation, and a spherical expanding wavefront measured in one inertial frame must still appear to be spherical in all other inertial frames. Hence we need a Lorentz contraction (Fitzgerald "ad hoc" argument).
Under special relativity, these stretched wavefront ellipses also represent elliptical conic sections through a Minkowski light-cone.
For decades, the SR community didn't really understand this issue properly. Probably because many of them seem to be a bit thick, and conservative, and tend to believe whatever mangled version of geometry was mistaught to them by authority-figures. It's sorted out now, but didn't begin to be sorted until around 1960 (Terrell-Penrose), and it took until 1994 for the proper geometrical explanation to pass peer review.
2: STANDARD ANSWER (SR-Minkowski):
Different inertial frames have different definitions of the nominal alignment of space and time in the same flat region. The moving system's spatial distances along the x-axis appear contracted in our frame, because, for us, the moving system's plane of simultaneity cuts through a block of spacetime at a different angle to our plane of simultaneity. Their distances appear shortened in our frame, because the "shadow" of their spatial geometry on our spatial coordinates is foreshortened due to the relative tilt.
Similarly, our spatial geometry appears foreshortened in theirs.
3: GRAVITOMAGNETIC ANSWER (Non-SR)
Under MInkowski spacetime, a region simultaneously supports an infinite number of different alignments of the space and time axes, corresponding to the infinite number of possible inertial frames intersecting the region.
Under a gravitomagnetic theory, things work differently. Any pointlike region has a specific alignment of the space and time axes, and a larger region has a specific averaged alignment of its space and time axes. For a moving massed particle, the time-alignment of the particle physically corresponds to the alignment of the particle's worldline in spacetime.
The massed particle also has a gravity-well whose throat is tilted to point along the worldline, and the tilt of spacetime due to the tilted gravity-well throat dies away with distance
If the particle is moving through the lab at v m/s, then its worldline is tilted at v, and its alignment of space and time compared to the lab are physically tilted, too. The region around the particle is also tilted, with the amount of tilt fading away as we leave the particle's influence. If it's a small particle, the tilt of regions of spacetime in the lab far enough away for the particle's influence to be unmeasurable, corresponds instead to the angle (or averaged angle) that the lab's particles make with spacetime.
So with a gravitomagnetic theory, the angle of alignment of space and time axes is not arbitrary as a result of a chosen frame, it is specific to the combined gravitomagnetic dragging effects of surrounding matter.
So in the gravitomagnetic explanation, we have "tilts and shadows" similar to Minkowski, but these are "physical" tilts in the alignment of physical space and time, that vary from location to location depending on the motion of proximal matter. If a star rotates near you, there is a physical distortion of space and time axes relative to the environment, and if you are near the star, this distorts the alignment of space and time for you, so that background onlookers see your worldline to be tilted (to some extent) in the same direction that the nearest part of the star is moving in, and this tilt means that you are now moving (to some extent) in sympathy with the star (momentum exchange). The variation in tilt with location is the gravitomagnetic field.
Of the three, the "gravitomagnetic" answer is the most physical, and
arguably the most intuitive, but it doesn't work with SR, because SR requires spacetime to be totally undistorted by the motion of matter. This means that the gravitomagnetic answer is "post-SR" - it might be considered standard fifty years from now, but it's not yet "textbook".
Preprint Principles of Gravitomagnetism I - Unavoidability
Jan Slowak
“…Sergey Shevchenko
Please give me an example of an absolute reference frame…..”
- see the SS post below on page 3.
Cheers
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
“…Poincare in times 1900-1904 was sure that such an absolute reference frame doesn't exist. He wrote special paper on this subject (where he introduced well known form of the EM momentum \int [E x B]dv) to opposite to Lorentz who thought that such a frame exists.…..”
- really that isn’t correct, Poincaré only stated that the absolute motion cannot be observed: [Poincaré quote]
“… Again, it would be necessary to have an ether in order that so-called absolute movements should not be their displacements with respect to empty space, but with respect to something concrete. Will this ever be accomplished? I don’t think so and I shall explain why; and yet, it is not absurd, for others have entertained this view… I think that such a hope is illusory; it was none the less interesting to show that a success of this kind would, in certain sense, open to us a new world…”
- but he have understood, of course, that from that something isn’t observable by no means it follows that this something doesn’t exist; while existence of the absolute Matter’s spacetime [what it is see yesterday SS post on page 2] and so a possibility of some absolute inertial reference frame that is at rest in the absolute 3D space, is quite evident:
- from that from the corresponding [and basic] SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equally equivalent and legitimate, any number of really senseless consequence completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously, follow. The simplest and evident one is the Dingle objection to the SR: if there are two relatively moving frames, then every observer in every frame ages simultaneously completely really and legitimately faster and slower than the other one. What is evident, say biological, absurdity. Another, though non-evident, such consequence is the postulated in the SR “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc.
From this completely rigorously by completely rigorous “Proof by contradiction” it follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and in the spacetime so can be exist any number of corresponding absolute frames.
And, at that – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics- to establish an absolute frame there is no necessity “to have an ether in order that so-called absolute movements should not be their displacements with respect to empty space” – though the Matter’s ether, which was with absolute spacetime cancelled in 1905 SR paper, fundamentally exists – that is Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s absolute spacetime,
- while everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the FLE-lattice.
Including particles are specific disturbances, the having rest mass [T-particles in the link] always constantly move in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D velocities that have equal absolute values be equal to the speed of light, c, [boldmeans 4D vector, and really everything in Matter moves only with c, photons move in 3D space only, and so have 3D c]. If a T-particle so moves only in cτ-dimension [which till now in mainstream physics is used as t-dimension], this T-particle [body, etc.] is at absolute rest – and is independently on in what point in the space/what point in the ether it is placed. So to
“…Maybe I don't completely understand all your ideas exxpained in your (interesting) work 'The Informational Conception and the Base of Physics' but the main problem of the scientists, who don't follow the SR, is how to detect the absolute reference frame….”
- an observation of absolute motion and measurement of absolute velocity of some material objects is only some technological task, which can be “accomplished” yet now – see the proposed yet in 2013-2016 experiments in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible, which can be made at ~ $100 million financing. That is another thing, that in mainstream physics $billions are spent on rather strange experiments, while, say, attempt to submit 2013 version of this paper to arXiv resulted in blocking of SS arXiv account…
Cheers
Dear Jan Slowak ,
>
Eric Baird partly answered to your question - the light beam doesn't propagate vertically in the moving light clock due to aberration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)
>
Just now I am interested in one specific problem - how different theories treat the contraction of the moving bodies, if it takes place. According to the SR it is the seeming effect. So why does the SR use this seeming effect to explain the null results (the absence of the results) of some experiments (with the interferometers, the capacitors etc.)
Dear Stefano Quattrini ,
Let me disagree with you on
A possible detection of the absolute frame is needed to prove that the ether exists. The idea of Michelson experiment arises from unpublished paper of Maxwell. According to works on history of the physics, Maxwell was based his theory on a model of 'mechanical ether'. The scheme of the MM experiment was actively discussed by many physicists in 1880th - the paper of Shanklend, AJP, Vol. 32, 1964
So it was a big surprise that Michelson detected the null result. All theory of electromagnetism was under threat.
Vladimir Onoochin
I don't want to hear about other things.
If you want to answer something, answer the question you are asked, briefly.
I do not want a reference to another topic/concept. I asked the question:
Why does the light signal go askew in the light clock in motion.
I'm sorry, thank you!
Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,
I strongly support the ideas of Maxwell of a background on which all physical laws are originated. That is the idea I have since I began to study physics when I was a child and I've never abandoned it.
Nevertheless MM experiment proved to a certain accuracy, not considering the error which is due to the Sagnac effect, that it is not possible from within Earth to find its own speed around the universe, since SOL in ECIF is isotropic, meaning that Earth is a local preferred frame or propagation frame for light.
In his treaties
THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf
Maxwell wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.
As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than
1/8pi *R2
where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.
The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.
As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."
---------------------------------------------------------
it is paramount the fact that he found the gravitational energy density correctly as a negative value, and assumed a background energy density to compensate that in order to avoid "negative definite energies" which do not make much sense...
Jan Slowak ,
that depends on Einstein's interpretation of the LT transformations...
the LT in equivalent form are
t'=gamma-1 t -vx'/c2
x'= gamma(x-vt)
the term vx'/c2 is the responsbile of that strange behaviour if it is considered a coordinate time as in Einstein interpretation. It makes the SOL isotropic in both the Lab frame and in the light clock moving frame.
What happens in Einstein's clock is "aberration of light".... which makes Einstein's clock working model quite ridiculous--
In Lorentz interpretation that term is only a light time variation due to speed in the isotropic frame of the LAB so it does not affect the trajectory...
Basically the Lorentzian interpretation of the light clock is not at all Einstein's and
Justo Pastor Lambare ,
I know what is the modern treatment of the moving bodies contraction. But I see one problem - aims of the experiments made recent times in accordance of the MM scheme (two resonators) differ from the aim stated by Michelson. At least at the end of XIX century most of the physicists were obliged to follow Lorentz-FitzGerald's explanation (without physical justification) since there were no other ideas to explain the MM results.
I repeated the argumentation of XIX century. Moreover, I used two postulates of the SR, the relativity principle and the constancy of the speed of light in any frame, and I obtained that the contraction should be real.
Do you see the error in my arguments?
Vladimir Onoochin
I believe that your statement is somehow ambiguous.
It depends on what you mean by "real". The observer at rest with the ruler does not see its length modified. On the other hand, many observers moving relative to the ruler with different speeds will assign different lengths to the same ruler. The phenomenon is deemed a "kinematic" effect, meaning there is no force straining the ruler, and the effect is owed to the fact that simultaneity is a relative fact. Nobody (except relativist deniers) sees any problem with that because as I said before, there is no objective matter of fact associated with the simultaneity of distant events.
If you want to see that as "real" then it is a matter of definition and interpretation.
Let me give you another example. Time contraction can be considered as real because if you transport a clock and then compare it with the static one you will actually see that it is behind the one that remained stationary.
The same thing does not happen with a transported ruler.
Justo Pastor Lambare ,
>
If one heats some rod its length increases. Do you agree that it is the real change of the length?
>
If I, as an observer, try to look at a moving rod? I don't propose to make any observations and measurements of the moving rods (the arms of the device). And I don't propose to synchronize any events of two frames
I state that - if two postulates of the SR are true and according to the results of the experiments - the optical paths of the light beams in both frames must be equal. What a reason can you offer to explain that these optical paths are equal?
FitzGerald and Lorentz found the only explanation.
Vladimir Onoochin
Yes, according to the ether theory, F-L contraction is the explanation. In this case, the contraction is a dynamic effect that is caused by the motion through the ether.
According to relativity (SRT) the proper length of the apparatus is not contracted because it is stationary w.r.t. to the laboratory frame.
The reason the optical paths are the same is because light speed is invariant.
So, there are two possible explanations. In any case, a real dynamic contraction is not a relativistic explanation.
Justo Pastor Lambare ,
The question of matter - if the contraction of one arm of the device is a real effect, how the SR can explain the real effect, the change of the length in a frame where the interferometer moves?
It is impossible that some process (of contraction because it should be dynamical process since the Earth rotates) is real and at the same time it is 'seeming process'.
I am not sure I undertand your question but I can assure you that according to relativity, in the rest frame, there is no L-F contraction.
According to relativity only the observer that sees the ruler in motion sees the contraction. That is a consequence of the relativity of simultaneity. Please try to understand its derivation based on Lorentz transformations.
What I am trying to explain to you is a key difference between the ether theory interpretation and the relativistic one.
I am sorry if this does not clarify your doubts
Justo Pastor Lambare ,
This answer is obvious - according to the SR the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source. Michelson detected this result still in 1881 - his aim was to detect if the speed of light changes in the moving frame (the Earth moves at least in its orbit). According to the second postulate c = const in any frame so the arms of the interferometer shouldn't contract.
But what occurs with the arms of the same interferometer in the frame where the device moves?
Curiously the SR doesn't give the definite answer to this question. Typically the relativists (including Einstein) say that the length of the moving body cannot be measured. It is good but it is not the answer.
In my file (MM_.pdf) I explain how we can conclude that one of the arm should contract and it must be the real process. Can the SR explain a physical cause of this process?
I hope I explain my concerning in a clear form.
Vladimir Onoochin
I did not read your MM_.pdf file but your question is inconsistent because you ask how SR explains the physical process of contraction.
The answer is that SR cannot explain something it does not predict. I mean SR does not predict the arm should contract in its rest frame and you said yourself that answer is obvious.
If your MM_.pdf concludes that it contracts then your explanation cannot be according to relativity. It is a different theory.
Let me guess, probably what you are trying to explain (and I do not understand) is that you found a contradiction within SR. Is that it?
“…So, there are two possible explanations. In any case, a real dynamic contraction is not a relativistic explanation.….”
- yeah, that is, of course, so. But really there is the third, and really rigorously scientific, explanation, which is written in the SS posts on pages 1, 2, 3 [more see the linked in the posts Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics]:
- the contraction of moving bodies’ lengths is quite real physical effect, just so it really is observed; but:
- the contraction is really observed as it really is only if a body moves in 3DXYZ space of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian, spacetime that has utmost universal “kinematical” [5]4D metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), and is observed at that in some absolute, i.e. that is at rest in the 3D space, of course so quite inertial, reference frame.
In any moving in the 3D space frame some contraction so really is observed by the frame instruments, however the observation results are unreal, say, again, a body is at absolute rest and has so maximal length, in a moving frame is completely unreally observed as moving – and contracted body, if there are two relatively moving frames, where identical having the same “real” “proper lengths” bodies are, then in both frames the bodies are simultaneously completely legitimately in the SR have “real” and contracted lengths, etc.
Again, there exist only one really scientific explanation of this – and of all other “relativistic effects” in the SS&VT model above, and so discussions in framework of the really unscientific in this case SR really has only one sense – how the SR is seen as an unscientific theory.
That is in certain extent interesting now, but when something is considered only in framework of any mainstream theory, the result can be only one – some listing of some mystic “explanations”; besides, since the SR is till now standard theory despite that is rather strange one, really a lot of people in recent scientific community, who became to be “famous, etc. physicists” telling that the SR is quite perfect theory, any information about the reality is really blocked by any possible way; including on the RG discussions some posters appear after some scientific post, which organize spamming, etc. – as that essentially happens in this thread.
More see the SS posts above in the thread and links in the post; recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Michelson-Morley_experiment_can_it_really_disprove_ether#view=654e6421b642b487770949cbis relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,
Your theory may be true. But - it is only my private point of view - it is hard to verify your theory. What new physical effect does your theory predict? People are more interested in finding new effects than in disproving old but very established theories.
Both theories, the SR and Lorentzian theory of absolute ether, explain results of many other experiments. Therefore, the physicists who developed Maxwellian theory at the end of XIX century (most of theoreticians) were so upset by the experimental results of Michelson-Morley. Theory of dragged ether, including theory of Hertz, couldn't explain some experimental facts.
The special relativity was accepted because it explained all known experimental results that time.
If these theories 'work' why should people reject them?
I suppose that if you offer more or less cheap experiment to find new effect your theory will attract certain attention.
Justo Pastor Lambare ,
If you didn't read my file, how can you know what is my question on effect of the contraction?
It is not completely so. Regarding my point of view on the SR. I found that if a classical charge don't move with v = const, its EM fields determined in two frames don't interconnect by the LT (I noted this fact in one my paper).
I am not going to disprove the SR. It is enough to me to don't use the math of the SR in calculations since such calculations will give wrong results with sure.
I am interested in this problem because I think some modification of the MM scheme can determine the preferred frame. It can be a practical result because it would allow to know the true velocity and orientation of a spaceship in a deep cosmos.
And second reason - a discussion of this problem is interesting.
Hmmm… on the visible page the posts that are 7 days old now are seen, so it seems that is worthwhile to post here, despite that that would be last post on the page, hoping that some posters with a strange posts, as that as mostly happens, will not appear in the thread practically immediately after SS post…
Dear Vladimir Onoochin,
“…Your theory may be true. But - it is only my private point of view - it is hard to verify your theory. What new physical effect does your theory predict?....”
- the SS&VT physical model is in complete accordance with all really reliable experiments that were/are made in physics -m but note also that experiments’ results aren’t only pulses in detectors, digits on monitors, etc., really experiments results are, first of all, physical interpretations of observed pulses, digits, etc.
Since mainstream physics fundamentally is based on postulated really only transcendent/mystic initial assumptions, the interpretations of experiments in the mainstream really are so some transcendent/mystic mental constructions,
- while the interpretations in framework of the SS&VT model are really scientific ones. As, say that
“…..The special relativity was accepted because it explained all known experimental results that time. If these theories 'work' why should people reject them?...”
- is an example in this case, when the SR, say, interprets experimental results as that the results follow from postulated in the SR “fundamental relativistic properties of Matter’s spacetime and relativistic effects”, when moving inertial reference frames “contract space” and “dilate time”, and the contracted/dilated spacetime really contracts moving bodies lengths, slows moving clock tick rates, etc. – while all that is fundamentally only some mystic illusions, and really doesn’t happen.
However that really isn’t too sufficient in many cases at everyday physics practice, and corresponding experiments results are “in full accordance with the SR”. In this there is nothing surprising, say, the theory that Sun rotates around Earth was in full accordance with experiments and well adequately applied in practice.
However when the SR is applied to really fundamental problems, its mystic reveals itself, say, in the SR there is no antiparticles, which – as that in certain sense adequately to the reality is mystically postulated in QED – “move back in time”; etc.; again all such mystic points in the mainstream are really scientifically clarified in the SS&VT model. Etc.; and as to:
“….I suppose that if you offer more or less cheap experiment to find new effect your theory will attract certain attention.…..”
- that the model really newly – and really scientifically - interprets the existent experiments – see above, and in this case there can be too many examples for a post, so here only point one direct experiment – when the fundamentally cancelled in the SR absolute motion in the absolute Matter’s 3D space can be measured, see proposed yet in 2013-2016 experiments in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible
Cheers
What is the physical meaning of the relativistic contraction?
There is no relativistic length contraction and there is no relativistic time dilation. Fig. 1 (b) is wrong. The light signal does not go askew!
Possibly check my own question:
The special theory of relativity, Special Relativity, SR. The time dilation
The last really scientific post that is really relevant to this thread question see the yesterday SS post on page 4; the last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_special_theory_of_relativity_Special_Relativity_SR_The_time_dilation/2 is relevant in this case also, though.
Cheers
Relativistic contraction, or Lorentz contraction, describes the shortening of lengths along the direction of motion, as perceived by an observer in a moving frame. This effect, a consequence of Einstein's special relativity, predicts that objects traveling at high speeds undergo contraction in the direction of their motion. The concept is grounded in the dilation of time intervals and the constancy of the speed of light, resulting in a distortion of spatial measurements. As velocities approach the speed of light, this phenomenon becomes increasingly significant. Lorentz contraction is a fundamental aspect of relativistic physics and finds support in experimental evidence, such as observations from particle accelerator experiments (Taylor, J. R., & Wheeler, J. A. (2000). Spacetime Physics).
The above comment of Valentine Nyirahafashimana "tells it all".
See: https://phys.org/news/2023-11-heavy-ion-collisions-lhc-scientists-thickness.html
The contraction itself - the mechanism behind the phenomenon - is difficult to explain. In general it is caused by the constant speed of light of every involved "quantum of energy" of the accelerated particle or nucleus.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Valentine Nyirahafashimana ,
If the authors of the paper in Phys. Rev. Lett (the paper can be free downloaded) detected that the Lorentz factor \gamma = 1/sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2} = 2500 corresponds to the experimental data, detection of the angles of collision, it rather means that Lorentz's idea is right and Einstein's prediction is incorrect. According to Lorentz, the contraction is real and it is in agreement with the experimental data - a number of single acts of collisions. According to Einstein, the contraction is 'seeming effect' and we only see that some object 'contracts'.
Sydney Ernest Grimm
The mechanism behind the phenomenon is quite simple in the case of a ruler. It is only a Kinematical effect, it is not a dynamical effect. The "real" length, i.e., the proper length is always the same.
The observer who sees the object in motion perceives the contraction as a consequence of the relativity of simultaneity. He judges the length by the "simultaneous" position of both ends. I am not saying the phenomenon is not real, I say it is only kinematical.
The situation is complicated for other situations, for instance, the rotation of a "rigid" disc. In that case, there must exist "real" deformations. Note I used a quoted expression for rigid because there is no such thing as a rigid body in relativity.
From the posts that appeared in the thread after the yesterday SS post on page 4 above it looks as worthwhile to note here that the last really scientific post that is really relevant to this thread question is this SS post more see this post – and other SS posts in the thread, though, and links in the posts.
That’s enough, so here only a few notes to some points else:
“….…”
- that isn’t correct, if that relates to mainstream physics. In the mainstream really scientific explanation of the contraction of moving bodies lengths effect really fundamentally impossible, so, say, the explanation in the standard mainstream physics SR theory that in moving frames “space is contracted” , and “time is dilated” - and that results in the contraction is fundamentally wrong. Really no any “space contraction” and “time dilation” fundamentally can exist, and so these “fundamental relativistic properties/effects” really don’t exist.
Correspondingly that in framework of the mainstream:
“….The mechanism behind the phenomenon is quite simple in the case of a ruler. It is only a Kinematical effect, it is not a dynamical effect. The "real" length, i.e., the proper length is always the same….”
- really isn’t a scientific explanation, the explanation in this case can be scientific one only if it is scientifically explained – why this “Kinematical effect” exists in Matter?, and why it is as it is? again – that is fundamentally impossible in the mainstream, and so, say, the quote above is simply wrong
– the really existent contraction of moving with a speed V in the 3DHYZspace of Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, utmost universal [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) body is fundamentally dynamical effect, which is caused by real material impact on the body that accelerated the body up to V.
At that all forces in the moving body that compose it – between electrons and nuclei in atoms, molecules, etc., and that bind atoms and molecules so that they compose the body, differ from the same ones when the body was at rest in the, again, absolute 3D space above, so, that the body is contracted in Lorentz factor.
That is another thing, that because of action of extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, if the observer in a moving in the 3D space with a speed V frame observes a body that is at rest in the space, and measures the body’s length, the measured length is contracted in Lorentz factor then when it is at rest. Really so that is an illusion, however this illusion is in complete accordance with the relativity principle, and – and all other, really in the frame fundamentally illusory measurements results – so this measurement value(s) is/are in this sense adequate to the reality. So, say, physical measurements in Earth frames are adequate to the reality, despite that Earth undoubtedly moves in the space with some fundamentally unknown now in the mainstream absolute V.
Again, what really exists and happens in Matter, including what are Lorentz transformation, equation in fast bodies mechanics, etc., can be, and is, really scientifically explained only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics],
- and for those readers, who really want to understand what real physics is, it is necessary to read the SS posts and links in the posts; and, at that, so for such readers it would be well more convenient not to read rather numerous other posts - and so for corresponding posters to write their strange posts in the RG threads not too vividly…
Cheers
Dear Justo Pastor Lambare
Personally I don’t think it is really easy because in QFT time is a constant – because h and c are constants – and “space” is just 3D Euclidean space (there emerges no geometrical curvature at the moment the electromagnetic field creates a local concentration of energy). Moreover the structure of the basic quantum fields in QFT is a rest frame. This in opposite to the basics that underlies the theory of special and general relativity. And more worse, special and general relativity is not modern physics, it is classic physics.
In the link above (https://phys.org/news/2023-11-heavy-ion-collisions-lhc-scientists-thickness.html) the accelerated Lead 208 nuclei change their shape into a “flat pancake”. But it comes at a cost because the diameter of the nuclei has increased. In other words, it is no real contraction – a decrease of the volume in 1 direction – it is the transformation of the proportions of the nucleus under invariant volume.
If a particle is nearly at rest every “enclosed” quantum of the energy of the particle is involved into a kind of a loop (internal motion of concentrated energy). Therefore, the velocity of the energy of the particle is the sum of its real velocity and the internal loop of energy in relation to the rest frame.
If I concentrate 2 quanta the velocity of the new phenomenon (both quanta together) is < c. So if I accelerate a rest mass carrying particle to the speed of light, every quantum of this concentrated energy has only 1 velocity: the speed of light. And all these quanta move in the same direction.
Now there is no longer an internal motion (loop of energy) because every quantum of energy moves with the speed of light. But if the velocity of a concentration of 2 quanta is < c, every quantum of the particle must be a “free quantum” if the particle has the speed of light. The consequence is that the particle must be flattened in such a way that its surface area envelopes an amount of units of the structure of the electromagnetic field that is equal to the total sum of the quanta of the energy of the particle.
In practice this is impossible – the velocity of the particle cannot be c – but it explains why the acceleration of a particle will result in a transformation of its spherical proportions.
It also explains why the acceleration of a particle decreases its internal motion. Thus if we accelerate an unstable particle its decay time is lengthen. Einstein stated that time is relative but that was a inaccurate description. It isn’t relative time, it is a relative rate of change of compositions of energy (like particles, nuclei and larger objects).
With kind regards, Sydney
Vladimir Onoochin : " ... if two postulates of the SR are true ... "
One of the tricks Einstein pulled was to pretend that you could derive SR from just his two postulates. You can't.
Suppose, as a purely hypothetical exercise, we choose to assume that all fundamental particles have curvature horizons, and that these (relative) horizons act as the particles' interaction surfaces. Since a moving horizon is expected to drag light completely, we then have a universe in which all moving matter (all objects, or the fundamental particles making up those objects), drag light completely.
So the speed of light is then locally constant for all massed observers, regardless of their state of motion.
This ticks the boxes for both lightspeed constancy and relativity. If you take a region of vacuum, and insert a laboratory to measure the speed of light in that vacuum, then if the laboratory is moving inertially, it will always measure a internal speed of c, no matter how it moves w.r.t. the outside world, because the matter that the laboratory is built from is dragging the light both on emission and on absorption, and because there's nothing else in the signal path to cause the light to have any speed other than cLAB.
A "dragged light" model, regardless of whether you believe in it or not, is a logical counterexample to Einstein's proof, and it generates non-SR lightbeam geometry and non-SR equations. In order to rule out dragged-light models and arrive at special relativity as the only possible solution, you need a third postulate.
The reason why Einstein didn't supply a third postulate, is that any attempt to construct a third postulate makes the resulting theory really, really easy to disprove. If you want to rule out dragged-light models by saying that we know that moving matter doesn't drag light, all an opponent has to do is point out the Fizeau result, and we're screwed. If we say that we know that matter has no effect on the propagation of light, our opponent just points out refractive index, and the fact that relativised refractive index generates dragging (Fresnel), and, again, we're screwed. A general theory of relativity requires gravitomagnetic dragging for rotation and acceleration, and these don't work unless there's also a velocity effect. So back to dragging. Screwed again.
Einstein knew that even he didn't believe in and couldn't publicly support some of the things that a third postulate would have to say in a rigorously-derived special theory, so he simply kept quiet about it.
Einstein was a master of misdirection. He was expert at constructing narratives that led you to his conclusion, and stopped you from realising that other alternatives were possible. He used language to create logical traps and mazes. He set up complex metaphysical systems of measurement to attract the attention away from the fact that the whole two-postulate narrative wasn't true. So critics fixate on the more abstract and complex details like length-contraction, and don't realise that the "con" actually happened right in the introduction, hidden in plain sight, where Einstein said that the theory was based on two postulates. That's the part that people don't think to question. They assume that because Einstein says that it's true, up-front, that obviously this is right, and doesn't need to be examined.
Preprint Einstein's Missing Third Postulate
We take the two-postulate statement on trust, and we really shouldn't.
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,
>
If the diameter of the nuclear 208Pb increases as \sqrt{2500} = 50 times, then the neutron skin should increase 50 times too. But the authors give the value of the neutron skin as 0.2 fm
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
We don’t know exactly the size of the structure of the electromagnetic field. Besides that, the authors of the paper are interpreting the experiments with the help of the quark/gluon model. So it isn’t for sure if their calculations are 100% correct if the model isn’t accurate. Don’t forget that not every theorist is convinced of the reliability of the quark/gluon model.
Anyway, in general they have showed that the shape of the accelerated Lead 208 nuclei is transformed (flattened) because of the high velocity of the nuclei.
I understand that most theorists prefer solutions that are in line with the present theoretical framework. That is understandable for theorists who are working at the same or equal topics. But if someone has a larger scope it costs too much time to dive into all the details.
Like researchers in the field of QM demand solutions that describe the “tangible” reality of QM with the help of the formalism of QM. Well, why should other theorists do all that work? QM is about the properties of the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. So one should expect that a “tangible” description of both fields – in line with the experiments – solves all the problems. Unfortunately, that is not what the QM theorists are looking for.
Thus if a team of theorists at CERN – familiar with the mathematical practice of the quark/gluon model – calculates the “outcome” of the experiments with Lead 208 nuclei from the acquired data and the specs of the instruments – it is an impossible job for individual theorists to verify everything.
The other way around - using a different model - is not easy to do in a RG comment.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Eric Baird ,
I wish to explain why I refer two postulates in my example.
I don't follow the SR. I have never used its apparatus in my works. If I used some relativitis notation it is only to show that the calculations of the relativistic quantities lead to contradiction. For example, commonly used term 'four vector of the energy-momentum'. All relativists use this term but no one tried to this energy-momentum of some EM field. The energy and momentum of the EM field form the four-vector in the only case, when the charge creating this fields move with v = const. If v =/= const, the energy and momentum don't form the four-vector that can be confirmed by simple calculations.
I use two postulates with the same aim - to show that this leads to contradictions inside the SR.
It is commonly accepted opinion of the relativists that contraction of hte moving bodies is 'seeming effect' that is caused by observation of some person being at the frame at rest on a moving body.
I use these two postulates to demonstrate that it is not so - fulfillment of these postulates requires the real contraction of the moving body. I don't appeal to any measurements, I only make conclusions that according to the SR some events must be realized.
Thus, the 'seeming origin' of the effect contradicts to the SR itself.
Vladimir Onoochin
I agree with you. If you analyze SR objectively and thoroughly, you come to the conclusion that SR is contradictory. That's what all my research shows.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,
Many descriptions and explanations of SR are inconsistent and contradictory, but that's usually because they are faulty.
- For the first fifty years, it was taught that moving objects contracted and appeared visibly contracted under SR.
- From 1959 onwards papers by Terell and Penrose and others pointed out that the usual teaching was based on basic misunderstandings of the geometry, and that a moving sphere still looks spherical ... unless it is moving away from you (in which case it appears flattened), or moving towards you (in which case it appears elongated).
The amount of photograpable flattening or elongation precisely matches the change in wavelength of the body's signals, so if a body recedes fast enough for its signal frequency to appear exactly halved, its visual length will appear in a photograph to be exactly halved, too.
There's an ambiguity over the photographable length of a passing body, because of an ambiguity over when the correct moment is to press the camera's shutter button ... when the pre-marked centre of the body is seen to be at right angles to the x axis, or when the apparent centre of the body is seen to be at right angles to the x axis. One gives a Lorentz elongation, the other a Lorentz contraction.
- A proper description and explanation of SR's visual behaviour didn't pass peer review until as late as 1994 (!!!)
Article Wave front relativity
Moreau points out that if the speed of light is globally fixed in our frame, a moving and expanding spherical wavefront should be measured by default to be Lorentz elongated. Since this would let us tell for certain that the s.o.l. was fixed in our own frame, this can't be allowed to happen ... the "purpose" of the Lorentz contraction is then to squash the elongated spheroid back into the original spherical volume, so that the sphere looks like a sphere to all inertial onlookers regardless of their (inertial) state of motion.
The problem with trying to criticise SR has historically been that the people promoting SR (possibly even including Einstein) typically didn't seem to understand how it was supposed to work, and promoted faulty versions.
As a result most of the work identifying apparent problems with the theory was actually identifying problems in the way the theory was presented.
----
It's an awkward philosophical problem, trying to distinguish between whether a theory's "real" predictions should be taken to be the faulty "official" predictions, or whether they should be taken as the "corrected" predictions that come directly from the geometry, but which might not appear in textbooks.
Regardless of whether SR has internal consistency or not when it's done properly, I consider SR to be wrong as physics, because it clashes with the general principle of relativity, with the principle of equivalence of inertia and gravitation, and with relativistic gravitation. If one believes that the relativity principle is correct for moving gravitational bodies, then SR 's relationships are automatically wrong.
Eric Baird
You write: "Many descriptions and explanations of SR are inconsistent and contradictory, but that's usually because they are faulty."
That descriptions of SR are inconsistent and contradictory not because these descriptions are wrong, but because SR is inconsistent and contradictory!
Despite that in the SS posts above in the thread, at least on pages 4, 5, the thread question is rigorously scientifically answered, in the thread a number of other posts appeared, which have rather indirect relation to the question, and, besides, are simply unphysical, say as
“…( https://phys.org/news/2023-11-heavy-ion-collisions-lhc-scientists-thickness.html) the accelerated Lead 208 nuclei change their shape into a “flat pancake”. But it comes at a cost because the diameter of the nuclei has increased. In other words, it is no real contraction – a decrease of the volume in 1 direction – it is the transformation of the proportions of the nucleus under invariant volume.. ….”
- the linked Phys.org article is only a next – among innumerous now – example of an experiment, where the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction exists, and at analysis of experimental results that must be taken into account; but by no means the article answers to the question what is this contraction;
- and, besides, writing something on RG it is necessary to understand what is that is writing about, in this case – the contraction exists only in direction of motion, in this case of Lead 208 nuclei, and is absent in orthogonal direction. So orthogonal diameter of nuclei isn’t contracted, and the volume isn’t “invariant”. The rest in the post is something like, but it is discussed in the thread, and even for some strange reason recommended.
Again, what is are both – “relativistic contraction” in accordance with the standard in the mainstream physics SR, where fundamentally wrongly it is postulated that that is “space contraction”, and FitzGerald-Lorentz [and SR 1905] contraction of moving bodies; and why it is as it is, it is rigorously scientifically explained in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, the link see SS post on page 4, so more see the link, where most of other points in fast bodies mechanics are also explained, here only briefly:
- Matter’s (utmost universal – “kinematical”) spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [5]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP., is placed;
- particles are specific disturbances in the lattice - some close-loop algorithms that cyclically run basing on the FLE “hardware” as sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping in the lattice, and so particles really are, in first approximation, a “FLE flipping points” that constantly always move along 4D “helixes” in the 4D space with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z), with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to speed of light, c= lP/tP;
- so a particle has intrinsic “4D angular momentum” that always is directed along particle motion direction.
If a having rest mass - that compose all bodies – particle is at rest in absolute 3DXYZspace, it moves with 4D speed of light only along cτ-axis, its momentum, P0 [bold means 4D vector], and the angular momentum are directed along this axis; its algorithm ticks with maximal frequency. If the particle after some 3D space directed impact [what always happens in ordinary mechanics] so also moves in 3D space with a speed V along, say, X-axis, its algorithm is diluted by “black lattice FLEs”, so ticks slower in Lorentz factor, its momentum P and the angular momentum decline from cτ-axis direction on the corresponding angle φ.
If particles compose a rigid body, they rotate whole body in (X, cτ) plane, so, since at inertial 4D motion the body’s length remain be the same as at absolute rest, its 3D projection is lesser in Lorentz factor; and, since in ordinary mechanics everything is experimentally observed only in 3D space, the body really interacts with other bodies as is really contracted..
That’s, and, if we don’t consider some points outside the mechanics. To understand what is the contraction – and what are Lorentz transformations and main dynamics equations, only to obtain E=mc2 is necessary to apply some integration - it is enough to know only Pythagoras theorem. However at that is necessary to understand why the Pythagoras theorem is applied – i.e. what is the SS&VT model is.
Note, also – as that is pointed in the SS posts above, that the contraction is real only if is observed in absolute reference frame that is at rest in 3D space. Observed in other frames contraction values are unreal, nonetheless are in accordance with the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, and so using these unreal values is adequate to the reality at description and analysis what is mostly exists and happens in Matter.
Cheers
Dear Vladimir Onoochin,
You ask a good question! The equations of special relativity theory (SRT) imply that everything observed within a moving system shrinks in the direction of the system’s motion: solid objects, electric and gravitational fields, everything! So, using their shortened “rulers”, an observer in a moving system measures increased distances along the direction of the system’s motion.
The biggest problem in trying to provide a physical explanation for this is that it works both ways: observer A sees moving observer B’s ruler as being contracted, but simultaneously B sees A’s ruler as being contracted. They can’t both be right, and that incongruity underlies relativity theory: it says that there is no ‘real’ coordinate system, and SRT is simply how spacetime works- no other explanation is required. If that is correct, your question has no answer.
There is a competing view, however: that there is one “preferred” coordinate system, which describes the real universe, and the behavior of moving real-universe objects causes physical changes to them: specifically, moving rulers shrink parallel to their motion, and moving clocks slow down. Also, the speed of light is really isotropic and equal to c only within the preferred coordinate system. When moving real-universe rulers and clocks are used to make observations, their physical changes distort the observations- and the results give the illusion that there is no physical basis for the special relativity effects. (I have a preprint that discusses the concept of a preferred coordinate system, and proposes that it exists, and is in fact the cosmic frame: Preprint The Cosmic Coordinate Frame
. So if there is a physical explanation for contraction, if would have to be based on the cosmic coordinate frame.In the cosmic frame there is a mechanism that leads to contraction. Suppose you gradually increased the cosmic velocity of the solar system. As its velocity approached c, the orbits of all of the planets would have to rotate towards planes perpendicular to the solar system’s velocity. If that didn’t happen, the planets’ velocities would exceed c for part of their orbits. So the whole solar system would have to “contract” parallel to its velocity. At a smaller scale, the electrons moving within an atom would have to collapse towards a single orbital plane, so the atom would contract parallel to its velocity. At even smaller scales, the motions of the internal components of the particles that generate electric and gravitational fields might also contract, leading to their emitted fields contracting. This is only a concept, but it might underlie the physics of contraction.
Dear Eric Baird ,
I agree that the paper of Moreau in AJP is valuable. But results of the author cannot be checked. What should an experimental setup to detect the wavefront of a source moving with subluminal velocities?
In most of the experiments to detect the ether drift (or to confirm the SR) the analysis of the events which are assumed to occur in the frame linked with the stationary ether in the microwave background radiation frame is of thought type. Even in well known series of Kennedy-Thorndike's experiments introduction of two frames by the authors is incorrect. All experiments were made in the frame linked with the Earth and the Lorentz factor 1/sqrt[1 -(V/c)^2] didn't change. A direction of the vector V can change but not its absolute value.
So I don't know how to arrange the experiment where the events in two frames can be compared - when one frame moves relatively to the other with V ~ c.
Vladimir Onoochin : " I agree that the paper of Moreau in AJP is valuable. But results of the author cannot be checked. "
You can check the integrity of the geometry. Within the context of SR, we know that a cross-section through the uncontracted wavefront needs to be an elongated ellipse, because it needs to be a conic section through a Minkowski light-cone. Conic sections become more elongated and more obviously elliptical the greater the angle of tilt of the intersection with the cone.
It bewilders me how professional mathematicians in the SR community somehow managed to "forget" for fifty years (some for decades longer) that a simple conic section elongates with increasing intersection angle.
We've known that for more that a couple of thousand years, right?
There seems to be something about exposure to special relativity (and to SR community peer pressure) that turns trained professionals into zombies.
Vladimir Onoochin : " What should an experimental setup to detect the wavefront of a source moving with subluminal velocities? "
Strictly as a thought-experiment, one could construct a perfectly-reflecting inward-facing spherical mirror, and have a light-pulse originate at the centre. The pulse will reflect off the mirror and refocus back to a point. We can use this ability to refocus as our "engineering definition" of the mirror's sphericity.
All of this assumes that the apparatus is stationary with respect to the people that are building it.
Now describe the same behaviour from the point of view of someone who sees (or believes) the sphere to be moving. This second class of observer must agree with the first that all the rays are reconverging at a single point-event in spacetime. However, they will assign different locations in space to the origin point for the initial outgoing wavefront and to the reconvergence point of the reflected wavefront (because the mirror will have moved in the time between the two events).
Assuming that the law of reflection works the same in all frames, the shape of a reflective surface that receives rays from one location and refocuses them at another, is an elongated ellipse (the two spatial locations being the ellipse's two focal points).
So all the reflection events need to lie on an elongated ellipse.
Alternatively, we can draw a set of equal length equally-spaced rays emanating from a point, change the angles of the rays by the relativistic aberration formula, and extend or contract the ray lengths by the SR Doppler wavelength predictions. We then find that we've drawn a set of rays whose perimeter is an elongated ellipse, and whose ray-origin is one of the two ellipse focal points.
-------------
I think there's two ways of looking at this:
- On the one hand, many of the claimed inconsistencies in special relativity can be blamed on human error -- on inconsistencies in the way that the theory is presented by its proponents.
- On the other hand, if the people promoting the theory don't seem to have much of a clue as to what its basic geometry is, and are terrible at catching mistakes, then we can hardly take their word for it as professionals that the theory is rigorously tested and shows a statistically significant match to reality. Because half the time, they don't seem to know what the predictions ought to be without looking at the data.
Ronald Ian Miller : " Observer A sees moving observer B’s ruler as being contracted, but simultaneously B sees A’s ruler as being contracted. "
No. That's not what happens according to the SR/Minkowski geometry. It's what used to be taught as SR's predictions until around 1959, when peer review agreed that SR's predictions had been mistaught, by people who didn't really understand it.
Under the corrected theory, observers do not "see" objects to be contracted as a function of their relative speed. They deduce that, if the speed of light is believed to be universally , globally constant in their own frame, that the fact that they do not see objects that are moving wrt that frame to be elongated due to traditional signal-propagation effects, means that there must be a compensating contraction effect in play.
if the experiment is symmetrical, and all bodies have simple inertial constant motion, then the Einstein contraction is purely interpretative, and its existence cannot be physically verified by any experiment, ever, by anyone.
Dear contributors
Currently there are about 60 comments on Vladimir Onoochin's question.
What is the meaning of these comments that you have posted here? Where do you want to go?
I believe that many times you deviate from the topic. Then it won't be so easy to follow only the parts you are interested in.
At the same time, it is good that you refer to various articles that you otherwise have no idea exist.
The main question in this thread concerns the special theory of relativity, SR. There has been so much written on the subject and you can see that many of those comments are pure repetitions of what has been written before.
It feels like some of you are defending SR while others are against it. Is that so?
Eric Baird : I'm not sure what your point is. The equations of SRT predict that the electric field of a moving charge is oblate- there is no deduction involved. The same equations predict length contraction of a ruler, and that the speed of light is isotropic and equal to c. Perhaps you don't like my choice of words, that the observer "sees" the moving ruler as contracted?
Ronald Ian Miller " Perhaps you don't like my choice of words, that the observer "sees" the moving ruler as contracted? "
You're right. It's the word "see" that I object to. It used to be taught that an SR observer "sees" moving bodies to be Lorentz-contracted, in the sense that if they took a photograph, the contraction would show up in the photographed image.
In Gamow's popular "Mr Tompkins" series, the section explaining special relativity described Mr. Tompkins seeing an approaching cyclist being Lorentz-contracted. That's wrong. The "apparent" (=photographable) length of an approaching object is always longer as a function of velocity, not shorter.
That's why modern editions have a new introduction written by Penrose, that warns that what SR describes an observer as "observing" doesn't necessarily correspond to what they actually see, or with the raw data recorded by their instruments before calibration.
"SR observations" are not "observations" in the traditional sense of being what they see or experience ... but are instead interpretations of what they believe to be happening, based on the belief that the speed of light is globally fixed in some frame or other.
example working to follow ...
WORKED EXERCISE:
Suppose that a body is approaching us at a nominal v=0.6c (recession velocity of -0.6c)
What We See:
The raw SR prediction for what we see is an apparent, photograpable length-change of len'/len = sqrt[ (c-vrecession) / (c+vrecession) ]
= sqrt[ (c-(-0.6)) / c+(+0.6) ]
=sqrt[ 1.6 / 0.4 ] = sqrt[4] = 2
so if we stand at the edge of a railway track, and a 1km-long train approaches at 0.6c, and we take a photo, the train appears in the SR photo to occupy 2km of track.
What We Believe:
If we believe that the s.o.l. is globally fixed in our frame, then signal-propagation timelags result in our calculating an apparent elongation of len'/len= c/(c+vr) = 1/(1+(-0.6)) = 1/0.4 = 5/2 = 2.5
So we expect the photo to show the 1km train occupying 2.5km of track.
- But since the train is "moving" we also believe it to be Lorentz-contracted, by sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ] = sqrt[ 1 - 0.36 ] = sqr[ 0.64 ] = 0.8
- So the actual apparent length shown in the SR photo is predicted to be
- 2.5km * 0.8 = 2km .
If we believe that the s.o.l. is globally fixed in the train's frame, then signal-propagation timelags result in our calculating a different apparent elongation of len'/len= (c-vr)/c = (1-(-0.6)) = 1.6
So we expect the photo to show the 1km train occupying 1.6km of track.
- But since we are "moving" w.r.t. the selected frame for lightspeed propagation, we expect our reference-lengths, including the lengh of the track, to be Lorentz-contracted. So the track is considered contracted, making the train occupy more of it. The Lorentz elongation at v=0.6c is 1/0.8 = 1.25
- So the actual apparent length shown in the SR photo is predicted to be
1.6km * 1.25 = 2km
======
Now pause for a moment to let the implications of that sink in.
Under SR, regardless of whether the speed of light is "really" fixed in our frame or the train's, and whether the train is considered to be "really" Lorentz-contracted w.r.t. the track, or the track is considered to be Lorentz-contracted w.r.t. the train, we get precisely the same physical result.
There is no symmetrical experiment that can be used to verify whether the Lorentz contraction is a contraction, an expansion, or gives no-length-change-at-all, because the Lorentz effect is an interpreted correction factor that's always overlaid on top of a simple signal-propagation effect.
Lorenz contraction is a modification of our expectations, and our expectations are based on a totally arbitrary beleif tha the s.o.l is fixed in some given frame (usually ours). Since SR forbids us from being able to determine that the s.o.l. is really fixed in that given frame, it allows us to choose to believe that lightspeed is fixed in our frame, and that the Lorentz effect is a contraction, but there is no way to construct an experiment to verify or disprove an arbitrary belief that has no physical consequences.
The whole point of special relativity is to eliminate the experimentally-testable differences that might otherwise let us prove that light was fixed preferentially in some frame or another.
While SR does make some physical, testable predictions (such as the 2km @ v=0.6c) those predictions cannot be broken down further into testably distinct propagation effects and Lorentz effects. The breakdown of the predicted photographable effect into "propagation" and "Lorentz" components is imponderable. It's completely arbitrary.
Eric Baird and Ronald Ian Miller
In your previous comments you talk about the word/verb "to see". But look at the figure Fig. 1(b) from Onoochin's attached file. There are no observers who could "see" anything, there are no clocks to measure time. Fig. 1(b) is a mathematical model of how the light signal moves "at right angles" to the direction of movement.
But in my opinion this model is wrong (I have asked the question before but no one wants to answer it objectively, but that is another question).
Allow me to introduce my motto that I usually use:
When we study the physical phenomena, we always make a mathematical model of them. In such a model, there are built-in physical laws that are held together by mathematical tools. If the description of the physical phenomenon is correct, the mathematical model has no errors!
But what I want to say now is that when you have created your mathematical model then only the mathematics applies! So once the mathematical model is established, the analysis and calculations are done only with mathematical tools.
If during the analysis and calculations you come to a contradiction or paradox, you can conclude that the mathematical model is incorrect. Then this means that you have made a mistake in the lines of thought that were the basis of the mathematical model!
Jan Slowak ,
The optical path A1->C->A2 shown in Fig. 1(b) follows from the Fermat principle or the wave origin of the light. Any EM field propagates as spherical wave (far enough from the source). The path A1->C->A2 corresponds to the shortest distance from the source to the mirror C and to the prism A.
In the other words, it is called aberration of the light.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
1) There are no grounds in Fig. 1(b) to apply Fermat's principle.
2) Although all EM fields propagate as a spherical wave, this does not apply within the thought experiments concerning Lorentz Transformations, LT, and the special theory of relativity, SR. There, only a point-shaped light signal is processed.
3) Between the two mirrors in Fig. 1 (b) you have the same medium (air, or vacuum), so there is no aberration of the light. Here it is only about reflection of the light.
4) Your Fig. 1 (b) contains the same constituent elements as a moving light clock (the one I have in my question, Fig. 002). And then I can ask the same question here:
What kind of forces, what kind of mysterious wizardry is it that knows exactly at which angle the light signal must move in order for us to be able to calculate the exact Lorentz factor from triangles created in the figure.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
1) The main question in this thread is: What is the physical meaning of the relativistic contraction? This means that we are talking about SR. There is no point in looking into Huygens' principle either. SR processes a point-shaped light signal. Within SR, calculations are made with lengths and times, nothing else.
2) The Michelson-Morley experiment, MM experiment, is the reason for creating SR. It does not matter if there are similar figures in the MM experiment. When we consider, analyze, make calculations within SR then only the elements that are within SR apply.
3.1) This is interesting. Please provide the link to the original article on MM so that I can read and comment on the original (the one you refer to).
3.2) I firmly say that Lorentz's explanation does not hold. I've analyzed the derivation of Lorentz Transformations from different books. As a mathematical group they are OK, but they don't hold up when you put them up against reality.
3.3) You write: If you have objections to Michelson's scheme, does it mean that you disagree with his explanation?
If you are talking here about your Fig. 1(b), it is not correct in my opinion. If Michelson had a similar figure, I cannot approve it: The light does not move in zig-zag!
4) If you want to look at my question and the figures that I attach there, it is Fig. 003 that explains how it really works in reality.
Dear Jan Slowak ,
>
The term 'relativistic' is commonly used to describe behavior of a system which unit or part moves with the velocity comparative to the speed of light. The L-F contraction is relativistic too since it is essential only for velocities at least greater 30 km/sec.
Lorentz wrote that his contraction is so small that it is quite impossible to detect - the diameter of our planet should contract with 0.06 meters.
>
The results of the MM experiments caused FitzGerald and Lorentz to develop a theory of stationary ether. Michelson didn't accept the SR, he was sure the Lorentz's theory explains all.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether
Vladimir Onoochin
Thanks for your reply.
1) I am a theorist and I think most of us who comment on the occasional issue on this platform are also theorists. For a theorist, it does not matter what value the speed v with which a reference system moves has. And especially if you want to make calculations and show that something is right or wrong, then it doesn't matter at all whether v = 1 m/s or 299,000 m/s. Then you use v and work with algebra and only at the end you substitute the real value of v, if necessary.
2) You write: The results of the MM experiments caused FitzGerald and Lorentz to develop a theory of stationary ether. Michelson didn't accept the SR, he was sure the Lorentz's theory explains all.
The MM experiment took place in 1887, the SR was created in 1905.
I don't understand what you mean here.
SR is based on Lorentz Transformations. If Michelson did not believe in SR but believed in LT then that is a contradiction!
3.1) I will read this article and give my views later.
3.2) The problem is that either Lorentz Transformations or other transformations are the real reason why the MM experiment got a so-called negative result. I refer to my book Special Relativity is Nonsense.
4) I repeat my position: The light signal cannot change direction if it is directed at right angles to a mirror.
Jan Slowak ,
there is a big difference between Einstein LT and Lorentz LT.
Although you can easily pass from one to the other
x'=gamma(x-vt)
EINSTEIN: t'=gamma(t-vx/c2)
alternative equivalent form
LORENTZ: t'=gamma-1 t -vx'/c2
consider though that the term vx'/c2, at variance with Einstein, is not a coordinate time for Lorentz, but only an auxiliary time. That emerges clearly in Sagnac effect: it is the variation of the time taken by light to reach a moving target, being emitted when the target was at distance L.
As a matter of fact when you consider coordinate times for Lorentz you must consider
LORENTZ : t'=gamma-1 t
which solves directly the Twin paradox and does not have issues with circular motion.
The only explanation they thought capable to provide a null result was time dilation and length contraction then Einstein with his light-clock provided the bizzare explanation with his version of the Lorentz Transformations...
As a matter of fact MM just proves that one cannot detect the motion of earth staying on earth. The answer is that ECI is an isotropic frame strictly linked to gravitation and the concept of the "ether wind" to be felt by earth must be forgotten, it was a mistake.
The situation is more similar to a stationary aether (propagation frame) which is intrinsic with Earth and it has relation with the gravitational field...
Actually MM was able to detect something which then was well detected much clearly in the Michealson Gale experiment... that was due to Earth's spinning.
Jan Slowak : " What kind of forces, what kind of mysterious wizardry is it that knows exactly at which angle the light signal must move ... "
There's no mystery to it. Suppose that you face a flat wall, and throw a ball a the patch of wall that is facing you directly. Ignoring Earth's gravity, the ball will hit the wall perpendicularly, and retrace its path exactly, to end up back in your hand. Your hand is both the origin and the target.
Now imagine how this appears from the point of view of someone for whom your system is moving along the x axis, which is parallel to the wall, at velocity v. Both you and the ball are moving on this axis at the same rate: the ball has to advance along the x axis at precisely the same rate as you, or else it would not be able to match your speed and hit its target. That means that its path, as seen from someone for whom the system is moving, is algled forwards in the direction of the system's motion.
This immediately tells us the new angle of the transverse-aimed ray, as seen by someone for whom the system is defined to be moving. This angle-change holds for special relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and evan nasty old ballistic emission-theory, where the ball is replaced by a light-corpuscle. The "relativistic" aspect is that once we have the formula derived for a "moving" light-generating system that believes itself to be stationary, the same formula must apply to all oher inertial observers in simple spacetime.
Once you know the deflection of the transverse-aimed ray, you can work out the transverse components of all the other rays, and arrive at a formula for angular aberration that works for any angle. The result is the formula given in Einstein's 1905 paper.
However, since Newtonian theory (and any other hypothetical theory of relativity) generates precisely the same aberration formula, this is not in itself proof that SR is correct. Different relativistic theories can have the same aberration formula but different Doppler relationships. SR is also founded on the assumption that the presence and motion of matter has zero effect on lightbeam geometry, which we all know is wrong (refractive index, Shapiro effect, Fizeau dragging, gravitomagnetic induction).
- Relativity plus fixed flat spacetime gives the relativistic aberration formula plus the SR Doppler formula, essentially giving us SR.
- Relativity plus dynamic spacetime gives the relativistic aberration formula plus a non-SR Doppler formula, and non-SR physics.
A proper general theory requires spacetime to be dynamic rather than fixed, so that matter always warps spacetime, the motion of matter always further warps spacetime, and SR's naive "flat graphpaper" geometry doesn't apply. In order to arrive at SR, we have to believe that nothing matter does can ever affect light or the way that light propagates. That's SR's hidden third postulate, and it disagrees with the experimental data and with more advanced theory.
Preprint Einstein's Missing Third Postulate
That's why Einstein pretended that SR only depended on two postulates. If he'd admitted the requirement for a third postulate, which even he wouldn't agree with, the special theory would have died almost immediately, and wouldn't have become foundation theory. Its place in history would have been as the "honorable failure" whose failure-mode pointed us toward a more advanced curved-spacetime system.
Preprint Two Routes to General Relativity
Jan Slowak " SR is based on Lorentz Transformations. If Michelson did not believe in SR but believed in LT then that is a contradiction! "
Einstein's position was that there was no difference in the predictions of SR and LET, provided that LET's predictions were derived properly ... but that the historical baggage associated with LET encouraged people to implement it badly.
Similarly, Einstein himself made a lot of statements about Lorentz contraction that are either wrong or perhaps just very misleading (if taken at face value, they're wrong, and to get them to be "right" requires some heavily-biased reinterpretations of the words used). My guess is that these "unhelpful" statements were "baggage" carried over from how Einstein was taught Lorentz aether theory in college.
Stefano Quattrini
1) If the two formulas are equivalent (and I hope they are equivalent mathematically and conceptually) why talk about both and bother with different explanations. I see no point in it.
I myself only talk about SR and then I use Lorentz Transformations (those found in e.g. Einstein's book from 1916).
2) The MM experiment proved nothing! And the fact that it could not demonstrate what they were looking for was because the construction they used was not suitable for this. I show (proven) why in my book Special Relativity is Nonsense. You also say that "it was a mistake" that they removed the concept of "light-bearing ether". That was a big mistake!
Jan Slowak ,
Nevertheless it should be payed attention because there is
SPECIAL RELATIVITY and LORENTZ ELECTRODYNAMICS
The first is Einstein LT which are coordinate transformations but they work on emptiness
since with constancy of c for all observers which is a consequence of equivalence of frames which means that a precious degree of freedom is gone.
The second is Lorentz LT which are not coordinate transformations, but they rely on the fact that the term vx'/c2 is due to the anisotropy of SOL in moving frames. So there is one Propagation domain in any physical problem...
The mathematical form does not allow to distinguish the two versions, that is the point....
The Lorentz LT as coordinate transformations should be just considered the Tangherlini Transformations.
Eric Baird
1) You who wrote the article "Ten Proofs of Special Relativity", why do you give me an example with a ball when I asked about light clock?
2) "how this appears from the point of view" is neither physics nor mathematics. In my question "The special theory of relativity, Special Relativity, SR. The time dilation" I show 3 pictures:
Fig. 001 Vertical light clock in rest
Fig. 002 Vertical light clock in motion
Fig. 003 Vertical light clock in motion.
Fig. 003 shows how the light clock moves during the time that the light signal pass the floor-ceiling-floor distance.
If you want to comment more on my question, it might be better if you go to my post. Thanks.
3) You write further and talk about a ball.
Don't do this. My question was about light clock and nothing else.
4) You also write about Newton, the general theory of relativity, and several other things.
Please, I only wanted answers to my question.
Dear Jan Slowak ,
1. I explained why I used the term 'relativistic' - it is common meaning of this term. Nothing else.
There is another aspect of my question. It is common opinion that the SR gives the explanation of the MM results. Unfortunately, I don't see that someone explains - based on the SR - what is a reason of the difference in the detected and calculated lengths of the optical paths (Fig. 1.b of the file).
Maybe you will be able to give such an explanation?
2. From the article of Lodge in Nature, Vol. 106 February,1921,
I was interested, when visiting the University of Chicago last winter, to find that Prof. Michelson himself was perfectly satisfied with this sort of view of his experiment, and did not consider that its interpretation necessitated any revolutionary considerations. The FitzGerald contraction is a peculiarity which could scarcely have been detected in any other way, since it is really an affair of the ether- the connecting medium in which all molecules are embedded-and affects every kind of matter to the same extent.
3. Since I didn't read your book I cannot give any comments.
4. Thus, both we have own points of view on this problem - what are the optical paths of the light in Fig.1b
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
1) I explain why the MM experiment gave so-called NULL results in my book Special relativity is Nonsense. I do calculations and come to the same result as MM. How is that possible? MM made concrete measurements with their interferometer, I did everything only theoretically (mathematics, logic, physics)!
2) ...
3) Of course, it makes sense!
4) If two people have different points of view on the same probem/question, and their answers are contradictory, this means that only one of the two is right.
Your figure is the same as in most articles, books, etc., it is a figure that legalizes the NULL results from the MM experiment. I show in my figure Fig. 003 Vertical light clock in motion how the light clock moves during the time that the light signal passes the stretch floor-ceiling-floor.
This figure shows the reality! So who is right?
The last now rather long series of posts in the thread is rather strange, and so it is necessary to point here that the last post where the thread question is scientifically rigorously answered is the SS post on page 6, 5 days ago now. If briefly:
- first of all – really scientific consideration of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction – and of any other physical event/effect/process – is possible only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
- and, as that is rigorously scientifically shown in the model, the consideration should be, if that is possible [in this question is possible] made in the absolute 3D space of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, at least [in this case enough] utmost universal “kinematical” [5]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct),
- where the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [5]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] - is placed. FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
Everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice, which are created if some lattice FLE is impacted with transmission to FLE some energy/momentum. Pericles are so some cyclic close-loop algorithms that run basing on the FLE “hardware”, which always constantly so move in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the standard speed of light, c, [bold means 4D vector] - that is determined by FLE parameters above, c= lP/tP;
- and, at that, particles so are some 4D “gyroscopes” that are always oriented along 4D velocities direction.
Lorentz transformations are intended, first of all for particles/bodies, etc., that have rest masses, which, so, if are at rest in absolute 3D space, move with the speed of light only along the cτ-axis, and have maximal 3D lengths, L. If a particle after some impact also moves with a speed V in the 3D space, say, along X-axis, it rotates in (X, cτ) plane, and if particles compose a rigid body, they rotate the body as a whole so, that the body/s 3D space length projection is really lesser than its length at absolute rest in Lorentz factor, and the body really in this state interacts with other bodies..
However because of the extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, if some inertial frame is co-moving with the body, measured in this frame the body’s length again is equal to L, because of that meter etalon in the frame also is contracted in the Lorentz factor, while measured in this frame length of the body if it is at absolute rest is contracted. That really is, of course, only illusion, however these illusory results are, because of the relativity principle, physically adequate to the reality.
In the SR it is postulated that absolute Matter’s spacetime doesn’t exist and that all frames are absolutely equally equivalent and legitimate, what is, of course, fundamentally wrong, but because of the principle action the frames are really in most practical cases equivalent, for everyday physics that isn’t essential, and the SR is well applicable;
- however the absurdity of the SR absolute equivalence above makes the SR be fundamentally non-applicable in really fundamental cases. More in this case see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics.
It is useful also to read SS posts at east pages 4, 5, 6 and links in the posts.
Cheers
Some explanation on 'relativistic contraction'.
The special relativity gives the satisfactory explanation of all null results of the experiments to detect the ether drift. All these experiments were made in the labs, i.e. in the frame linked with the Earth. It is no difference if the Earth moves through the ether or not, the speed of light is the same in all frames and in the frame of the Earth. Therefore the SR predicts the null results.
The problem appears when we, following Michelson, consider a case 'Suppose now, the ether being at rest, that the whole apparatus moves in the direction sc, with the velocity of the earth in its orbit, the directions and distances traversed by the rays will be altered thus' (from his paper).
Thus, Michelson assumes that some observer is being in this frame where the apparatus moves. The worth of Michelson's consideration is that he compares the detected result (no fringe shift) and what we would have if we were able to be in the frame of the ether.
The SR explains the null result in this frame - one rod contracts because the space contracts.
But if so, any observer being in this 'ether frame' then will finds that all bodies at rest must be contracted.
If the whole space contracts, then all bodies in this space must contract. It is impossible.
Therefore the SR cannot explain all aspects of the MM experiments.
So a worth of the analysis of the 'relativistic contraction' is that maybe other statements of this theory - that it explains all experiments - can be reconsidered
Dear Vladimir Onoochin
You:
Me: In 1887, the MM experiment was done, which gave a so-called NULL result. As a result of this, SR was created.
It is not LOGICAL to say that SR predicts null results! SR IS a result of null results!
The rest of what you write seems logical: there is a lot that is illogical in SR!
My main idea to explain the null result in the MM experiment and that SR is fundamentally flawed is the following, see my book:
Light - the absolute reference in the universe
Relativistic contraction, or Lorentz contraction, is a phenomenon described in Einstein's special relativity theory. It occurs when an object in motion at speeds near the speed of light appears shorter to an observer. This contraction results from the interplay of time dilation and space distortion. As an object accelerates, its observed length decreases for an observer in relative motion. The significance lies in the profound changes to space-time relationships at high speeds, challenging classical concepts of absolute space and time and introducing a dynamic, interconnected spacetime framework.
Relativistic contraction, or Lorentz contraction, is a phenomenon described in Einstein's special relativity theory. It occurs when an object in motion at speeds near the speed of light appears shorter to an observer. This contraction results from the interplay of time dilation and space distortion. As an object accelerates, its observed length decreases for an observer in relative motion. The significance lies in the profound changes to space-time relationships at high speeds, challenging classical concepts of absolute space and time and introducing a dynamic, interconnected spacetime framework.
Relativistic contraction, or Lorentz contraction, is a phenomenon described in Einstein's special relativity theory. It occurs when an object in motion at speeds near the speed of light appears shorter to an observer. This contraction results from the interplay of time dilation and space distortion. As an object accelerates, its observed length decreases for an observer in relative motion. The significance lies in the profound changes to space-time relationships at high speeds, challenging classical concepts of absolute space and time and introducing a dynamic, interconnected spacetime framework.,
The rigorous scientific physical meaning of what is the relativistic contraction is written in the SS posts in the thread, including in the post on this page 3 days ago now.
Dear Valentine Nyirahafashimana
“…Relativistic contraction, or Lorentz contraction, is a phenomenon described in Einstein's special relativity theory.
- “Relativistic contraction” really is a phenomenon described in Minkowski special relativity theory, which is standard theory in mainstream physics, while that
….It occurs when an object in motion at speeds near the speed of light appears shorter to an observer. This contraction results from the interplay of time dilation and space distortion. …..”
- is indeed so, despite that any “interplay of time dilation and space distortion” fundamentally isn’t impossible – Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, and fundamentally nothing can happen either space or time when anything in Matter happens;
and so this “interplay” is nothing else than a Minkowski illusion. That is another thing, that though in 1905 version of the SR there were no any “interplay of time dilation and space distortion”, however further Einstein believed that that really exists; and till now most of mainstream physicists frankly believe in this illusion truth.
And, besides, below your post there are labels “inverse ^”. If you click on the label, the menu of options appear “Edit” and “Delete”; so would you be like to click on the labels option “Delete” of two your posts clones?
Cheers
Valentine Nyirahafashimana ,
If you know how the special relativity explains the null result which must be detected in the inertial frame where the interferometer moves at a velocity v, please clarify one point.
1. In this frame (Fig. 1b of my file or calculations on p. 336 of original Michelson-Morley paper)the observer being at rest can calculate the optical paths of the beams in the transverse and longitudinal directions. This observer obtains that the paths have different lengths. (the observer does not measure the lengths of the arms of the device)
2. The observer makes a conclusion that the travel times of the beams must have different duration.
3. According to the SR, the observer must detect - she/he is able to detect the event - that the travel times must be the same (no fringe shift). It is possible only if one arm of the device contracts.
How - according to the SR - does this contraction occur?
What expressions describe this contraction?
Vladimir Onoochin
That is incorrect. According to SR the travel times are the same because the velocity is always "c", not because the device contracts. The device is at rest in the experimenter's (observer) frame, so it does not contract.
However, according to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, there must be an actual contraction in the observer frame. But the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis has nothing to do with SR.
Justo Pastor Lambare ,
Can you read my previous post more carefully?
>
Then the observer calculates
T_transv = (L_transv/c) =/= (L_long/c) = T_long
But if two postulates of the SR are absolutely fulfilled, this observer must detect
T_transv = T_long
To meet the calculated data and the observed data, the SR states that the longitudinal arm must contract.
I repeat my questions:
How - according to the SR - does this contraction occur?
What expressions describe this contraction?
Vladimir Onoochin
I think I understand better your point by now. My fault, I did not pay sufficient attention.
Your question makes sense, however, it is subject to interpretations that can easily lead to endless discussions.
After the SS post 4 days ago now, where again in the thread the “physical meaning of the relativistic contraction” was rigorously scientifically clarified, again a rather strange posts appeared in the thread, say,
“…
- that is in accordance with the Galileo-Poincaré really extremely mighty relativity principle, while the SR is based on this principle essentially. That is another thing, that in the SR the principle is absolutized up to absurdity, i.e. that in the SR it is postulated that from the principle the really fantastic “relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc. follow,
- technically in the SR that is made by illusory Minkowski postulate that letters x,y,z,trelate to all/every points with coordinates (t,x,y,z) in whole Matter’s spacetime.
What is fundamentally wrong, Matter’s space/time/spacetime is absolute, and nothing happens with the spacetime when any/everything happens in Matter, including if some “inertial reference frame” moves in the 3D space. Really in Lorentz transformations the letters x,y,z,t relate only to points in the spacetime that are occupied at a given time moment by some rigid body, including rigid system of bodies,
- so really correct “Lorentzian” inertial reference frame is rigid system of scaled rule and specifically – i.e. in accordance with Lorentz transformation – synchronized distant clocks. At least because Earth gravity really practically every used in physics at experiments reference frame is a rigid system.
While that
“…..That is incorrect. According to SR the travel times are the same because the velocity is always "c", not because the device contracts. The device is at rest in the experimenter's (observer) frame, so it does not contract….”
- is so incorrect. The M&M interferometer was a rigid system, and so indeed, the same arm when was directed along ± the interferometer motion direction at the interferometer rotations , was “really” [the quotes in this case mean that – see the SS posts above – real objects/events/effects/processes parameters in Matter have real values only in an absolute frame] shorter than it was orthogonal the direction,
- however at measurements in the co-moving with interferometer M&M frame of the arm’s lengths in both cases, the lengths was the same, because the used scaled rules also were contracted in the same Lorentz factor when measure length along the motion.
Though that
“…However, according to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis, there must be an actual contraction in the observer frame. But the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis has nothing to do with SR.….”
- is correct, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis really appeared well earlier than the SR, and has no any relation to the SR mystic “space contraction”, just which – as that is postulated in the SR - for/by some mystic reason/way really contracts real moving bodies’ lengths.
More about scientific physical meaning of the relativistic contraction see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko,
The dominant theory that pretends to explain the results of all experiments to detect the ether drift is the special relativity. Therefore it would be good to understand if this theory does explain all results. Until now I don't see the satisfactory explanation what should be in hypothetical frame where the interferometer moves with V ~ c. 'Hypothetical' - because it is quite impossible to achieve such velocities. So what we can is to make some conclusions based on firmly proven facts.
A chain of conclusions yields that the contraction of one of the arms of the interferometer must be the real effect. Hence it must be a reason (physical factor) which gives this contraction.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin,
- you again write some things that are well clarified already in SS posts and links in the posts. So more see the posts and the links, here only a few brief comments to
“…The dominant theory that pretends to explain the results of all experiments to detect the ether drift is the special relativity…”
- M&M experiments results were explained by FitzGerald and Lorentz yet in late 1800s, and without any assumptions about some either “ether drift”, or “ether dragging”;
“….Therefore it would be good to understand if this theory does explain all results. Until now I don't see the satisfactory explanation what should be in hypothetical frame where the interferometer moves with V ~ c…..”
- again, application of the special relativity indeed really allows to describe and analyze most of experiments in physics adequately to the reality because of that really it is based on the extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, that this principle is absolutized in the SR up to absurd omnipotence isn’t essential in everyday physical practice, and that is true, including, quite independently on – with what V any inertial reference frame and any interferometer in the frame move.
However the “omnipotence”, etc., is fundamental impediment at physics development, when physics addresses to really fundamental things, what, happened yet in early 1930 and a bit later, a couple of evident examples are that in the SR fundamentally there are no antiparticles and “motion back in time”; what, because of that follows from experiments, are introduced in mainstream QFT as completely ad hoc fantastic postulates; more in this case see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
“…..A chain of conclusions yields that the contraction of one of the arms of the interferometer must be the real effect. Hence it must be a reason (physical factor) which gives this contraction…”
- again: first of all any physical problem should be, if that is possible, considered firstly in an absolute, i.e. that is at rest in the fundamentally erroneously rejected in the SR 3DXYZ absolute space of Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), frame, where all parameters of all material objects/effects/events/processes have real values.
Including if in an absolute frame some body moves inertialy with some speed V, its length, L, in the absolute 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) is the same as the 3DXYZ length when the body is at 3D rest, however, since moving body at acceleration up to V rotates in the 4D space above, it really interacts/is observed in 3D space being contracted in Lorentz factor;
- while if this body is at absolute rest, its measured in moving frame length is also contracted in Lorentz factor. What is, of course, fundamentally unreal, but because of the relativity principle action only using the measurements results the observer in a moving frame, who, again because of the relativity principle doesn’t know with what speed his frame moves in absolute 3D space, the observer can adequately to the reality really analyze what he observe in his frame – what, again, happens at using by physicists the SR on Earth.
Why and how that happens? – again, the answers to this question, and to any other really fundamental questions else, can be, and in a lot of cases, are, given only in the SS&VT Planck scale physical model; besides the link above, and more concretely relating to the thread question, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,
You write
>
These things are not clarified.
1. In 1980th two concepts of the ether existed, the immobile ether of Lorentz and the ether which follow after moving bodies (Hertz and others). Michelson intended to determine what theory is right. He could not detect that the speed of light in the frame of the earth does not depend on the velocity of our planet (no the ether drift). So it seems like the second theory is right. But theory of Hertz couldn't explain some experimental fact.
2. The hypothesis of contraction saved the concept of the immobile ether - but it is only the hypothesis.
This hypothesis needs in the physical background. If you know such a background for this hypothesis, please, explain this.
Dear Vladimir Onoochin,
- again, the thread question is completely clearly answered in SS posts above, but you, instead to read the posts and links in the posts, again write really questionable things, including that
“…2. The hypothesis of contraction saved the concept of the immobile ether - but it is only the hypothesis.
This hypothesis needs in the physical background. If you know such a background for this hypothesis, please, explain this.…..”
- the FitzGerald –Lorentz hypothesis, which explained the M&M experiments results in fixed ether, was a hypothesis in late 1800s, and was integrated as a part of fundamentally ad hoc Lorentz-1904 ether theory, further of the fundamentally ad hoc 1905 and 1908 versions of the SR;
- and , again, - the M&M results really rigorously scientifically explained only in the SS&VT Planck scale physical model, again – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics . So, if you instead to read SS posts and SS&VT papers, and to attempt to understand what is written [to read S a couple of reDzennn comments in https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html it is useful as well], again will post something outside the model, that will be again some superfluous posts
Cheers
Vladimir Onoochin
Your question makes sense and is a rational one.
I will give you an answer. The length of a moving ruler depends on the concept of distant simultaneity. Since the simultaneity of distant events lacks objective meaning, we can consider, that, in a sense, the contraction of a moving object is not an objective fact.
For instance, in your calculation, you never have to "simultaneously" determine the positions of the ends of the arm that suffers the contraction.
Neither the result depends on both ends being simultaneously in their respective positions.
Nonetheless, all this is subject to interpretation and I do not know if there can be another rational answer.
Justo Pastor Lambare ,
In arrangement of the experiment by Michelson, any measurements of lengths of the interferomenter parts are absent. Even the lengths of the beams paths are not measured - these lengths are compared.
So any appealing of the SR to impossibility to measure the lengths of the rods don't work.
Vladimir Onoochin
I warned of this before. It is subject to interpretation.
What is real? Is something you don't actually measure real? , etc.,etc.
I just tried to give an answer that thought could clarify a little, but I failed.
Good luck, and tell us when you think you found a satisfactory answer.
Justo Pastor Lambare
All measurement of simultaneity are too abstract since they can never be made . So they are from area of scholasticism.
But the Michelson-Morley experiments and many of its modifications are real. The equivalence of traveling times of the light beams is the detected result. The special relativity can explain the equivalence of the traveling times in the Earth's frame by stating that the speed of light is the same in all frames, i.e. by appealing to postulate.
But the SR cannot explain the equivalence of the traveling times in the frame where the apparatus moves - since this theory cannot define what is the contraction of the lengths of moving bodies.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Nanotechnology
- Nanostructures
- Thin Films