On the constancy of the speed of light. Analysis of Einstein's postulates
Let's ask ourselves a simple, at first glance, question: "with respect to what is the speed of light constant in the special theory of relativity (SRT)?". Many of those to whom I asked this question shrugged their shoulders in surprise, but, after thinking, they said somewhat hesitantly: “regarding emptiness.” However, in practice, the speed of movement of one material object (including a particle or a light wave) can be determined relative to reference systems, associated with some other material object, and not "relative to emptiness", since emptiness itself, if it can really exist in nature, is not matter and is not characterized by any physical constants. The same opinion regarding emptiness is shared by A. Einstein: “... in the special theory of relativity, a region of space without matter and without electric field appears to be completely empty, i.e. it cannot be characterized by any physical quantities ... ".
In emptiness there are no material objects with which the frame of reference can be connected. Determine the speed of light relative to this "areas of space without matter and without an electric field" impossible due to the impossibility of creating a frame of reference "attached" to space. Then, after all, relative to what is it constant?
Let's try to understand this issue in more detail and listen to what A. Einstein himself says on this topic: “... Examples of this kind(we were talking about the interaction of a magnet and a conductor with a current in a state of relative motion. Note by the author) , as well as failed attempts to detect the motion of the earth relative to the "light-bearing medium", lead to the assumption that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of phenomena correspond to the concept absolute rest (highlighted by the author) and even, moreover, to the assumption that for all coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are valid, as has already been proven for first-order quantities. We intend to turn this assumption (the content of which will be called the "principle of relativity" in what follows) into a premise and make, in addition, an additional assumption, which is only in apparent contradiction with the first one, namely, that light in vacuum always propagates with a certain speed V(in modern designation - S. Note of the author), motion state independent radiating body».
Speaking here about the discrepancy between the properties of physical phenomena and the state "absolute peace" A. Einstein emphasizes one of the key points of his theory - the absence of a luminiferous medium ("ether") that fills space, is a carrier of light waves and a conductor of electromagnetic interaction, with which many scientists previously associated the concept of "absolute rest". A. Einstein rightly believes that any rest is relative, that is, any frame of reference can rest only relative to some other frame of reference.
In this regard, it is necessary to make a small digression. Physicists have not yet been able to reliably detect either the luminiferous medium itself or the motion of the Earth relative to this medium. The results of some well-known experiments to detect the motion of the Earth relative to the "ether" need to be confirmed by other independent experiments. Nevertheless, even if the facts of confirmation will take place, then what grounds will we have for asserting that it is precisely with the “ether” that the frame of reference, fixed relative to space, can be connected? As we have already said, in empty space there cannot be a frame of reference "attached" to space, so the rest of the "ether" can only be established relative to a frame of reference associated with some other material object, but not with space. Reliable detection of the luminiferous medium is likely to allow scientists to understand the nature of the world around, but will not allow using this medium as a frame of reference, which is at rest relative to space, that is, in a state "absolute peace".
So, according to the "admission" of A. Einstein, " light in the void always travels at a certain speed" C. This speed is independent "from the state of motion of the radiating body." But, nevertheless, relative to what can this speed C be determined (measured)? A. Einstein answers this question in §2: “Further considerations are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of constancy of the speed of light. We formulate both principles as follows.
1. The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not depend on which of the two coordinate systems moving uniformly and rectilinearly these changes of state refer to.
2. Each ray of light moves in a “resting” coordinate system with a certain speedV, regardless of whether this ray of light is emitted by a body at rest or a moving body".
It is clear that since being in a state of uniform rectilinear relative motion "in the void" coordinate systems are completely equal, then any of them can be considered "at rest", then the other will be "moving". Accordingly, if we or someone else chooses the first system as "resting", then the speed of light relative to it should have the value C. If we (or someone else) assigns the second system "resting", then the speed relative to it light should also have a value of C.
In other words, the speed of light "in the void" according to Einstein's formulation of the "principle of constancy of the speed of light" should always have the value C relative to ANY coordinate system moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to any other coordinate system.
In his work, A. Einstein gives a somewhat more precise formulation of his "principle of constancy of the speed of light": “... it can be considered established that light, as it follows from the Maxwell-Lorentz equations, propagates in vacuum with a speed C, at least in a certain inertial coordinate system K. In accordance with the special principle of relativity we should consider (highlighted by the author) that this principle is also true in any other inertial frame.
It seems that the link to Maxwell-Lorentz Equations", given in the last quote, is not entirely correct, since J.K. Maxwell and G.A. Lorentz associated this coordinate system with the luminiferous "ether" that fills the surrounding space. According to them, light does not propagate in the void at a speed C ", but just the opposite - in a material environment characterized by certain physical constants. In this case, the speed of light can be constant and equal to C only with respect to the coordinate system "associated" with this material medium.
In his work, A. Einstein gives a simplified formulation of his "principle of constancy of the speed of light": "The speed of light in empty space is always constant, regardless of the movement of the light source or receiver".
As can be seen from these formulations, the measured value of the speed of light in empty space according to A. Einstein is always equal to C, even if these measurements are carried out not only relative to "radiating body", but also relatively "light receiver" which is a clear paradox from the point of view of classical physics. Why a paradox? First of all, due to our understanding of the fact that, in the general case, the movement of the light receiver and the movement of light are not interconnected by any cause-and-effect relationship, and are not limited in any way in " completely empty" area of space speed "receiver of light" in principle it can have any arbitrary value with respect to moving light waves. If the light and the receiver are moving independently of each other, then how does the value of the speed of light turn out to be always equal to C with respect to "receiver of light"? Contrary to practice and logic according to A. Einstein "we must count" the movement of light by such a movement, the speed of which is constant and equal to C relative to any object (and the coordinate system associated with it), moving uniformly in any direction with an arbitrary speed relative to other objects in " completely empty" areas of space. This relative motion of light and receiver, if it can exist, is fundamentally different from ordinary independent motion, which is any relative motion of unrelated material objects.
Rightly rejecting the existence of absolute rest in nature, but at the same time rejecting the very hypotheses of the existence of a luminiferous medium - "ether", A. Einstein postulates the existence in nature of a completely new phenomenon for physics - absolute speed the movement of light, which has the same value when measured in any set of coordinate systems moving relative to each other "in the void". The advancement of such a postulate, in turn, must inevitably lead and indeed leads in SRT to the rejection of absolute time and absolute space unconditionally recognized by classical physics, the sizes of units of time and length in which are the same for all coordinate systems. Can this new absolute exist in principle in nature?
Let's consider the simplest example. Suppose that several material objects, together with coordinate systems and observers, move at different speeds regardless from each other in the same beam of light. Let the beam of light be in no way connected with moving objects and move by itself "in the void". Nonetheless "we must count" that the measured value of the speed of waves in a beam of light according to the "principle of constancy of the speed of light" will be equal to C for each of the observers located on these material objects. How can this match reality? To explain this "phenomenon" alone mathematical formulas, proposed by SRT and linking speed, space and time, is clearly not enough here. If these mathematical formulas are obtained as a result of an incorrect postulate, due to which an independent variable - the speed of light - is replaced in them by some hypothetical constant, then the phenomena predicted by the formulas cannot correspond to physical reality. If the postulate is true, then there must be some “mechanism” in nature that establishes causal relationships between independent movements and supports the new absolute. How can this "mechanism" work?
Option one - a beam of light "compares" its own speed with the speed of each of the observers and "adjusts" its speed to the speed of movement of each observer. In this version, the light beam under consideration must, at a minimum, have a system for “automatic” adjustment of the speed of light waves to the same constant value C relative to any object moving in the beam. In this case, the speed of movement of light waves should be different in different parts of the same light beam. Obviously, this option is inherently absurd for any physicist.
The second option, recognized by the majority of SRT followers (relativity physicists), is that the space and time in which objects move have the property of changing depending on the speed of these objects. The speed of objects moving relative to what? We have already said that in space there is not and cannot be a frame of reference "fastened" to this space, therefore, to determine the value of this speed relative to " completely empty" area of space, even a thinking being is not possible.
Then, perhaps, depending on the speed of movement of these objects relative to each other or relative to some auxiliary frame of reference, conventionally considered to be motionless? But how do inanimate space and time “compare” with each other the speeds of movement of these objects, spatially distant from each other? AT " completely empty" There is no information carrier in the region of space that separates moving objects, so it is fundamentally impossible to “compare” the speeds of movement of objects located at a distance from each other.
Maybe space and time “compare” the speed of movement of each of the objects with the speed of waves in a beam of light, and then “calculate” the speed of movement of these objects relative to each other? But A. Einstein postulated us the constancy of the speed of light C with respect to any moving objects - "light receivers". From this postulate, the converse statement inevitably follows - the constancy and equality C of the speed of movement of any objects relative to the waves of a common beam of light. Accordingly, since the objects move at the same speed C relative to the waves of the common beam of light, the result of the “calculations” by space and time of the speed of the movement of objects relative to each other should always be zero (!), No matter what relative speed these objects actually move - "light receivers". There is a contradiction in practice, since we can easily make sure that objects moving in a common beam of light overtake and overtake each other, that is, they move at different speeds. It can be stated that the second option in all its varieties is not at all better than the first and should also be absurd for any physicist.
In A. Einstein writes: “Indeed, if each ray of light in the void propagates at a speed C relative to the system K, then the light ether must be at rest everywhere relative to K. But if (highlighted by the author) the laws of propagation of light in the K' frame (moving relative to K) are the same as in the K' frame, then we must just as well assume that the ether is at rest in the K' frame. Since the assumption that the ether is at rest simultaneously in two systems is absurd, and since it would be no less absurd to give preference to one of two (or from an infinitely large number) physically equivalent systems, then we should abandon the introduction of the concept of ether, which has become only as a useless appendage to the theory, as soon as the mechanistic interpretation of light has been rejected.
Indeed, the recognition of a state of rest of some object relative to each of the two systems in a state of relative motion is certainly absurd. But is it less absurd to assume that the speed of some object (light) is constant relative to each of the two "(or from an infinite number of) physically equivalent" systems in the same state of relative motion? Why is one absolute better than another?
Simple logical analysis phenomenon, accepted as the main postulate in SRT, leads to the conclusion that in principle there cannot be a “mechanism” in nature that supports this new absolute. Special geometry, created at one time by G. Minkowski, “linked” speed, space and time together with the help of mathematical formulas, giving SRT only external elegance and self-sufficiency, but did not offer the main “mechanism” that establishes causal relationships between independent movements .
Thus, the independent motions of light and observers turn out to be causally "connected" in SRT only due to the introduced human mind"postulate of atu". Haven't we taken on too much, gentlemen, relativist physicists? In the name of the obligation of "fulfillment" by nature "special principle of relativity" we discarded all the experience accumulated by mankind and established a new absolute by a strong-willed decision, “linking” independent phenomena of nature with cause-and-effect relationships. And what do we really know about the actual "fulfillment" of nature "special principle of relativity" on other planets, stars and galaxies? Where did we get the confidence that this principle is carried out everywhere? And why are we so sure that it is it that is carried out on Earth?
The results of what physical experiments could "inspire" A. Einstein this , which required the advancement of the absolute speed of light? After all, it did not arise by itself. Let's try to find out about this from A. Einstein himself.
A paragraph from the very first article, written in 1905, has already been quoted above: “... Examples of this kind, as well as failed attempts to detect the movement of the earth relative to the “light-bearing medium”, lead to the assumption ...”. It is unlikely that anyone can doubt that here we are talking about the experiments of Michelson and Michelson-Morley, aimed at detecting the speed of the Earth's movement through the luminiferous "ether", because other unsuccessful attempts to detect the motion of the Earth relative to the "luminiferous medium" at that time still did not have. The same point of view is shared by one of the well-known specialists in the history of physics P. S. Kudryavtsev: “... In the entire article by Einstein there is not a single reference to literature. Einstein later claimed that he did not know about Michelson's experience, when I wrote my work. But if he has read Lorentz's 1895 paper, which proves the principle of first-order relativity, which he mentions here, then he could not know about Michelson's experience » (highlighted by the author).
1907: Since the advent of this theory(electrodynamics of moving bodies, developed by G. A. Lorentz. Author's note) it should have been expected that it would be possible to experimentally detect the influence of the Earth's motion relative to the ether on optical phenomena ... However, the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley showed that, at least in this case, there is also no second-order effect (proportional to v2 / C2 ), although according to the basics of the Lorentz theory , it should have manifested itself in experience ... Therefore, it seemed that the Lorentz theory should be abandoned, replacing it with a theory based on the principle of relativity, because such a theory would immediately allow foreseeing the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment ... What will look like the laws of nature, if all phenomena are studied in a frame of reference that is now in a new state of motion? In answer to this question, we will make the logically simplest and prompted experience of Michelson and Morley assumption: the laws of nature do not depend on the state of motion of the frame of reference, at least if it is not accelerated "(Highlighted by the author).
We note for ourselves that, just two years after the publication of the first article, A. Einstein for the first time stated that "special principle of relativity" on the ground « prompted the experience of Michelson and Morley".
1910: “In the equations obtained above, it is not difficult to recognize the hypotheses of Lorentz and Fitzgerald. This hypothesis a seemed strange to us, and it was necessary to introduce it in order to be able to explain the negative result of the Michelson and Morley experiment. Here this hypothesis a appears as a natural consequence of the principles we have adopted..
1915: “The successes of Lorentz's theory were so great that physicists would not hesitate to abandon the principle of relativity, if not for one important experimental result, which we must now talk about, namely, the result of Michelson's experiment. Yet most of these negative results did not say anything against Lorentz's theory. G. A. Lorenz in the highest degree ingenious theoretical study showed that the relative motion in the first approximation does not affect the path of rays in any optical experiments. Only one optical experiment remained, in which the method was so sensitive that the negative outcome of the experiment remained incomprehensible even from the point of view of G. A. Lorentz's theoretical analysis. It was Michelson's experiment already mentioned…”.
1922 “All experiments show that the translational motion of the Earth does not affect the electromagnetic and optical phenomena in relation to the Earth as a reference body. The most important of these experiments are those of Michelson and Morley, which I assume to be well known. Thus, the validity of the special principle of relativity can hardly be in doubt..
Other examples could be cited, but perhaps it will suffice. So, " negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment" was the basis both for the rejection of the luminiferous medium - "ether", and for the nomination by A. Einstein " the special principle of relativity" and "the principle of the constancy of the speed of light." Probably A. Einstein himself intuitively still doubted the inviolability of this foundation, since later, as mentioned above, he began to deny the connection between the appearance "principle of constancy of the speed of light" With " negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment".
Intuition did not fail A. Einstein in this case. Negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment "on the experimental detection of the motion of the Earth relative to the ether" was quite predictable precisely from the standpoint of the existence of the luminiferous "ether" in the space surrounding us. In the Michelson-Morley experiment light waves propagate in two mutually perpendicular directions with the same speed C relative to the "ether", but in the process of measurements, one of the interferometer arms alternately moves along the light waves, and the second - perpendicular to them. The movement of the interferometer arm along the light waves leads not only to a change in the time interval for the passage of a light beam along the “there” and “back” arm, but also to changes in the frequency of light oscillations on the mirrors located in this arm of the interferometer. These changes in the oscillation frequency are clearly illustrated flash-model.
The experimenters who conducted the experiment considered the frequency of light oscillations on the mirrors of the Michelson interferometer to be constant, believing that they were dealing with a measuring transformation "the speed of the Earth's motion relative to the" ether "- the difference in time intervals." In reality, in the experiment, a measuring transformation was carried out "the speed of the Earth's motion relative to the" ether "- the phase difference" of light oscillations summed up on the "screen" of the interferometer. The phase shift of the light wave over the length of the interferometer arm is the product of the time interval for the passage of the light wave along the interferometer arm by the oscillation frequency measured on the interferometer mirror that perceives light waves. If in this product one of the factors, for example, the time interval, increases by some amount, then the other, the oscillation frequency, decreases by the same amount. The product itself - the phase incursion - remains constant and does not depend on the speed of the Earth's movement relative to the "ether".
Thus, with a delay of 100 years, it should be recognized that, contrary to the statements of A. Einstein, the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment could not be used as an experimental basis for the nomination of " the special principle of relativity" and "the principle of constancy of the speed of light". Both "principle" were put forward just on the basis of another unsuccessful attempt to explain the zero result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which actually testifies to the insensitivity of the Michelson interferometer to the speed of its movement relative to light waves.
However, according to modern "official" physics, the consequences of these "principles", are widely used in theory and are confirmed by numerous real practical results. The situation turns out to be strange. If the underlying SRT "principle of constancy of the speed of light" fundamentally cannot exist in nature and is put forward only on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, then how can the consequences of SRT be carried out? Maybe these are the consequences of some other reasons, erroneously attributed to SRT? Let's separately analyze the reality of physical phenomena predicted by SRT and their correspondence to those phenomena that are observed in practice.
First - a quote from the work of A. Einstein: “Imagine a clock capable of showing the time of the frame of referencek and are at rest relative tok. It can be shown that the same clock moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to the reference framek, from the point of view of the systemk will go slower: if the clock is increased by one, then the system clockk will show that time has passed in this system
Thus, a moving clock runs slower than a similar clock at rest with respect to the system.k. At the same time, it is necessary to imagine that the speed of a clock in a moving state is determined by constantly comparing the hands of this clock with the position of the hands of those at rest relative to the system.k clocks that measure the time of the systemk and past which the moving clock under consideration passes.
How achieve such a "slowdown" of the moving clock " from point of view" resting frame of reference A. Einstein clearly demonstrated in , mentally carrying out incorrect methodically synchronization of clocks located in coordinate systems in a state of relative motion. With this “synchronization”, obviously unequal time intervals of the movement of light signals from a stationary coordinate system to a moving one and back A. Einstein proposed to measure the same and synchronously running clocks located in these coordinate systems, but he attributed the measurement results of these unequal time intervals to the unequal clock rates, replacing cause and effect, which led to the "appearance" of the relativistic "slowdown" of time. This is described in more detail in the author's article "On the methodological error of the method of synchronizing clocks with light signals proposed by A. Einstein", where instead of Einstein's "synchronization", another method of synchronizing the same clocks with the same light signals is proposed, which ensures the sameness (within the limits of the irregularity of the clock) time intervals measured by clocks for the movement of light signals and excluding any grounds for the existence of a relativistic “slowdown” of time.
It is appropriate to quote here the fair statement of L. Brillouin regarding Einstein's "synchronization" of clocks: "This rule is(Einstein's "method" of synchronization. Note by the author) is arbitrary and even metaphysical. It cannot be proven or disproven experimentally…”. Unlike Einstein's "synchronization" of clocks, the synchronization proposed by the author in the article "On the methodological error of the method of synchronizing clocks with light signals proposed by A. Einstein", is physically realizable and can be used to experimentally prove the absoluteness of time and refute the "fact" of existence in nature relativistic "slowing down" of time. In this regard, it should be stated quite definitely: there is no real time dilation for the observed material objects due to their uniform motion. "in the void" with respect to observer subjects, cannot occur. There is no reason for this, other than the incorrect clock synchronization technique mentioned above.
So, the incorrect method of clock synchronization led to an incorrect conclusion about the existence of a relativistic "slowdown" of time. In turn, the non-existent relativistic "slowdown" of time gave rise to a non-existent relativistic "reduction" of length. In particular, A. Einstein remarks on this subject: "This result(the presence of a relativistic "reduction" of the length. Note by the author) turns out to be not so strange, given that this statement about the size of a moving body has a very complex meaning, since, in accordance with the previous body dimensions can only be determined by measuring time». Selected by the author) .
Of particular interest is A. Einstein's statements about the physical meaning of the relativistic "slowing down" of time and "reduction" of length:
– « Summarizing , we can conclude that any process in some physical system slows down if this system is set in translational motion. However, this slowdown occurs only from the point of view of the non-comoving coordinate system.;
– “The question of whether the Lorentz contraction is real or not does not make sense a. The contraction is not real because it does not exist for an observer moving with the body; however, it is real, since it can be proven in principle physical means for an observer not moving with the body.
That is, relativistic "slowing down" of time and "reduction" of length, according to A. Einstein, are absent for an observer moving with a body and simultaneously take place for an observer not moving with the same body. Here it is the main and inevitable consequence of relativism - solipsism 1 ! Not the object of observation itself - a moving material body, the parameters of which we observe, is a reality, but "reality" is only the "representations" of each of the subjects - observers about this body. Accordingly, according to A. Einstein - how many observers, so many "realities".
1. Solipsism is a subjective-idealistic theory, according to which only a person and his consciousness exist, and the objective world exists only in the consciousness of an individual.
In vain, however, A. Einstein identified the Lorentz contraction with the relativistic "contraction" of length. The Lorentz contraction and the relativistic "reduction" of length, although written by the same formula, have completely different meanings. Lorentz length contraction was proposed as a hypothesis to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This hypothesis, despite its "extraordinary nature" (in the words of G. A. Lorentz), was based on unknown, but quite probable physical reasons for the interaction of a moving body with a stationary "ether". It was assumed that the Lorentz contraction is a real contraction of the length of any material bodies moving through the "ether", and not "result" observation, depending on the speed of the relative motion of these bodies and observers. The basis of the relativistic "reduction" of the length was the relativistic "deceleration" of time, which does not really exist. One can only add the following: neither the Lorentz contraction nor the relativistic "contraction" of the length is observed in practice. Both "abbreviations" have nothing to do with explaining the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Louis de Broglie spoke most precisely about the "reality" of the existence of relativistic "effects": « apparent (here and below highlighted by the author) size reduction is accompanied apparent slowing down the clock. Observers located, for example, in frame A, studying the course of clocks moving together with frame B, will find that they lag behind their own clocks, which are at rest in frame A. In other words, it can be argued that moving clocks run slower than stationary ones. As Einstein showed, this is also one of the consequences of the Lorentz transformation. So, apparent the shortening of the lengths and slowing down of the clock unambiguously follows from the new definitions of space and time, with which the Lorentz transformation is connected. And vice versa, postulating a reduction in size and a slowing down of the clock, one can obtain the formulas for the Lorentz transformation..
In our lives, we are confronted daily with apparent phenomena. Moving along the street, we see that the buildings in perspective are not rectangular boxes, which they really are. More closely spaced parts of the building seem to us higher and more voluminous. But we know from childhood that these are the laws of perspective and therefore we do not consider this phenomenon to be a reality. Experience has led us to this understanding. Reality for us is a strict uniformity of height opposite sides rectangular parallelepipeds - the walls of buildings, supported by the results of accurate measurements carried out during the construction of buildings. Imagine that there would be a "scientist" who would tell us that the height of the walls of the buildings in which we live depends on their distance from any observer - a pedestrian walking along the street. I think that we would not applaud this "scientist" for such a "discovery", even if he tried to assure us that his statement could be " fundamentally proven by physical means". Then why, for 100 years already, we have not considered the objects of observation themselves – material bodies that exist independently and independently of us – as reality, but replace them with the individual “ideas” of observers about these material bodies, allegedly depending on the speed of relative movement? Even if it really turned out that the measured value of any of the parameters of a material body depends on the speed of movement of some observers relative to this body, then why should each of these observers not introduce a correction into the measurement result, calculated according to the equation for the relationship of the measured parameter with the relative speed of movement , and at the same time obtain a valid value of the parameter of the observed material body that is common for all observers? This is exactly what metrologists usually do, introducing the necessary corrections into the measurement result, compensating for the influence of apparent phenomena that arose for one reason or another in the measurement process. This simple method allows them to correct the obtained measurement results and, with maximum accuracy, bring them into line with the only physical reality - the material body.
What then does the mass testify to? famous experiments, in which the non-existent really relativistic "slowdown" of time is "registered"? There can be only one answer. In reality, experimenters register not an apparent time dilation, but a real slowdown in the speed of physical processes occurring in material objects moving relative to us at high speeds comparable to the speed of light, or with high accelerations. The objective reason for a real increase in the duration of some observable physical processes, such as, for example, an increase in the “lifetime” of rapidly moving unstable particles, must be associated with changes internal structure of these particles arising as a result of changes in the intensity of their interaction with the "ether" when moving relative to it at a subluminal speed or high acceleration. The conclusion suggests itself that today we are deluded coincidence mathematical formulas obtained in SRT, with formulas that should describe objectively occurring processes, and another theory is required to explain the slowdown in the rate of physical processes.
Let's summarize. "Walking" on the rift of the 19th - 20th centuries, physics "swallowed" a beautiful bait in the form of " principle of relativity" and tightly caught on the "steel hook" of the absolute speed of light. Until now, it is generally recognized that SRT "brought" physics out of a deep crisis in a timely manner. Maybe she “brought it out”, but where did she “bring it” as a result? In the "swamp" of solipsism, "overgrown" to the top with apparent phenomena, from which there is no way out.
Einstein's principle of relativity and the Lorentz transformation
One of the most important physical constants is the speed of light in vacuum c, that is, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves in space free of matter. This speed does not depend on the frequency of electromagnetic waves, and its current value is c = 299,792,458 m/s.
In the vast majority of cases, this value can be taken equal to c = 3 108 m/s with sufficient accuracy - the error is less than 0.001.
And it is precisely “three hundred thousand kilometers per second” for the speed of light that most of us remember for our entire lives. Recall that 300,000 km is, in order of magnitude, the distance from the Earth to the Moon (more precisely, 380,000 km).
Thus, the radio signal from the Earth reaches the Moon in a little more than one second.
The assumption that light travels not with infinite, but with a finite speed, was expressed many centuries before people could prove it experimentally. This was first done in the 17th century, when astronomical observations of strange "irregularities" in the motion of Jupiter's moon Io could only be explained on the basis of the assumption of a finite speed of light (by the way, this first attempt to determine the speed of light gave an underestimate of ~ 214,300 km / s ).
Down to the end 19th century the speed of light was of interest to researchers, mainly from the point of view of understanding the nature electromagnetic radiation- It was not clear to physicists then whether electromagnetic waves can propagate in a vacuum, or whether they propagate in a special space-filling substance - ether. However, the result of the study of this problem was a discovery that turned all the ideas about space and time that existed until then. In 1881, as a result of the famous experiments of the American scientist Albert Michelson,
an amazing fact has been established the value of the speed of light does not depend on which frame of reference it is determined with respect to!
This experimental fact contradicts Galileo's law of addition of velocities, which we considered in the previous chapter and which seems obvious and is confirmed by our everyday observations. But light does not obey this seemingly natural rule of speed addition - relative to all observers, no matter how they move, light propagates at the same speed c = 299,793 km/s. And the fact that the propagation of light is the movement of an electromagnetic field, not particles,
consisting of atoms does not play a role here. When deriving the law of addition of velocities (9.2), the nature of the moving object did not matter.
And although it is impossible to find anything similar in the experience and knowledge we have accumulated earlier, nevertheless, we must recognize this experimental fact, remembering that it is experience that is the decisive criterion of truth. Recall that we encountered a similar situation at the very beginning of the course, when we discussed the properties of space. Then we noted that to imagine the curvature three-dimensional space it is impossible for us - three-dimensional beings. But we realized that the fact of the “presence or absence” of curvature can be established empirically: by measuring, for example, the sum of the angles of a triangle.
What changes need to be made to our understanding of the properties of space and time? And how, in the light of these facts, should we treat Galileo's transformations? Can they be changed so that they still do not contradict common sense when applied to the habitual movements of the bodies around us and at the same time do not contradict the fact that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference?
The fundamental solution to these issues belongs to Albert Einstein, who created at the beginning of the 20th century. special theory relativity (SRT), which connected the unusual nature of the propagation of light with the fundamental properties of space and time, which manifest themselves when moving at speeds comparable to the speed of light. In modern physical literature, it is more often called simply relativistic mechanics.
Subsequently, Einstein built the general theory of relativity (GR), which explores the connection between the properties of space and time and gravitational interactions.
The SRT is based on two postulates, which bear the name Einstein's principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light.
Einstein's principle of relativity is a generalization of Galileo's principle of relativity, discussed in the previous chapter, to all without exception (and not just mechanical) phenomena of nature. According to this principle, all laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Einstein's principle of relativity can be formulated as follows: all equations expressing the laws of nature are invariant with respect to transformations of coordinates and time from one inertial frame of reference to another. (Recall that the invariance
equations is called the invariance of their form when the coordinates and time of one reference system are replaced in them by the coordinates and time of another). It is clear that, in accordance with the Einstein principle of relativity, no experiments at all can establish whether “our” frame of reference is moving with constant speed or it is immovable, more precisely, there is no difference between these states. Galileo postulated this impossibility in principle only for mechanical experiments.
The principle of constancy (more precisely, invariance) of the speed of light states that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all inertial frames of reference. As we will soon see, it follows that c is the maximum of all possible physical speeds.
Both postulates are a reflection of experimental facts: the speed of light does not depend on the movement of the source or receiver; it also does not depend on the motion of the frame of reference in which experiments are carried out to measure it. In the principle of relativity, this is reflected in the recognition of the fact that not only mechanical, but also electromagnetic (light propagation) phenomena obey in all inertial frames of reference
the same laws.
From the statements formulated above follows the series important findings concerning the properties of space and time. First of all, new rules for the transition from one inertial frame of reference to another follow from them, within the framework of which the “obvious” Galilean transformations are only some special case, realized only when moving with velocities much less than c. To determine these new rules, consider light propagating from a point source located at the origin of a fixed reference frame K (Fig. 10.1 a).
The propagation of light can be represented as the propagation of a light front having the shape spherical surface in a frame of reference relative to which the light source is stationary. But according to Einstein's principle of relativity, the light front must also be spherical when it is observed in a reference frame that is in uniform and rectilinear motion relative to the source.
Rice. 10.1 Light propagating from a point source located at the origin of a fixed frame of reference A light front must also be spherical when it is observed in a frame of reference that is in uniform and rectilinear motion relative to the source.
From this condition, we will now determine what the rules for the transformation of coordinates and time should be when moving from one inertial frame to another.
If the light source is at the origin of the frame of reference K, then for the light emitted at the moment t = 0, the equation for a spherical light front has the form
x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = (ct) 2 (10.1)
This equation describes a spherical surface whose radius R = ct
increases with time at a rate of s.
Let us denote the coordinates and time measured by the observer in the moving reference frame K "by letters with strokes: x", y", z", t". time, the origin of coordinates of the K1 system coincides with the position of the light source in the K system. Let, for definiteness, the K system move in the + x direction with a constant speed V relative to the K system (Fig. 10.1 b).
As we have already said, according to Einstein's second postulate, for an observer in a "primed" frame, the light front must also be spherical, that is, the equation of the light front in a moving frame must have the form
x "2 + y" 2 + z "2 \u003d c 2 t" 2 (10.2)
moreover, the value of the speed of light c here is the same as in the reference frame K. Thus, the transformations of coordinates and time from one of our reference frames to another must have such a property that, for example, after replacing with the help of these transformations in (10.2) " primed" quantities to "not primed" we must again obtain the equation of a spherical front (10.1).
It is easy to see that the Galilean transformations (9.3) do not satisfy this requirement. Recall that these transformations relate coordinates and time in two different systems reference by the following ratios:
x" = x - Vt, y" = y, z" = z, t" = t. (10.3)
If we substitute (10.3) into (10.2), we get
x 2 - 2xVt + V 2 t 2 + y 2 + z 2 \u003d c 2 t 2, (10.4)
which, of course, does not agree with equation (10.1). What should be the new transformations? First, since all systems are equal, the transition from some system to any other must be described by the same formulas (with its own value V), and the double application of transformations with the replacement of +V at the second step by
V should take us back to original system. Only transformations that are linear in x and t can have this property. It is useless to test for this relationship like
x" \u003d x l / 2 t 1/2, x" \u003d sin x
or the like.
Secondly, for V/c -> 0 these transformations must go over into Galilean transformations, the validity of which for low velocities cannot be questioned.
It is clear from equation (10.4) that we cannot leave the transformation t" = t unchanged if we want to destroy the unwanted terms -2xVt + V 2 t 2 in this equation, because in order to destroy them, it is necessary to add something to t .
Let's try transforming the view first:
x" = x-Vt, y" = y, z"= z, t" = t + bx, (10.5)
where b is a constant whose value must be determined. Then equation (10.2) takes the form
x 2 - 2Vxt + V 2 t 2 + y 2 + z 2 \u003d c 2 t 2 + 2c 2 bxt + c 2 b 2 x 2. (10.6)
Note that the terms on the left and right sides of the equality containing the product xt cancel each other out if we take
b \u003d -V / c 2, or t "= t-Vx / c 2. (10.7)
With this value of b, equation (10.6) can be rewritten as follows:
x 2 (1 - V 2 / s 2) + y 2 + z 2 \u003d c 2 t 2 (l - V 2 / s 2) . (10.8)
This is closer to equation (10.1), but there is still an undesirable factor 1 - (V 2 /c 2), by which x 2 and t 2 are multiplied.
We can also eliminate this factor if we finally write down the transformation of coordinates and time in the following form:
These are the famous Lorentz transformations, named after the Dutch theoretical physicist Hendrik Lorentz, who in 1904 derived formulas (10.9) and thus prepared the transition to the theory of relativity.
It is easy to check that when (10.9) is substituted into equation (10.2), the Lorentz transformations, as it should be, transform this equation into the equation of a spherical surface (10.1) in a fixed coordinate system. It is also easy to verify that when
V/c -> 0 the Lorentz transformations go over into the Galilean transformations (9.2).
10.2. Consequences from the Lorentz transformations. Length contraction and time dilation
From the Lorentz transformations, a number of consequences that are unusual from the point of view of Newtonian mechanics follow.
Length of bodies in different reference systems. Consider a rod located along the x-axis and resting relative to the reference frame K "(Fig. 10.2). Its length in this system is equal to l 0 = x" 2 - x "1 where x" 1 and x "2 are not changing with time t "coordinates of the bar ends. Relative to the system K, the rod moves together with the primed system with a speed v. To determine its length in this system, it is necessary to note
Rice. 10.2 reference systems K, K ". Relative to the system K, the rod moves together with the primed system at a speed v
coordinates of the ends of the rod x 1 and x 2 at the same time t 1 = t 2 = t. The difference between these coordinates l \u003d x 2 - x 1 will give the length of the rod measured in the K system. To find the relationship between l 0 and l, one should take that of the Lorentz transformation formulas that contains x", x and t, that is, the first of the formulas (10.9) According to this formula,
where we get
or finally
Thus, the length of the rod l, measured in the frame relative to which it moves, is less than the "own" length l 0 measured in the frame relative to which the rod is at rest. The transverse dimensions of the rod in both systems are the same. So, for a stationary observer, the dimensions of moving bodies in the direction of their movement are reduced, and the more, the greater the speed of movement.
Duration of processes in different reference systems. Let at some point, which is motionless with respect to the moving system K", there occurs
some process lasting time At 0 = t" 2 - t" 1 . This may be the work of some device or mechanism, the oscillation of the pendulum of a clock, some change in the properties of the body, and so on. The beginning of the process corresponds in this system to the coordinate x "= a and time t" 1, to the end - the same coordinate x "2 \u003d x" 1 \u003d a and time t "2 Relative to the system K, the point at which the process occurs moves .According to formulas (10.9),
the beginning and end of the process in the system K correspond to the time points
where we get
Entering the notation t 2 - t 1 = At, we finally get:
In this formula, ∆t 0 is the duration of the process, measured by the clock in a moving frame of reference, where the body with which the process occurs is at rest. The interval At is measured by the clock of the system, relative to which the body is moving at a speed v. Otherwise, we can say that ∆t is determined by a clock that moves relative to the body with a speed v. As follows from (10.11), the time interval ∆t 0, measured by the clock, which is motionless relative to the body, turns out to be less than the time interval At, due to
measured by a clock moving relative to the body.
Note that for the relativistic factors (Lorentz factors) of a reference frame moving with a speed V and/or a particle moving with a speed v, the designations
G \u003d 1 / √ (1 - V 2 / s 2)
and correspondingly
γ \u003d 1 / √ (1 - v 2 / s 2).
If this does not lead to confusion, the notation γ is used for both quantities.
Considering the flow of the process from the system X, we can define ∆t as its duration, measured by a stationary clock, and ∆t 0 - as the duration, measured by a clock moving at a speed v. According to (10.11),
∆t0< ∆t
so it can be said that moving clocks run slower , than a resting clock (meaning, of course, that in everything except the speed of movement, the clocks are completely identical).
The time ∆t 0 counted by the clock moving together with the body is called the “own time” of this body. As seen from (10.11), own time always less than the time counted by the clock moving relative to the body.
The effect of time dilation is symmetrical with respect to both clocks under consideration: for both observers from different frames of reference, the clock of the observer moving relative to him will go slower. Time dilation is an objective consequence of the Lorentz transformations, which, in turn, are a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference. It is necessary to emphasize the fact that relativistic effects are by no means speculative. To date, SRT has been experimentally confirmed with very good accuracy. Of course, as V/c -> 0 formulas (10.10), (10.11) transform to the trivial
nonrelativistic limit. To observe nontrivial effects, it is necessary to study objects with V ~ s.
Phenomena observed in the study of elementary particles can serve as examples. One of the most visual experiences, confirming the relationship (10.11), is the observation in the composition of cosmic rays of one of the types of elementary particles called muons. These particles are unstable - they spontaneously decay into other elementary particles. Muon lifetime measured under conditions when they
motionless (or moving at low speed) is approximately 2 10 -6 s. It seemed
If, even moving almost at the speed of light, muons can travel from the moment of their birth to the moment of decay, only a path equal to approximately 3 10 8 m/s) (2 10 -6 s) = 600 m. in cosmic rays in the upper layers of the atmosphere at an altitude of 20-30 km, nevertheless, they manage to reach the earth's surface in large numbers. This is explained by the fact that 2 * 10 -6 s is the muon's own lifetime, that is, the time measured by the clock, which would "move along with
him." The time counted by the clock of an experimenter connected with the Earth's surface turns out to be much longer due to the fact that the speed of muons is close to the speed of light. Therefore, it is not surprising that the experimenter observes a muon range much greater than 600 m. It is interesting to consider this effect from the point of view of an observer "moving along with the muon." For it, the distance flying to the Earth's surface is reduced to 600 m in accordance with formula (10.10), so that the muon has time to
to fly it in 2 10 -6 s, i.e., in "its own lifetime".
The most impressive consequence of the Lorentz transformations is relativity of simultaneity of spaced events . If two events A and B occurred simultaneously at one point in space, then in any coordinate system t A =t B . Specific values, for example, t A and t "A may be different, but in each system the equality t" A \u003d t "B will remain valid. If, however, at t A \u003d t B it turns out that
x A ≠ x in, then in any other system, as it obviously follows from the Lorentz transformations, t A ≠t B .
Why did this circumstance go unnoticed before Einstein? Before Einstein, the notion of the existence of absolute space and absolute time was preserved explicitly or implicitly. But if there is no absolute frame of reference, there is no absolute simultaneity. Not only absolute space disappears, but also absolute time, which, according to Newton, flows "always the same, regardless of anything external." The SRT time depends on the frame of reference. Depends on the reference system and the time interval between two events, and the distance between two points. In the mechanics of Galileo-Newton, the coordinates of points depend on the reference system, but the distance between points A and B
(x A - x B) 2 + (y A - y c) 2 + (z A - z B) 2 \u003d l 2
does not depend on the system. In SRT mechanics, this quantity ceases to be an invariant. The interval between events becomes independent of the reference system, determined by the relation
s 2 AB \u003d c 2 (t A - t B) 2 - (x A - x B) 2 + (y A - y c) 2 + (z A - z B) 2.
Time becomes on a par with spatial coordinates, or, as G. Minkowski said, “space itself and time itself plunge into the river of oblivion, and only a kind of their union remains to live.” This is especially evident if, following Minkowski, one chooses not t, as such, but ict as the fourth coordinate. Then the interval will be written in symmetrical shape:
However, one should not perceive the four-dimensional space of Minkowski as a simple analogue of our three-dimensional world. Nevertheless, the fourth coordinate retains the most important difference from the other three - unidirectionality, which, in particular, determines
causal relationships. Traveling back in time, as it was, remains impossible.
In view of the fact that, according to Lorentz, in contrast to Galileo, time is transformed, in addition to coordinates, the law of addition of velocities noticeably changes. If in the frame K the body moves with a speed v, which has components along the coordinate axes v x v y v z and the frame K "moves with a speed V along the x axis, for the components of the body velocity in the frame K" we obtain
Taking into account the fact that
Although the y" and z" coordinates are equal to y and z, respectively, the velocity components
along these axes in different systems are different, since the rates of time flow differ.
It does not seem surprising that if v x is equal in absolute value to the speed of light - c, then this value will not change upon transition to any other reference system. After all, it is the invariance of the speed of light that is the criterion for the validity of the Lorentz transformations.
The principle of the invariance of the speed of light states that the propagation velocity of electromagnetic disturbances in vacuum has the same value in any inertial frame of reference. Naturally, this is also the case for electromagnetic waves in general and visible light rays in particular.
speed of light
No matter how fast we move relative to the light beam, the speed of light measured by us will be the same, which fundamentally contradicts the principles of classical mechanics. That is, there are two important statements at once:
- The speed of light is a finite quantity. It is approximately equal to 299,792,458 meters per second. The magnitude is huge and intuitively unimaginable.
- The speed of light does not depend on the choice of the inertial frame of reference in which it is measured.
The speed of light in matter is different from the speed of light in vacuum and has a different value in different media. Theoretical justification the finiteness of the speed of light was obtained in the works of Lorentz. However, it was not emphasized in any way. Poincaré was quite firmly aware of this, but did not see anything special in it. Einstein first drew attention to this most important physical principle and its many consequences. By the same time, the results of Michelson's experiments arrived, experimentally confirming the correctness of the thesis. Lorentz transformations are derived from the requirement that Maxwell's equations be invariant when passing from one inertial frame to another. They look like this:
Considering the square root in the denominator, we find that for v > c, its value ceases to be expressed as a real number. It doesn't have physical sense, which means v< c, причем случай v = c, также не реализуется из-за деления на ноль.
The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 is one of the classic experiments in physics. The double-beam interferometer invented by Michelson made it possible to directly measure the wavelength of light. The purpose of the experiment was to elucidate the dependence of the speed of light on the movement of our planet relative to a hypothetical medium called the ether. His goal was never achieved, since all measurements gave the same value for speed. Michelson's experiments were repeatedly criticized, but their results were easily reproducible and looked discouraging. They found their explanation in Einstein's special theory of relativity.
And the pood, as it was - it is, sixteen kilograms.
M. Tanich (from the song to the film "The Mysterious Monk")
The special theory of relativity (STR) is undoubtedly the most famous of the physical theories. The popularity of SRT is connected with the simplicity of its basic principles, the paradoxical nature of its conclusions that strikes the imagination, and its key position in the physics of the twentieth century. SRT brought Einstein unprecedented fame, and this fame became one of the reasons for the tireless attempts to revise the theory. Among professionals, disputes around SRT have ceased more than half a century ago. But even to this day, the editorial offices of physics journals are constantly besieged by amateurs who offer options for revising SRT. And, in particular, the second postulate, which asserts the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial frames of reference and its independence from the speed of the source (in other words, no matter in which direction from the observer and at whatever speed the observed object moves, the light beam sent from it would have the same speed, approximately equal to 300 thousand kilometers per second, no more and no less).
Critics of SRT, for example, argue that the speed of light is not at all constant, but varies for the observer depending on the speed of the source (ballistic hypothesis), and only the imperfection of the measuring technique does not allow proving this experimentally. The ballistic hypothesis goes back to Newton, who considered light as a stream of particles whose speed decreases in a refracting medium. This view was revived with the advent of the Planck-Einstein photon concept, which gave convincing clarity to the idea of adding the speed of light to the speed of the source, by analogy with the speed of a projectile emitted from a moving gun.
In our time, of course, such naive attempts to revise SRT cannot get into serious scientific publications, but they overwhelm the media and the Internet, which has a very sad effect on the state of mind of the mass reader, including schoolchildren and students.
Attacks on Einstein's theory - both at the beginning of the last century and now - are motivated by discrepancies in the assessment and interpretation of the results of experiments on measuring the speed of light, the first of which, by the way, was carried out back in 1851 by the outstanding French scientist Armand Hippolyte Louis Fizeau. In the middle of the last century, this prompted the then president of the USSR Academy of Sciences S. I. Vavilov to attend to the development of a project to demonstrate the independence of the speed of light from the speed of the source.
By that time, the postulate of the independence of the speed of light was directly confirmed only by astronomical observations. double stars. According to the idea of the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, if the speed of light depends on the speed of the source, the trajectories of motion of binary stars would have to be qualitatively different from the observed ones (consistent with celestial mechanics). However, this argument met with an objection related to taking into account the role of interstellar gas, which, as a refractive medium, was considered as a secondary source of light. Critics have argued that light emitted from a secondary source "loses memory" of the speed of the primary source as it propagates through the interstellar medium, because the source's photons are absorbed and then re-emitted by the medium again. Since the data on this medium are known only with very large assumptions (as well as the absolute values of the distances to the stars), this position made it possible to cast doubt on most of the astronomical evidence for the constancy of the speed of light.
S. I. Vavilov proposed to his doctoral student A. M. Bonch-Bruevich to design an installation in which a beam of fast excited atoms would become a light source. In the process of detailed study of the experimental plan, it turned out that there was no chance of a reliable result, since the technology of that time did not allow obtaining beams of the required speed and density. The experiment was not carried out.
Since then, various attempts to experimentally prove the second postulate of SRT have been made repeatedly. The authors of the relevant works came to the conclusion that the postulate was correct, which, however, did not stop the flow of critical speeches, in which either objections were raised against the ideas of experiments, or their accuracy was questioned. The latter was associated, as a rule, with the insignificance of the achievable speed of the radiation source compared to the speed of light.
However, today physics has a tool that allows you to return to the proposal of S. I. Vavilov. This is a synchrotron emitter, where a very bright light source is a bunch of electrons moving along a curved path at a speed that is practically indistinguishable from the speed of light. With. Under such conditions, it is easy to measure the speed of the emitted light in an impeccable laboratory vacuum. According to the logic of supporters of the ballistic hypothesis, this speed should be equal to twice the speed of light from a stationary source! To detect such an effect (if it exists) would not be difficult: it would be enough to simply measure the time it takes for a light pulse to travel through a measured segment in an evacuated space.
Of course, for professional physicists there is no doubt about the expected result. In this sense, experience is useless. However, a direct demonstration of the constancy of the speed of light is of great didactic value, limiting the ground for further speculation about the lack of proof of the foundations of the theory of relativity. Physics in its development constantly returned to the reproduction and refinement of fundamental experiments carried out with new technical capabilities. In this case, the goal is not to clarify the speed of light. We are talking about making up for a historical flaw in the experimental substantiation of the origins of SRT, which should facilitate the perception of this rather paradoxical theory. We can say that we are talking about a demonstration experiment for future physics textbooks.
Such an experiment was recently carried out by a group of Russian scientists at the Kurchatov Center for Synchrotron Radiation at the National Research Center of the Kiev Institute of Physics and Technology. In the experiments, a source of synchrotron radiation (SR) - an electron accumulator "Siberia-1" was used as a pulsed light source. The SR of electrons accelerated to relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light) has a wide spectrum from infrared and visible to X-ray. The radiation propagates in a narrow cone tangentially to the electron trajectory along the extraction channel and is output through a sapphire window into the atmosphere. There, the light is collected by a lens onto the photocathode of a fast photodetector. The beam of light on the path in vacuum could be blocked by a glass plate introduced by means of a magnetic drive. At the same time, according to the logic of the ballistic hypothesis, light, which previously supposedly had a double speed 2 With, after the window should have regained normal speed With.
The electron bunch had a length of about 30 cm. Passing by the lead window, it generated an SR pulse with a duration of about 1 ns in the channel. The bunch rotation frequency along the synchrotron ring was ~34.5 MHz, so that a periodic sequence of short pulses was observed at the output of the photodetector, which was recorded using a high-speed oscilloscope. The pulses were synchronized by a high-frequency electric field signal of the same frequency (34.5 MHz), which compensated for the electron energy losses in the SR. Comparing two oscillograms obtained with and without a glass window in the SR beam, it was possible to measure the lag of one sequence of pulses from the other, caused by a hypothetical decrease in speed. With a length of 540 cm of the section of the SR extraction channel from the window introduced into the beam to the exit into the atmosphere, the decrease in the speed of light from 2 With before With should have resulted in a time shift of 9 ns. No shift was observed experimentally with an accuracy of about 0.05 ns.
In addition to the experience, we also direct measurement the speed of light in the lead channel by dividing the length of the channel by the propagation time of the pulse, which resulted in a value only 0.5% below the tabular speed of light.
So, the results of the experiment were, of course, expected: the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the source, in full accordance with Einstein's second postulate. What was new was that for the first time it was confirmed by direct measurement of the speed of light from a relativistic source. This experiment is unlikely to stop attacks on SRT by those who are jealous of Einstein's fame, but it will significantly limit the field of new claims.
The details of the experiment are described in an article that will be published in one of the next issues of the Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk journal.
See also:
E. B. Alexandrov. , "Chemistry and Life", No. 3, 2012 (more about this experiment).
Show comments (98)
Collapse comments (98)
-
Note: I have already read this post. BEFORE your message. And it was not about the deviation of the speed of light, but about the deviation of the NEUTRINO speed from the speed of light. Can you catch the difference? ;)
By the way, if the assumption is confirmed and there is a way to exchange signals at a speed greater than light, the zero, "absolute" coordinate system will be clearly defined - in view of what has already been stated in my comment. True, the experiment with neutrinos is still doubtful for me. We are waiting for confirmations or denials from other laboratories!
Reply
I meant a note about tracking a geostationary satellite. I am more than calm about the superluminal neutrino. Firstly, the existence of the muon neutrino was predicted quite a long time ago, and secondly, the photon speed was measured first precisely because a person perceives them directly. The discovery of elementary particles with a speed significantly exceeding the speed of light is a matter of time. This is my private point of view. If only because the human toolkit has expanded quite decently.
Reply
For a satellite? Haven't read it... I'll have to look :)
As for the particles - we'll wait. It's funny if it turns out that we are just "Lorentzian fish" swimming in an ordinary multiverse pond with a specific speed of propagation of basic interactions. And therefore we are distorted depending on the speed according to the local Lorentz transformations, we measure by hours lagging behind them, and therefore we cannot find out either the speed relative to our own pond, or our own slowdown distortions (and what if all our watches and rulers are buggy with us ?). Yes, particles moving faster than the standard perturbations of our "reservoir" will help us calculate it. But for now... So far, everything is too vague and unsteady - and therefore the theory about the curvatures of space-time, the metric tensor, the multidimensional interval in the Minkowski space has no less grounds.Reply
So what is your attitude towards measuring the parameters of the motion of the Earth and the solar system? Or did the "gentlemen of kefir" measure with "buggy rulers"? Your point of view does not give you the right to state it with contempt for opponents. Just a few seconds ago, by geological standards, you would have been put on the rack for your views, first to force them to refuse, and then to the gallows, so that they would not change their minds. Science does not stand still, and the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, and Newton's laws have become just special cases. It is quite probable that Einstein's GR expects the same.
Reply
It depends on what ... You see - when it comes to energy media in space, whether it is familiar matter or measuring the frequency of certain radiations coming at different angles to the observer - then this is a measurement relative to them, and not relative to an absolute system . And with regards to her ... Then here - yes. In the theory of aether, we have a distortion of the rulers, a change in the speed of processes and a certain top speed propagation of signals, which together leads to the fact that a body moving relative to the ether not only does not feel its contraction, it also seems to it that EVEN A body at rest relative to the ether is reduced "according to Lorentz" in accordance with the same speed. In the theory of relativity, we initially believe that there is no absolute system at all, and all variations of the space-time parameters are only a consequence of invariance during transitions between inertial frames of reference. A deeper analysis of the two theories continues to reveal a complete analogy of the hardware of the two theories, which does not allow me personally to prefer either of them. Unless the theory of aether seems a little more beautiful, since it has completely material analogies (the same experiments in liquid helium), and therefore does not require additional assumptions about operations directly with space-time coordinates.
In principle, the separation of theories is, of course, possible. But while the data is extremely vague and unreliable - the experiment with "superluminal" neutrinos requires confirmation from other, independent laboratories, experiments on energy spectra will "creep" only at energies of the order of Planck's, to which even the LHC - like a vacuum cleaner to the LHC. No, gentlemen, both kefir people and relativists - forgive me, for now you are just one-figure interpreters of a single materiel for me. It is, of course, interesting. But I'm glad it's not my problem :)
Reply
So after all, in the theory of relativity, far from everything is relative to each other. For example, we cannot assume that we are moving towards a beam of light at light speed while it is standing still.
Reply
Why? Just this moment is considered completely and exhaustively (for the theory of relativity, of course): if you move EXACTLY at the speed of light, then your time stops, the speed of any processes in you for any external observer at a speed slightly less - absolute zero and you will NEVER, ANYTHING be able to determine. But if your speed is at least slightly different from the speed of light, then the oncoming flow is even infrared radiation for you - hard ultraviolet, or even worse, and it falls on you exactly at the speed of light according to the principle of relativistic addition of velocities.
Just in case: in the theory of ether, if you move exactly at the speed of light, your particles do not exchange any signals at all (they simply do not have time to get from one particle to another, since the signals propagate in the ether at a speed of "c", but the particles are already moving at speed "s"). Accordingly, the speed of any processes in you is zero, but this is only in the case of a homogeneous ether. In the presence of the characteristic Planck size of the ether discretization, you will not be able to get close to "c" at all: when the sizes of interparticle bonds in you are close to this scale, the nature of interactions will inevitably change, the spectra of atoms and molecules will "creep", which most likely will lead to their destruction and your death. But if you move away from the speed of light at least by trillionths of a percent, you will see exactly the same as in the theory of relativity: the most severe ultraviolet moving towards you at the same speed of light. Do not forget: you measure distances with curved rulers, measure time with lagging clocks and synchronize clocks, mark the rulers according to the same principle of light signal emission-return ... This is the sad truth.
Reply
Finally!
The only pity is that ignorant bawlers will still run in and yell that this whole experience is a complete swindle, does not prove anything, and, in general, Eienstein came up with his stupid theory only so that scientists could draw out of them, stupid inhabitants, more money, or not to give the nugget geniuses the glory they deserve for drawing a drawing of a superluminal starship drawn with a crooked pen. :)
Reply
Exactly. Such behavior is especially stupid, given that even in the "ether theory" the SRT formulas remain the same - the body sizes are distorted clearly "according to Einstein", depending on the speed, the intensity of any processes is similarly slowed down, and also exactly according to the deceleration formula time, and taking into account the fact that there is a limiting speed of signal propagation (in the theory of ether, the exchange principle of interaction is considered precisely with this speed, due to which both a reduction in length and a slowdown of processes are observed), the distance has to be measured by half the time the light beam travels "there -back". It is these three incidents: length distortion, change in the intensity of processes ("curved" rulers, lagging clocks) and forced way determination of distances "over the world" and leads to the fact that from within the ether it is not possible to determine the zero, absolute reference system, or to detect a change in the speed of light itself. The relativistic principle of adding velocities operates in this way, the effect of "mass increase" is observed (during jet acceleration, for example, a system with automatically slowing down processes can never exceed the speed of light - for an outside observer in an inertial system, this will look like an effect of increasing mass, and also in absolute accordance with the formulas from the theory of relativity).
Funny incident, indeed. There is an almost complete coincidence of the mathematical base of the two theories - however, supporters of one of them now and then arise against the evidence, they try to look for the same deviations in the speed of light. And this is even despite the fact that a number of effects from SRT have been clearly demonstrated for a long time using the example of a quantum liquid - liquid helium! Lord kefir people. Calm down and rejoice - a change in the speed of light cannot be detected even in your theory. And if the planet is not lucky enough to stumble upon an ethereal stream, then it will simply be torn to shreds, and relativists will describe the phenomenon, before they die with everyone, as a "break in the space-time metric in higher dimensions", and prove even at the hour of death who is right, everyone still fail.
Reply
In fact, the opponents of Einstein's GR also have a version that the light emitted by a moving source moves away from the source not with the speed of the source adding up, but with the speed subtracting. That is, if the radiation source moves at a speed of 150,000 km / s, then the light emitted by it will move away from it at about the same speed, and not twice as high, as the respected master pointed out. Just this circumstance explains the example with double stars, without denying the absolute constancy of the speed of light. The author of the article would do well to have less highly educated irony, since the truth only becomes the only true one when the failure of the others is proved. And with the refutation of this assumption, physicists have a complete collapse. Bye.
Reply
I wonder how the source knows that it is moving at a speed of 150,000 km / s? To "correctly" emit light?
Let's launch two glass satellites in advance, along the same line. One will move away at 150,000 km / s, and the second will turn around and approach at the same speed. How fast will light move away from us?Reply
I'm far from an expert on this subject. All my knowledge is drawn from popular science literature, so it's hard for me to judge who is more right. As for your question - "we", as I understand it, are in one of the glass satellites. Since the speed in the problem is close to the speed of light, it means that the time reference system is far from earthly, and therefore the perceived speed of surrounding objects does not fit into the earthly framework. It is also difficult to judge this, as if you try to observe from the side how fast light moves away from one satellite and how fast it approaches another. I think that the paradox of the flow of time did not allow Einstein to create a unified field theory.
Reply
No, we are on Earth, from where we launch satellites and shine on them.
As you wrote at the beginning,
> light emitted by a moving source moves away from the source not with the speed of the source adding up, but with the speed subtracting
For a satellite flying towards, our source should emit light from 300,000 - 150,000 = 150,000 km / s
For a receding, apparently, 450,000 km / s (the satellite itself flies 150,000, and our light should overtake it at a speed of 300,000 km / s)
This is the contradiction that arises with "subtraction", which is obvious to a non-specialist. It turns out that not the physicists collapse, but the opponents.Reply
Apparently, you inattentively read the key phrases about another time reference system.
About 25 years ago I was presented with a book by some foreign author about the theory of relativity and about the life of Einstein with comments by foreign experts. To my great chagrin, I do not remember the author, and the book has long been lost. It describes the words of Einstein, how he came to understand the theory of relativity. He often thought what light is, because it corresponds to both the corpuscular theory (photons, elementary particles) and the wave theory - (frequency electromagnetic oscillations, light refraction). One day he thought what would happen if he rushed after a beam of light at the same speed and looked at photons up close: what are they? And then he realized that this was not feasible, because the light would still move away from him at the same speed. The same book says that time in moving systems flows more slowly, inversely proportional to the speed of movement, remember the famous example with two twins, and when moving at light speed, the great master assumed (note: he assumed, not claimed) that time stops completely. Indeed, the photon seems to be an eternal thing, out of time, but it has a certain oscillation frequency in certain period time that is measurable. And now a little arithmetic: when moving at a speed of 150,000 km / s, time flows twice as slowly, so when you move at this speed, turn on the flashlight forward and a beam of light rushes from you at a speed of 150,000 km / s. But for you, a second is two seconds for an outsider, motionless observer, i.e. we get the desired 300,000 km / s. Turn it back on and a beam of light will fly away from you with the same - 150,000 km / sec - speed, since we minus your speed from the speed of light, and again we take into account the two-fold change in the flow of time, and "Oh miracle!" - again the same immutable 300,000 km / s. By the way, it is also clear to a non-specialist that 150,000 - 300,000 = -150,000. Such is the higher mathematics. And, as an ignorant bawler, I can add that this whole experience is just another attempt to measure the speed of light (and with a very large error), since the speed of removal of the photon beam from the electron beam has not been measured in any way. Yes, and the very speed of light cannot be measured, in nature there is no state of immobility: we move around the axis with the surface of the earth, the earth at this time - around the sun, it, in turn, around the center of the galaxy, which, according to the theory of the expanding universe, does not know where it scratches . So what is the speed of light? And about what?
Even the great Einstein (this is absolutely without any irony) doubted that time stops, why are we so self-confident?Reply
-
This is again from the above book. Since physicists cannot instrumentally measure the change in time at relativistic velocities, measurements are made by the red-violet shift of the spectrum. The general theory is divided into several special theories, i.e. into several special cases (Einstein failed to create a unified field theory). In special theory, the change in space-time is considered in several parameters: the presence of a strong gravitational field, the movement of reference systems relative to each other, the rotation of the gravitational field, the movement of the reference frame in the direction of rotation or against it. Modern physicists can operate with speeds tens of thousands of times less than the speed of light, and measurements are carried out according to indirect signs, however, they are confirmed in practice, in particular, in the GPS system. The most accurate atomic clocks are installed on all satellites and they are constantly adjusted in accordance with the theory of relativity. In the light of this theory, physicists have developed about 30 different theories, the calculations for which are numerically comparable with Einstein's theory. Several of them give more accurate measurements. Even Arthur Edington, without whose participation Einstein would not have taken place, in some places significantly corrected his friend. The theory I was talking about is that the speed of light is finite. But it may be slower. This is evidenced by the decrease in speed when passing through transparent media other than vacuum, and the decrease in speed when passing near strong sources of gravity. Yes, and the redshift itself is interpreted by some, not as a "Doppler effect", but as a decrease in the speed of light.
To not be unfounded, a quote:
The Hafele-Keating experiment is one of the tests of the theory of relativity that directly demonstrated the reality of the twin paradox. In October 1971, J.C. Hafele and Richard E. Keating took four sets of cesium atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners and flew around the world twice, first east, then west, after which they compared the “travelling” clocks with the clock remaining at the US Naval Observatory.According to the special theory of relativity, the speed of the clock is the highest for the observer for whom they are at rest. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, it runs slower, and this effect is proportional to the square of the speed. In a reference frame at rest relative to the center of the Earth, clocks on board an aircraft moving east (in the direction of the Earth's rotation) run slower than clocks that remain on the surface, and clocks on board an aircraft moving west (against the rotation of the Earth) , go faster.
According to general theory relativity, another effect comes into play: a small increase in the gravitational potential with increasing altitude again speeds up the clock. Since the planes were flying at approximately the same height in both directions, this effect has little effect on the difference between the two "traveling" clocks, but it does cause them to drift away from the ground clock.
Reply
What is it about? - "after which they compared the "traveling" watch with the watch that remained at the US Naval Observatory." Who compared? Who wrote the article? The one who flew the plane or the one who stayed on the ground? It's just that these comrades should have completely different results. If the comparison was made by the dude who remained at the base, then for him the clock at Kitting and Hafel should have been delayed. If, for example, Kitting compared, then the clock should have fallen behind already at the base (and Hafel too, even more). Well, in the opinion of Hafel, the clock was behind, on the contrary, at Kitting (and at the base, but less)).
Those:
- Havel writes in his observation diary "Kitting's clock is behind."
- Kitting will write in his diary "Hafel's watch is behind."
- Kitting will look in Hafel's diary and see "Kitting's clock has gone ahead".Those. since then, the dude at the base, Keating and Hafele, will NEVER be able to get ONE result because there are THREE of them! According to the number, respectively, of observers-experimenters. And for every observer his peers will confirm him personal result which is different from others.
Well, I, as a reader of the article, get the fourth result, already relative to me. Accordingly, if Kitting and Hafel moved relative to ME, the reader of the article, then their clocks fell behind. And, accordingly, I will read about it in the article. In that article that only I and almost everyone else on Earth will see...
But personally, neither Kitting nor Hafel will ever know that they wrote it and what the inhabitants of the earth will see - they, personally, had completely different results ... And about 20 people around the world will be able to see the publication of these results. Of those that were on board with them...
Here is a g ... it turns out according to your favorite theory. And how can you believe in this bullshit? No wonder Einstein showed his tongue to you ...
Reply
And anyway, why fly? Tickets for a business trip report can be requested from arriving passengers near the baggage claim area.
I understand that you wanted to orient people to look for errors in reasoning. But these days, the public will just go along with "Einstein is a fool" and won't dig. It was necessary to make at least a hint about the non-inertiality of all three frames of reference ...
Reply
> It was necessary to make at least a hint about the non-inertiality of all three frames of reference...
And why should this "non-inertiality" somehow influence the results of this logical calculation of mine, what do you think? After all, the measurements of the authors of the experiment were carried out precisely with "purely" non-inertial frames of reference (there-ships departing-arriving aircraft, there-ships a variable gravitational field, etc.). And this circumstance did not bother the authors at all - they measured, looked, announced - yeah, there seems to be a slowdown! After all, then it turns out that if they have this slowdown, then the wildness I described is a reality? Or is there some third option?Reply
In what direction, according to your version, did Kitting fly, and in what direction did Havel fly? Did you move on the ground at that time or remained motionless relative to naval base with reference clock? The correction made to the course of the clock in the GPS system exceeds one second per month.
Reply
-
Well... I would not like to disappoint you, but in the consistently built theory of the ether, the same incident is observed: Petrov moves relative to Ivanov at a speed v, at time t=0 they meet, at time (by their own clock) t1 they send a request to a friend to each other, at the time t2 receive a response about each other's clocks. And what happens? And the fact that each of them will determine that the time of a colleague at work BEHIND their personal, their time. And it is precisely by the value (1-vv / cc) to the power of 1/2. Similarly with an attempt to determine the length - but two light signals are already needed there, before the beginning and end of the measured segment. Incidentally, simple school mathematics. I checked it myself at school.
Reply
Please explain how these experiments can confirm or refute the second postulate of SRT? How does the requirement for inertial reference system correlate with the accelerated motion of electrons?
Reply
For that fought for it and ran...
arXiv:1109.4897v1
Abstract: The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 \pm 0.28 (stat.) \pm 0.30 (sys.)) \times 10-5.
Reply
Interesting... MEASURING THE MOTION OF THE EARTH AND THE SOLAR SYSTEM
(c) 2005, Professor E. I. Shtyrkov
Kazan Institute of Physics and Technology, KSC RAS, 420029,
Kazan, Siberian tract, 10/7, Russia, [email protected]
When tracking a geostationary satellite, the influence of uniform motion Earth on the aberration of electromagnetic waves from a source installed on the satellite. For the first time, parameters were measured orbital movement Land without application astronomical observations beyond the stars. The average annual velocity of the found orbital motion component turned out to be 29.4 km/sec, which practically coincides with the value of the Earth's orbital velocity known in astronomy, 29.765 km/sec. The parameters of the galactic motion of the solar system were also measured. The obtained values are: 270o - for the right ascension of the Sun's apex (known in astronomy is 269.75o), 89.5o - for its declination (in astronomy 51.5o, and 600 km / s for the speed of the Solar system. Thus, it is proved that the speed of a uniformly moving laboratory coordinate system (in our case, the Earth) can actually be measured using a device in which the emitter and receiver are at rest relative to each other and the same coordinate system.This is the basis for revising the statement of the special theory of relativity about the independence of speed light from the movement of the observer.
Reply
Thank you very much interesting message. I immediately re-read everything that turned up on the topic of aberration. Therefore, it is now possible to determine the speed of the galaxy in accordance with the theory of the expansion of the universe. Or disprove this theory.
Reply
Perhaps this will be useful for you for reference (C) .... 1926 E. Hubble discovered that nearby galaxies statistically fit the regression line, which in terms of the Doppler shift of the spectrum can be characterized by an almost constant parameter
H=VD/R,
where VD is the spectrum shift converted to Doppler velocity , R is the distance from the Earth to the galaxy
In reality, E. Hubble himself did not state the Doppler nature of these shifts, and the discoverer of “new and supernovae” stars Fritz Zwicky back in 1929 connected these shifts with the loss of energy by light quanta at cosmogonic distances. Moreover, in 1936, on the basis of a study of the distribution of galaxies, E. Hubble came to the conclusion that it cannot be explained by the Doppler effect.
However, absurdity prevailed. Galaxies with large redshifts are assigned almost the speed of light in the direction from the Earth.
By analyzing the redshifts of various objects and calculating the “Hubble constant”, one can see that the closer the object is, the more this parameter differs from the asymptotic value of 73 km/(s Mps).
In reality, each order of distances has its own value of this parameter. Taking redshift from nearest bright stars VD = 5 , and dividing it by the standard relativistic value, we get the absurd value of the distances to the nearest bright stars R = 5 / 73 = 68493
I'm sorry I can't show the table here.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Regarding Ballistics and other things, I found in net an interesting judgment on this topic ... The fact is that Galileo's deep physical law of inertia, which reads (in modern wording):
“Any physical body at rest or moving in a physical medium with a constant speed in a straight line or in a circle around the center of inertia will continue this movement forever if others physical bodies or the environment will not resist this movement. Such movement is movement by inertia,
Transformed by Newton, 1687, into the formulation:
"Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus illud a viribus impressis cogitur statum suum mutare"
“Every body continues to be held in its state of rest, or of uniform and rectilinear motion, until and in so far as it is compelled by applied forces to change this state.”
In the modern formulation, the so-called "Newton's first law" is even worse:
“Any material point retains a state of rest or uniform and rectilinear motion until the impact from other bodies takes it out of this state.”
At the same time, a purely experimental physical law, found by Galileo in 1612-1638, perfected by 1644 by Rene Descartes and Christian Huygens, and widely known by the time of Isaac Newton's transition from alchemical to physical and mathematical activity, turned into a philosophical nonsense for the latter - the movement of abstract "material" point in the void. Excluded were 3 rotational degrees of freedom of movement by inertia and the carrier medium.
I understand how modern man, in whose consciousness the movement in the void was introduced at the level of instinct, dogmatic faith, it is difficult to realize the illogicality of this, the inconsistency of the Newtonian interpretation with the realities of Nature. However, without losing hope for understanding, I will try to bring my point of view to the reader.
If any movement physical system occurred in absolute (abstract) emptiness, then it would be impossible even logically to distinguish this movement from rest, since emptiness has no hallmarks(marks) by which this movement could be determined. This “mathematical property” was used as a justification for relativism, although this “property” exists only in theory, in the minds of relativists, but not in Nature.
It should be noted here that the phenomenological principle of Galileo's relativity, if you do not focus on the trivial mathematical side - the Cartesian transformation of coordinates, states only that with ordinary low speeds with which people deal Everyday life, the difference between inertial frames of reference is not felt. For the ethereal medium, these speeds are so negligible that physical phenomena proceed in the same way.
On the other hand, linear motion, measured in a vacuum relative to other bodies, cannot be an objective unambiguous measure of motion, since it depends on the arbitrariness of the observer, that is, the choice of a reference frame. In terms of linear motion, the speed of a stone lying on the ground can be considered zero, if we take the Earth as the reference frame, and equal to 30 km / s, if we take the Sun as the reference frame.
Rotational motion, declared a special case and thrown out by Newton from the formulation of the law of inertia, unlike translational motion, is absolute and unambiguous, since the Universe certainly does not revolve around any stone.
Thus, originally purely phenomenological law of Galileo was cut into three degrees of freedom, deprived of the physical environment and turned into some kind of abstract dogma that stopped the development of mechanics and physics as a whole, locking the thoughts of physicists only to linear relative motion.
Reply
))) The reason for the movement or the reverse, in general, is a big mystery about expansion ... here's an apologist for ethereal physics (c) ... Secondly, this is a mythical expansion of the Universe, contrary to facts and logic. Relative to what the Universe expands, where is the benchmark? Why is the insignificant Earth the center of expansion? As Dr. Arp, a living classic of astrophysics, quite rightly writes, the redshift has nothing to do with the expansion of space or the "retreat" of galaxies.
Thirdly, in the actually observable Universe we see objects where older than age"Big Bang", for example, galactic clusters. Where did they come from? Wouldn't it be easier to ask yourself the question: where did the trickster come from, composing tall tales about the "Big Bang"?
Reply
>Why the insignificant Earth is the center of expansion?
This center has been given to you! Hubble's law V = H * R (for Earth)
Take another point and recalculate the speed for it, in a simple way, according to Galileo. The same will come out V1 = H * R1
And which one is the center?> redshift has nothing to do with the expansion of space or the "retreat" of galaxies.
Good. And with what is it connected?>Thirdly, in the actually observed Universe we see objects much older than the age of the "Big Bang", for example, galactic clusters.
How is their age estimated? Zeldovich also simulated the gravitational compression of matter after BV, and he quite obtained clusters (the so-called "pancakes")> where did the deceiver come from, composing tall tales about the "Big Vzryve"?
Lemaitre? From Charleroi. And what?Reply
As for Zeldovich and the cosmic microwave background, it was theoretically predicted at the beginning of the 20th century by the classics of physics Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev, Walter Nernst and others, and experimentally measured with high accuracy by prof. Erich Regener in 1933 (Stuttgart, Germany). Its result of 2.8°K practically does not differ from the modern value. And the explanation of its origin of BV is not proof itself ... modeling, as practice shows)) ... is not the last resort due to its subjectivity in relation to the object ...
Reply
-
Now the question is concrete .... a) In the theory of relativity, the Doppler Redshift is considered as the result of slowing down the flow of time in a moving frame of reference (the effect of the special theory of relativity). b) The Hubble redshift is the result of the dissipation of the energy of light quanta in the ether, its parameter “Hubble constant” changes depending on the temperature of the ether. Two mutually exclusive statements... and the answer lies in one of them...
Reply
-
Temperature, ether? ....all that is known for certain is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background 2.7ºK. And why does this temperature have to rise...?! And if we talk about the ethereal theory, it would be right to speak not about the theory, but about ethereal hypotheses and theories .. Regarding the current state of temperature)) I hope that nothing has changed ... Regarding time ... if you follow some hypotheses ... eternity)) in "both sides" ...
Reply
>Temperature, ether?
I'm just using your terminology:
"its parameter "Hubble constant" changes depending on the temperature of the ether">Yes, and why should this temperature rise...?!
Because "Hubble redshift is the result of the dissipation of the energy of light quanta in the ether."
Energy is such a thing, it tends to be preserved. There are quite a sufficient number of phenomenological observations on this score. And dissipation is not a loss of energy, but its transition into an indigestible form chaotic movement, i.e. warm. And if we have eternity in reserve (at least in one direction, back), then the temperature of the ether should become infinitely high.Reply
That's what you mean ... this is a quote from a work ... I found on the net)) ... "the Hubble constant changes depending on the temperature of the ether" ... conditions arise in space for changing both the density and temperature of the ether, these the conditions are created by the powerful radiation of the stars.... and the temperature of the ether is constant 2.723...))) lower never happens. And dissipation in this case is the absorption of energy by the ether, the ether, in turn, gives its energy to the moving particles of matter, the more intense, the faster the particle moves. Thus, stars containing masses of heated gas are absorbers of ether energy, which is then radiated by them into space in the form of electromagnetic radiation quanta.
Reply
> the ether, in turn, gives its energy to the moving particles of matter,
>the more intense, the faster the particle moves
The effect would be noticeable at particle accelerators, such as the LHC, which is not observed.Reply
)) And it is not surprising that this was "unnoticed" at existing accelerators, the opposite would have been more surprising, all this, in fairness, can also be attributed to the Hicks boson. Even brushing aside all subjective factors, the question arises whether it is possible at all with technical point vision, hypothetical to detect that energy process with the help of accelerators and how to calculate it? After all, if you follow some ethereal theories ... the very phenomenon of gravity is the process of "circulation of energy in nature" between matter and non-substance, or rather non-substance, that is, ether "...
Reply
"Is it possible at all from a technical point of view, hypothetical to detect that energy process with the help of accelerators and how to calculate it?"
Elementary. Read the description of the accelerator sections of the collider in the "Posters" section by I. Ivanov, and you will immediately understand why it is easy.
Now, if they switch to laser methods of overclocking, it will be possible to write off some percentages there. But also not so much that due to this the stars shone.Reply
)) Is there really a way to simultaneously measure the momentum and coordinates of a particle on accelerators, .... and without this it is impossible to observe such a process)) or its absence is impossible ... The Planck metric, you know, sir ...
Reply
It is enough to know the energy of the particle, and it is known quite accurately from calorimetric measurements. At a speed of ~c, the process of ether energy transfer will be a thousand times stronger than on the Sun.
Reply
Nevertheless, I should explain the essence of the transmission of ether energies to matter within the framework of one of the ethereal theories...as far as it is possible in this format...The structure and parameters of the ether. Ether is a hierarchical structure consisting of corpuscular and phase ethers.
Elements of the corpuscular ether are spherical particles of Planck radius 1.6·10-35 [m] and inertia numerically equal to Planck's mass 2.18·10-8 or what is the same Planck's energy 1.96·109 [J]. They are under the influence of a monstrous pressure of 2.1 1081 . The array of corpuscular ether particles integrally, that is, statistically, is at rest and represents the main energy of the Universe with a density of 1.13·10113 . The temperature of the corpuscular ether is absolutely constant 2.723 0K. Nothing can change her.
The solar system moves relative to the corpuscular ether with Marinov's speed (360± 30 km/s). This is observed as the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background and the sidereal dependence of the speed of light, established by prof. Art. Marinov in 1974 - 1979. However, the microwave background is not the radiation of the corpuscular ether. This is the radiation of the "superstructure" over the corpuscular ether - phase ether.
The phase ether consists of the same corpuscles (amers, in the terminology of Democritus) as the corpuscular ether. The difference is in their phase state. If the corpuscular ether is a superfluid liquid like solid helium, that is, in fact, a kind of quicksand without any friction between particles, then the phase ether array is like saturated steam interspersed in an array of corpuscular ether.
The main part of the phase ether binds the corpuscular ether into ethereal domains, the linear dimensions of which are 1021 times larger than the particles of the corpuscular ether. Particles of the bound phase ether are quasi-spherical grids-string bags, each of which has 1 ethereal domain of ~1063 particles of corpuscular ether. Ethereal domains are empty blanks of elementary particles – electrons, protons, mesons… They are seen by modern physicists as virtual particles, which seem to be absent and which seem to exist at the same time.
During the bombardment of elementary particles, particles of the phase ether connecting them are observed for a moment, which physicists consider quarks, attributing a fractional charge to them.
In the Universe, bound ether is 1063 times less than corpuscular, but 1063 times more than matter. The temperature of the bound ether is also constant and is in strict balance with the temperature of the corpuscular ether. The energy capacity of the bound ether ~3·1049 and its density ~3·1032 are also so high that its temperature and these parameters cannot be changed.
However, there is another kind of ether - free phase ether, freely wandering in space (along the boundaries of ethereal domains), and accumulating in matter in the proportion of 5.1 1070 , creating the phenomena of gravitation and gravitational mass.
Gravity is the process of phase transition of this kind of ether into corpuscular ether, in which an ether pressure gradient appears around the substance. This gradient is the force of gravity.
Being elementary electric dipoles, that is, "violators" of the pressure balance in the phase ether (at the boundary of domains, which does not affect the pressure of the corpuscular ether), amers of the phase ether are the cause of the phenomena of polarization (anisotropy of the distribution of dipoles), electric field and charges (pressure deviation in the phase ether up or down) and the electromagnetic field (light).
Since the energy density of the free ether 2.54 1017 is not so high that it cannot be changed, this change can actually be observed in some cases in the form of a change in the speed of light and redshift.
And following further, in the data coming from the detectors there is information about the transfer of energy by the ether to the substance, but isolate it on this moment impossible ... this exchange is the very essence of the existence of matter, the presence of mass and movement, hypothetical in my opinion, of course ... If you are intrigued by the details, then you can find it by scoring a part of the text I quote into a search engine. This is one of Karim Khaidarov's works.
Reply
-
>As the living classic of astrophysics Dr. Arp quite correctly writes,
>redshift has nothing to do with space expansion
> or "retreat" of galaxies.
It's not a question. This statement. Having said "A", you must say "B" - what is the redshift connected with then. I would like to hear.Reply
That is, there are no problems to simultaneously participate in several types of movement? And the reasons for this movement can be different? Then why attribute motion to a single star _only_ as a result of the expansion of the universe?
The Hubble constant is ~70 km/s per _megaparsec_. Those. at a distance of nearby stars, a few parsecs, the contribution of the expansion is a million times smaller, on the order of 10 cm/sReply
-
-
-
-
The experience of verifying the second postulate of SRT can not be complicated, but take and verify the equivalent statement: in a transparent body, both in a moving and in rest, the speed of light is the same and depends on the refractive index of the medium. Moreover, this has already been done by Armand Hippolyte Louis Fizeau, as E. Aleksandrov recalled.
In the experiment of 1851, the light source was at rest, and the medium (water in parallel pipes) moved opposite and along the path of the beam. And it turned out that the water seems to add some speed to the light when moving along, and takes the same amount when moving on the opposite side. But at the same time, the addition of the velocities of water and light turned out to be not classical: the experimental data were exactly two times less than those calculated according to the principle of Galileo's relativity. At the same time, the predictions of the Fresnel theory (the prototype of SRT) differed from the measured values by 13%.
The intrigue is that any Fizeau-type experiment (for example, multiparametric, when different liquids are involved in the experiment, different flow rates are used, and the length of the pipes and the frequency of the light used are changed in the laboratory setup) will give a result that is exactly half the calculated value. classical law addition of speeds. Why? Yes, because the speed of light is not a speed, and adding it to the speed of water, for example, is not correct both metrologically and semantically. After all, the speeds and their squares are defined with respect to different units measurements. You can find out more about this by querying the search engine for links to “quad speed”. We have the earth orbital speed which (30 km/s) is only an order of magnitude less than the speed of the thermal motion of solar particles.
The sun receives and gives out 2e-5 W/kg (I will write in exponential notation, 3.14e+2=3.14×10²=314).
Then for the Earth it will be 1e-6 W/kg, i.e. every kilogram of terrestrial matter will receive every second 1e-6 J of kinetic energy.
All speeds are far from light, so purely school physics.
∆E = mV²/2 - mV˳²/2 = (m/2)×(V²-V˳²)≈ m×∆V×V
∆V = ∆E/mV, m=1kg V=3e+4 m/s ∆V≈3e-11 m/s per second
This, of course, is very small and completely imperceptible, but how many seconds do we have?
There are approximately 3e+7 in a year, i.e. per year, the speed will increase by 1e-3 m/s, by 1 mm/s
In a thousand years 1 m/s In a million 1 km/s In a billion years...
Are you ready to join the Young Earth creationists? Me not.
Do these calculations close the transfer of energy from the ether? No. But they set the upper bar for this transmission such that the ethereal contribution of the weather does not make a contribution to the heat release of the Sun.
We have to go back to thermonuclear.
"And it seems to me that nuclear reactions are fundamentally unstable in the absence of artificial feedback, and once the reaction of the main substance of the sun arose - protium would not occur smoothly and stably, but would explode the sun like a hydrogen bomb."
Firstly, Feedback is, the explosion scatters the unreacted substance to the sides, reducing its concentration. Somewhere I came across a figure that about 10% of plutonium reacts in a nuclear bomb. The infamous Chernobyl reactor exploded, but not like in Hiroshima.
Secondly, kinetics is a complex thing, and, for all its energy efficiency, some processes are slow. Otherwise we would not be able to use metals in our oxygen atmosphere.
Reply
Yes, it was not worth the trifles))) 30 km / s, ... and the galactic 220 km / s? Plus own rotation around its own axis? My God, how much energy should there be ... where is it ?! But I inadvertently mentioned in the previous post about MASS and the gravitating free phase ether, or do you think gravity does not require energy, so to speak, a "cost-free method" ?! corpuscular ether, while the phase transition occurs spherically symmetrically, the “collapse” of the amers is compensated without producing brownian motion particles.
as a result of this transformation, a spherically symmetrical pressure difference is created around the gravitating substance, which determines the gradient of the gravitational field, and where there is force, there is energy ... So creationists can rest, although they should have put a couple of poultices)) should. And I must say, for me personally, the above is still a hypothesis. Regarding the sun ... at one time it was assumed that the basis nuclear fusion is a proton - a proton fusion reaction, as a result of which heavier chemical elements and energy appear, and the duration of such a hypothetical combustion would be enough for 10 (to the tenth power) years of the existence of the sun, but, earth, planets earth type, asteroids have existed for 4.56 billion years, and during this time the sun should have consumed up to half of its hydrogen, and studies have confirmed that the chemical composition of the Sun and the interstellar medium are almost identical, and it turns out that during the entire time the Sun "burned" hydrogen was practically not consumed. And the neutrino flux does not come from the inner high-temperature parts of the Sun, but from the equatorial surface layers and is subject to seasonal fluctuations daily, 27-day, annual and 11-year and neutrinos themselves several times less than that, which is necessary to assert the presence of a pp-reaction in the sun, there are a lot of questions in general .... ZY. There are more difficult and interesting questions. Please advise where to put them.Reply
Sorry,
For some reason, Academician Aleksandrov proved for the million and first time "the independence of the speed of light from the speed of the source."
And where is at least one single proof of the "independence of the speed of light from the speed of the receiver"?
The speed of a wave on the water does not depend on the speed of the source of the wave - a motorboat. But DEPENDS on the speed of the receivers - swimmers. A swimmer swimming against the wave will register a wave speed greater than a swimmer swimming away from the wave.
If the speed independence sea wave does not prove the independence of the speed of the sea wave from the speed of the receiver, then the independence of the speed of the light wave from the speed of the source does not prove the independence of the speed of the light wave from the speed of the receiver.
Therefore, Academician Alexandrov really did not prove anything. What a pity.
And the existence of laser gyroscopes refutes the idea of the invariance of the speed of light. They really exist and really work. And they work on the principle of non-uniformity of the speed of light for different receivers.
My condolences to the relativists.
Reply
It seems to me that the speed of light is not a constant. A constant is its increment, i.e. the value of the acceleration of the process of light propagation in space, which is numerically equal to the Hubble constant, if the distance is converted into seconds of time in the dimension of the last megaparsec and numerical value constant divided by the number of seconds in a megaparsec. In this case, the Hubble law will determine not the rate of removal of the extragalactic objects observed by us from the Earth, depending on the distance to these objects, expressed in the time of passage of a light signal at a speed c, but the difference in the propagation velocities of electromagnetic waves between the modern epoch and the time when the measured radiation has left this or that object. See http://www.dmitrenkogg.narod.ru/effectd.pdf for details.
The speed of light is constant (for different ISOs) FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reasons.
The transition between the states of an abstract atom - from the state of "basic" to "glow" is characterized by a restructuring of the configuration of the atom. The elements of this configuration are massive, i.e. this transition takes time.
An abstract charge, as a component of this transition, has its own field. This field is not massive (inertialess), i.e. repeats the movement of its charge simultaneously with it in all space.
During the interaction of the source atom and the receiver atom, fluctuations in the fields of the charges of the source atom act on the charges of the receiver atom instantly ("immediately"), regardless of the distance.
Those. The "speed of light" has two components - the infinite speed of the (field) interaction and the speed of the receiver's transition to the "glow" state.
In fact, this is a qualitatively completely different theory - a field oscillatory one.
AT general case- for the "constancy of the speed of light" an infinite speed of interaction is required.Reply
Write a comment
Lecture
Elements of special relativity
Plan
Introduction
Galileo's principle of relativity Galilean transformations.
Einstein's principle of relativity. Lorentz transformations
Consequences from the Lorentz transformations
Relativistic expression for energy
Particles with zero mass
Doppler effect (longitudinal)
Conclusions 1905
Introduction
In 1905 A. Einstein created the special theory of relativity (SRT). This theory of space and time is for the case of weak gravitational fields. This theory is based on two postulates: Einstein's principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light.
First, consider Galileo's principle of relativity.
The simplest movement solid body- progressive, uniform, rectilinear. According to these simplest relative motions, the reference system is translational, uniform, rectilinear. If one of the reference systems is conditionally fixed, then the second one moves relative to the first one with a speed .
Galileo's principle of relativity.
In all coordinate systems moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to the system of fixed stars and relative to each other, all mechanical phenomena proceed in exactly the same way. Such coordinate systems are called inertial. At present, Galileo's principle of relativity has been experimentally proven with great accuracy for mechanical and electromagnetic phenomena.
Galilean transformations.
Let the system and move with speed . We start counting time t from the moment of coincidence of the origin of coordinates. Then the coordinates arbitrary point R in these systems:
t - travel time.
In Newtonian mechanics, we assume that time flows in the same way in all frames of reference.
Thus, in a system moving along y, the nature of the motion can be arbitrary. The set of four equations is the Galilean transformation.
Let us differentiate the first equation with respect to time, taking into account that
- the projection of the particle velocity in the system onto the axis .
Consequently:
We differentiate 2 and 3 equations:
; that is 
; that is 
Otherwise: 
This equation is the formula for the transformation of the particle velocity from the system to .
Time differentiation of the last equation:
Particle acceleration with respect to systems To and are the same.
The laws of mechanics are the same in all inertial frames of reference - Galileo's principle of relativity.
Quantities that have the same numerical value, in all frames of reference, are called invariant: time interval, mass, acceleration, force, length of the object.
The principle of constancy of the speed of light
The speed of light in vacuum does not depend on the movement of light sources and, therefore, is the same in all inertial frames of reference. The speed of light was first measured in 1676. 300000km/s. The validity of the constant c=const was proved by Michelson and Morley in 1887.
So, from the invariant in all inertial coordinate systems, it is also considered at this stage of the study of the Universe that c = max. The existence of a limiting speed leads to the fact that the concept of simultaneity becomes relative. For example, a light signal is lit in the middle of the train. If the observer is in the center of the train, then he will note the simultaneous arrival of the light of the tail and the head of the train. The station attendant will note that the signal reached the tail before the head. The speed of information transfer - the speed of light - is finite, so the path taken by the light signal from the end of the train to the train on duty less way made by a light signal from the head to the person on duty, therefore the time will be different, although very slightly. The significance of this effect will be manifested at the speeds of movement of objects close to the speed of light. So time flows differently various systems reference, but you can really feel it only when moving objects with velocities close to With.
