15 Relativity theory with fire in one hand and water in the other
There was a time when we believed that ether existed in the whole universe space. So people made a hypothesis. The so called 'ether hypothesis'. People were not sure whether they existed or not, but people wanted to believe that ether existed. So, people started from the hypothesis and worked hard to find this ether.
However, even though the experiment was repeated and the device was experimented with various changes, no evidence of ether was found. People thought the ether was inevitable, and the experimental results could not be denied. Therefore, although not experimentally confirmed, people have made additional hypotheses to protect the ether hypothesis and to satisfy the experimental results. That is the 'length contraction hypothesis'.
The effect is exactly the same when applying these two hypotheses and when none is applied. In this case, we call it 'Carry fire in one hand and water in the other'. The fire corresponds to ether hypothesis, and water corresponds to length contraction hypothesis. Let's look at why now.
Carry fire in one hand
James and the astronaut Alice are in different inertial systems. Alice observes herself. Alice is in a sphere-shaped mirror. When the light is emitted from the origin of Alice, and Alice observes the light, it will look like the one below.
 |
| Figure 1. Path of light when a person observes himself |
However, the situation changes when James, who is relatively moving, sees this. The reflective surface of light will be an ellipse. Figure 2 below shows only vertical and horizontal paths.
 |
| Figure 2. Path of light when observing a moving partner |
When a person observes himself, the path of light is a circle, but when observing the other, the path of light becomes an ellipse. It must be so. If it does not, the theory of relativity itself does not hold true. When you observe yourself, the starting and ending points of light are the same. So it becomes a circle. However, when you observe your opponent, the starting and ending points are different. Therefore, all light paths must be ellipses to be the same length. This picture is shown below.
 |
| Figure 3. Different starting point and ending points |
Once again, the circle on the left is the path of light corresponding to the proper length and the proper time, and the ellipse is the path of light corresponding to the moving length and moving time when observing the other.
 |
| Figure 4. Path of light predicted from ether theory (red line) |
The theoretical prediction of Michelson and Morley is the red shapes in the figure above. In Figure 4 above, the black circle is the path of light when you are observing yourself, and the red ellipse is the classically predicted value when an object moves.
 |
| Figure 5. Path of the constancy of the speed of light (blue) and path of ether theory (red) |
In Figure 5 above, the red line is theoretically predicted by Michelson and Morley in experiments. They experimented with the assumption that ether existed, and the results were completely out of sync.
Water in the other
The red figure (Figure 5) is predicted from classical theory, but when they experimented, the result is blue (Figure 5). The blue shape is an ellipse and this matches exactly with the experiment. The difference between the red figure and the blue ellipse differs by the ratio of γ. When the red figure is reduced by the ratio of γ, the blue ellipse becomes.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction hypothesis assumes that the red figure is reduced to a blue ellipse if it runs through ether. So they were able to fit in with the experimental results by hypothesising that they would be reduced in the direction of gamma in the direction of progress. Here we have to pay attention to the blue ellipse.
 |
| Figure 6. Light reflection surface for various paths |
In order to be able to explain the experimental results anyway, we must make sure that the path of light comes out with a blue ellipse. That is the only way to explain the results of the experiment. To illustrate this blue ellipse, they add a length contraction hypothesis to the existing ether hypothesis.
As a result, we have hypothesized that there are ether that do not exist. However, when we experimented, the result did not match nature. So, in order to make it consistent with the experimental results, an additional unconfined length contraction hypothesis is established. This is a typical 'Carry fire in one hand and water in the other.'
Carry fire in one hand: Ether hypothesis
and water in the other: Length contraction hypothesis
Do not fire, do not water
However, the theory of length expansion does not need a hypothesis. The theory of length expansion not only does not need a hypothesis from the beginning, but it is calculated from the beginning as a blue ellipse. In other words, length contraction theory can reach only a blue ellipse using two hypotheses, but the length expansion theory results in a blue ellipse from the beginning. This picture is shown below.
 |
| Figure 7. Relationship between length contraction theory and length expansion theory |
A person called length contraction climbs a mountain with two heavy burdens. The two burdens are the ether hypothesis and the length contraction hypothesis. But as he looked up saw the top of the mountain, there was already holding the person named length expansion. The theory of length contraction ran hard with two hypotheses, but the expansion of the length had already arrived without using any hypothesis. This is not an exaggerated story at all.
To be precise, it would be correct to say that 'applying the constancy of the speed of light results in the expansion of the length', rather than 'calculating the length expansion is result in blue ellipse'. In any case, the theory of length expansion does not use two hypotheses. Only the two basic principles of relativity are necessary.
So to summarize, using the figure below, the dashed lines are (1) the path of light predicted by ether theory, (2) the path of light predicted by Michelson and Morley, and (3) the path of light calculated in three-dimensional space.
 |
Figure 8. Differences between classical theory and pure relativistic calculations |
In Figure 8, the solid blue line is
(1) The result of the experiment.
(2) It is the reflection surface of the light that conforms to the constancy of the speed of light.
(3) It represents the length expansion theory.
(4) It is the shape of reflecting surface of light without interference pattern.
(5) It is the result of the modified Lorentz theory,
(6) not the three-dimensional space, but the result of four-dimensional space-time calculations.
I cannot explain all six of them here. As a result, what the former scholars missed is that they calculated the path of light in three-dimensional space. It is exactly calculated as a path of blue by keeping the constancy of the speed of light in 4-dimensional space-time.
The burning present relativity theory
The serious problem is now. The present theory of relativity and Einstein assume that there is no ether. How then do they try to describe the path of light? Even if you ignore other problems, the problem is serious when one considers the path of light. In the relativity theory of length contraction at present, it is said that if a circular object runs at relative speed, its length decreases.
 |
| Figure 9. Light path of present relativity |
They only described the phenomenon that interference fringes do not occur as a result of the combination of 'ether exists' and 'length shrinks'. However, in the current relativity, ether is said to be absent, and length is contracted. When this happens, the path of the light they have just gathered becomes a mess.
In Figure 9 above, it is a black dotted line when it is stationary, and in the case of a moving object, it is a path such as a red ellipse. If so, does the path length of the light in both directions match? It never match.
Assuming that the length contraction is correct, the path of the light in blue and the path of light in red in Figure 9 are never equal. In the ether theory, they carry fire in one hand, then water in the other, and put all the logic in place. However, now that relativity has no ether, the path of light has become impossible to match. Let's take a look at an easy example of the negative side effect.
 |
Figure 10. Light stopped by reduction in length |
Suppose a certain spaceship has a light clock with four light-seconds. When this spaceship is stationary, round-trip-distance and round-trip-time are 8 light seconds and 8 seconds. However, when moving at 0.866c, the γ value is about 2. The round-trip-time should then increase to 16 seconds and the round-trip-length should be 4 light seconds. Then the speed of light should be 0.25c. And if it gets faster 0.125c then the speed of light will be zero.
Peaceful Relativity Theory
 |
| Figure 11. Length expansion theory without any contradiction |
The spaceship on the left is now on the right. This is consistent with the principle of constant velocity of light and does not require ether hypothesis. You can explain experiment facts well without any hypothesis. The above picture is the easiest description of time and length. More accurate figures should be discussed with the stereoscopic Minkowski space-time diagram K Calculus. I will discuss in a later post.
If you read this article and the following article, it will help you to understand. Thank you.
07 Understanding of the constancy of the speed of light
Comments
Post a Comment