Перейти в начало сайта Перейти в начало сайта
Электронная библиотека «Наука и техника»
n-t.ru: Наука и техника
Home Page / Current publications / Scientific hypotheses
Home Page / Current publications / Scientific hypotheses

Научные статьи

Физика звёзд

Физика микромира

Журналы

Природа

Наука и жизнь

Природа и люди

Техника – молодёжи

Нобелевские лауреаты

Премия по физике

Премия по химии

Премия по литературе

Премия по медицине

Премия по экономике

Премия мира

Книги

Биологически активные

Как мы видим то, что видим

Механизм ответственной власти

Превращение элементов

Луи де Бройль. Революция в физике

Химия вокруг нас

Издания НиТ

Батарейки и аккумуляторы

Охранные системы

Источники энергии

Свет и тепло

Научно-популярные статьи

Наука сегодня

Научные гипотезы

Теория относительности

История науки

Научные развлечения

Техника сегодня

История техники

Измерения в технике

Источники энергии

Наука и религия

Мир, в котором мы живём

Лит. творчество ученых

Человек и общество

Образование

Разное

The general principle of relativity does not exist

Nikolay Noskov
Translated from Russian by Jury Sarychev

In article "Did a "big explosion" of Universe take place?" W.W. Glushko make a hypothesis founded on the fact of the inconstant of the light velocity. Besides he passed into silence that this fact refute an exsistence of general principle of relativity. But was this experiment unexpected? Are there another observations, experiments and facts contradicting with the general principle of relativity? Yes, there are. How can we explain that general principle of relativity have appeared and have not been refuted for 90 years?

An occurrence of the general principle of relativity was due to the following events in physics:

We can trace some stages of drawing up of the general principle of relativity. In work "Interference method of Michelson" [5] issued in 1815 Lorentz grounded hypothesis about shortening long measures of moving bodies. In this work was shown that shortening long measures is in proportion to "Lorentz factor", explaining "negative" result of Michelson's experiment that played a main part in appearance of the general principle of relativity. After that in work "Electromagnetic phenomena in system with any velocity that less then velocity of light" [6] (in 1904). Lorentz transfer his hypothesis about shortening long measures of moving bodies to Kaufmann's experiments, where he display a good consent of experiments and hypothesis with application of "Lorentz factor"

Besides all, in the Lorentz's above – mentioned work the co-ordination transformations of inertial systems for which form of Maxwell's equations is well preserved are used for the first time.

Here Lorentz express thought that law of interactions and movements for gravity behave as laws for electromagnetism. Thus in this work Lorentz expressed all main ideas of general principle of relativity.

From 1898 to 1905 Poincare write some articles in which he discuss Lorentz's hypothesis and Michelson's interference experiment as well as problem of the time measuring where he try to solve the task of simultaneous of events. There he show that on center of this task is another problem. It is problem of constant speed of light as signal with help of which we can regulate clock and determine local time.

At last practically simultaneously (with 25 days of difference) in 1905 fundamental works on special theory of relativity: "To electrodynamics of moving bodies" by Einstein [11] and "About dynamics of electron" by Poincare [12] were received to the press. But if Poincare elaborated this ideas gradually acknowledging priority most of work for Lorentz, while Einstein put forward his work as something made completely.

In spite of general likeness of ideas main difference of Poincare's works from Einstein's articles is that Poincare expressed necessary doubt in his theory – hypothesis. So concerning problem of the velocity of the light he wrote: "In accordance with Lorentz's theory two segments will be equal if light pass them for the same time. Perhaps enough to refuse from this definition and whole Lorentz' theory will be destroyed completely as it happened with Ptolemy's system after Copernicus' interference". Thus Poincare understood unstablement of adoption of postulate about constancy of the light velocity in inertial system independently from movement of the source and the receiver.

Perhaps, they did not know about the property of the light to appearance of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein works. Perhaps, another experiments (besides Michelson's experiment) and observations that led to strange conclusion for physicists were not made? It is strange because independence of the light velocity from the receiver velocity is not grounded by physical reasons but only is founded on Michelson's experiments.

Of course, decisive experiments on revelation of ether were executed later. The relict background was revealed in 1979 only [13]. However, there was the star aberration [14]; observations of deflection of eclipse of Jupiter's satellite (Römer) [15]; Arago's experiments with prisms [16]; Fiseau's experiments [17] on partial dragging of light by moving water; Fiseau's and Foucoult's [18] experiments on definition of decrease of the light velocity in the more dense medium. Fresnel [19] and Stoks' [20] theories on the ether dragging by bodies and Fresnel drag coefficient were known.

There are observation experiments, theories and hypotheses. It follows from this that light's velocity from stars and speeds of the Earth are added by classical manner. On another hand Arago's experiments showed that movement of Earth do not influence upon optical phenomena near to surface of the Earth. It may mean that ether is immovable with respect to the Earth. Fresnel made conclusion that the Earth drags ether. The star aberration and Arago experiments show that the ether dragging by the Earth have relation to the Earth only but not solar system on the whole. Hence it follows that the stratum of the dragged ether has a small size and has to have baric gradient. It means that the velocity of the light is not constant. On another hand such distribution of ether in universe point out to investigators that every cosmic body has the ether lens. Such ether lens has to distort the motion of light that was revealed later but at the general relativity position.

Hertz made conclusion about the partial ether dragging by moving bodies too. In work "About basic equations of electrodynamics of moving bodies" [21] issued in 1889 Hertz inferred new equations of electromagnetic field taking into consideration motion of electromagnetic system with respect to the ether with speed U. It follows from this equation that two charges interact as two currents immovable with respect to each other but movable with respect to ether. The last fact is confirmed by experiments but does not follow from the Maxwell equations. [22]

Thus we can see that after appearance of the theory of general relativity the development of the physics lost contact with analysis of natural phenomena, observations and experiments. Not in vain Einstein proclaimed the new principle of the development of the physics: "...it (physics) is the creation of human intellect with its free contrived ideas and conceptions".

Investigators contrary to observed event proclaimed that the ether dragging by the bodies could not exist because that can not be proved with the help of already known airhydrodynamic theories. Lorentz made just such conclusion in his work "The interferencial experiments by Michelson".

After that Einstein and Infeld in their book "Evolution of physics" [23] wrote: "Development of Fresnel's hypothesis require assumption in respect to connection between the ether and the moving matter" and in this reason it can not be adopted". At the same time Newton's hypothesis about absorption of the ether by bodies and Rimann's hypothesis about emission of the ether by bodies were known. These hypotheses explain the mechanics of interaction of bodies and assume the ether dragging by the bodies were known.

Already after appearance of the special theory of relativity experiments that should restore the justice in respect to ether and turn down the special theory of relativity were implemented. Implementing experiments during 25 years Miller discovered the velocity height dependent gradient in the ether that is perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. Miller was made to renounce his conclusion like as inquisition made to refuse Galileo from his convictions. The scientists trying to prove the absurdity of special theory of relativity was thrown down to the ridicule and the obstruction.

The most brilliant experiment testifying the existence of ether was executed by Harres [23] in 1912. It was interferencial experiment on a revolving platform. This experiment was repeated by Sagnac [26] (1913) and by Pogany [27] (1925). Results of experiments were named "Sagnac's phenomenon". Vavilov wrote, "If Sagnac's phenomenon was discovered before the receipt of second range results (the Michelson experiment), it would regard as the brilliant evidence of the ether existence" [28].

The experiment on the revolving platform showed that the ether dragging by the platform on background of the ether dragging by the Earth is very small and practically is equal to zero. For all that the velocity of light and the velocity of the platform are added on classical manner that in its turn means the absolute negation of the postulate on the constancy of the velocity of light in the special theory of relativity.

The rise of "the Lorentz factor" has the grounded reasons. This factor account the light dragging by moving second medium relatively to first medium by consideration of the light motion in two media moving relatively each other. In the work "The ether and matter" Larmour (1900) [29] theoretically obtained the Fresnel drag coefficient, "the Lorentz factor" and the "relativistic formula of the addition of the velocity as a result that light, like waves, spread with constant velocity relatively to immovable medium. By the transition in another medium moving relatively to first one the light move with constant velocity too but relatively to second medium.

Thus if there is a complete dragging of ether at surface of the Earth then ground experiments will show the same and constant velocity of the light at any directions. It is just what the Arago – Michelson experiments showed.

The light is electromagnetic oscillations and the Maxwell equations describe the interaction electromagnetic fields in immovable ether. It is natural to expect that the Maxwell equations must save its appearance after "relativistic" transformation in which "Lorentz factors" play principal part. The full dragging of the ether by every new transition in the inertial frame of reference is implied. Thus the dependence of the Maxwell equations to the "relativistic" transformation is purely mathematical (no physical) regularity. The matter with modification of the mechanic lows to subordinate its to "the coordinate transformation in the form of invariant of the Lorentz group" is not all right. The Kaufmann experiments with fast motions of electrons in a transverse magnetic field served as a basis for such modification. The "Lorentz factor" turned out suitable for the "explanation" of the experiment results. Lorentz again applied his hypothesis on reduction of the longitudinal size of a body and introduced the conception on longitudinal mass. It is meant that the electron mass increase with the velocity growth. The increase of the electron mass have influence on the mechanic lows although the problem of the electron motion in magnetic field is problem of electrodynamics (field – particle).

Lorentz perfectly having known the electrodynamics of particle – particle by Weber [30] and having written himself the electrodynamic law of field – particle ignored them for explanation of the Kaufmann experiments because he was devoted to his hypothesis on reduction of the longitudinal size of the electrons and bodies when the velocity of their motion increased and also because that hypothesis had a good conformity to the Michelson experiments creating illusion of the universal regularity.

It is necessary to notice that in the Weber electrodynamics particle – particle, the Lorentz electrodynamics field – particle and in the Gerber law on gravitation act different multipliers but close to "Lorentz factor" in their shape. It means that with some mistake increasing by approach to the velocity of interaction they can be united with "Lorentz factor". That is why this factor fined itself suitable for "the explanation" of the Kaufmann experiments at the electron velocity v ≤ 0,7 c the velocity of light.

Thus we can say that absurd amalgamation of laws of interactions with laws of the light motion in two medium have occurred. Three more absurd statements became foundation for that: 1) the increase of the body mass by the increase of the body velocity; 2) independence of the light velocity from the motion of the inertial frame of reference; 3) the negation of the any opportunity to define the motion of inertial frame of reference.

The first basis. We can ask ourselves what will occur if two interacting bodies are mowing with respect to each other by the velocity of interaction? The potential of the interaction will be fully late if the spreading of the one occurs by the velocity of interaction. The bodies stop the interaction and the force of the interaction become equal to zero. We have two point of unknown law: this is the Newtonian law (for gravitation) and the Coulomb law (for electricity) by relative velocity of interaction equal zero but by the velocity of bodies equal to the velocity of interaction forces of interaction will be equal zero.

The Gerber law (on gravitation) explains an anomalous displacement of planets perihelia (discovered 17 years before appearance of general theory of relativity). The Lorentz law (field – particle) could be used in order to explain results of the Kaufmann experiment with fast electrons in magnetic field. Decrease of force of interaction by increase of velocity of electrons reasonable to explain by the delayed potential not the increased mass of electrons. Hence the adaptation of the mechanic laws for the general principle of relativity is not competent.

The second basis. The conclusion on the independence the light velocity from motion of inertial frame of reference contradict to the observations of Römer and Bradley, the experiments of Fiseau and Sagnac and now – to experiments of Glushko.

The third basis. The impossibility to determine motion of the inertial frame of reference by any experiments crashed down too. The measuring of velocity of The Earth, The Solar system and Galaxy was implemented with help of anisotropy of the so cold "relict background".

Thus all three grounds on the general principle of relativity turned out incorrect. Hence, general principle of relativity merely does not exist in the nature. However, the theories of relativity have acquired "stability of Ptolemy's system" and "...are protected with unusual passion and opponents subject to any attacks" (Timirjazev) [34].

 

The literature:

  1. A.A. Michelson. Relative movement of the Earth and a lightcarriing ether. Amer. J. Phys., 1881, 22, p. 120...129.
  2. A.A. Michelson and E.V Morley. About relative movement of the Earth in an lightcarriing ether. Amer. J. Sci., 1887, 34, p. 333...345.
  3. W. Kaufmann. Phys. ZS, 1902, b. 4, s. 105. In article of G. A. Lorentz "The Electromagnetic phenomena in the system moved with any velocity, smaller velocity of light", 1904.
  4. W. Kaufmann. Gott. Nachr., Math. – phys. Klasse, 1903, s. 90. In article of G. A. Lorentz "The Electromagnetic phenomena in the system moved with any velocity, smaller velocity of light", 1904.
  5. G.A. Lorentz. Interferential experience of Michelson. From the book "Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Korpern. Leiden, 1895, par. 89...92.
  6. G.A. Lorentz. The electromagnetic phenomena in the system moved with any velocity, smaller velocity of light. Proc Acad., Amsterdam, 1904, v 6, p 809.
  7. H. Poincare. The measuring of time. "Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale", 1898, t. 6, p. 1...13.
  8. H. Poincare. The optical phenomena in moved bodies. Electricite et Optique, G. Carre et C. Naud, Paris, 1901, p. 535...536.
  9. H. Poincare. About a principle of relativity of space and movement. The chapters 5...7 of the book "Science and hypothesis". Paris, 1902.
  10. H. Poincare. The present and future of mathematical physics. The report which has been printed out in a magazine "Bulletin des Sciences Mathematiques", 1904, v. 28, ser. 2, p. 302.
  11. A. Einstein. To an electrodynamics of a moved body. Ann. d. Phys., 1905 (the chapter has been received in printing June 30 1905), b. 17, s. 89.
  12. H. Poincare. About dynamics of electron. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 1906 (chapter has been printed July 23, 1905) v. XXI, p. 129.
  13. B. Kory, D. Wulkinson, J. Smith and others. Experiments on anisotropy of relict radiation. In: G. De Vaucoulers. A. J., 58, p. 30, 1958.
  14. D. Bradly. The letter to Galleo. 1728.
  15. O. Römer. The proof concerning velocity of light. 1675.
  16. D. F. Arago. Experiments on attempt of detection of influence of the Earth on refraction of light from stars in a prism. 1810.
  17. I. Fiseau. About a hypothesis concerning a light ether and about one experiment, which, apparently, shows, that the movement of bodies changes velocity, with which light is propagated inside these bodies. C. R., 1851, 33, p. 349...355.
  18. L. Foucoult. About velocity of light in the various media. Ann. de Ch. et de Ph., 1854, t. 41, p. 123...164.
  19. O. Fresnel. The letter to Arago "Concerning influence of movement of the Earth on some optical phenomena". 1818.
  20. G.G. Stoks. About aberration of light. Phil. Mag., 1845, 27, p. 9...15.
  21. H. Hertz. About basic equations of an electrodynamics of moved bodies. 1890.
  22. J.C. Maxwell. A treatise on an electricity and magnetism. V. 2
  23. A. Einstein, L. Infeld. Evolution of physics.
  24. D.C. Miller. Experiments on an ether wind and definition of absolute movement of the Earth. The report in Case school of applied science, 1933.
  25. F. Harres. Die Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes in bewegten Korpern. Dissertation, Jena, 1912.
  26. G. Sagnac. L'ether lumineux demontre par l'effekt du vent relatif d'ether dans un interferjmetre en rotation uniforme. C. R., 1913, 157, p. 708...710.
  27. B. Pogany. Uber die Wiederholung des Haress – Sagnaschen Versuches. Ann. Phys., 1926, 80, p. 217...231.
  28. S.I. Vavilov. The experimental basis of a relativity theory. Collection of works, v. 4, Academizdat, M., 1956.
  29. J. Larmor. Aether and matter, Cambridge, 1900.
  30. W. Weber. Werke, Vol. 4, 247...299, Springer, Berlin, 1894.
  31. H.A. Lorentz. The electronic theory. Leiden, 1892.
  32. P. Gerber. Space and temporary propagation of gravitation. Z. Math. Phys., 43, p. 93...104, 1898.
  33. C.F. Gauss. Works, v. 5, Royal scientific society, Goettingen, 1867.
  34. A.K. Timirjazev. A principle of relativity. In collection "The theory of relativity and materialism". M. – L., 1925.

Is published earlier:

"Science of Kazakhstan", 20 (56), October 15...31, 1995.

Date of the publication:

March 17, 2000

Electronic version:

© NiT. Current publications, 1997

В начало сайта | Книги | Статьи | Журналы | Нобелевские лауреаты | Издания НиТ | Подписка
NiT's Electronic library: Books | Articles | Biographies | Abstracts | NiT's Publications | Journal
NiT's Projects and Companions: Competitions | Joint projects | Editorial Department
© МОО «Наука и техника», 1997...2016
About NiTContactAdvertisingLegal information
Яндекс цитирования
Яндекс.Метрика