Category Archives: Science

Validity of Lorentz Transformation

June 23, 2017 – 6:40 PM

Lorentz derivation

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

From Wikipedia,

“Historically, the transformations were the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame.”

The null results from Michelson-Morley’s experiment in 1887 led to the belief that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. For example, light is observed to have the same speed, c = 3 x 108, meters/second, relative to the earth and also to the sun, even when earth is moving at a speed 3 x 104 meters/second relative to the sun.

It is possible to show theoretically that the earth has a speed relative to space, which is the reference frame of no inertia. However, this speed is so small that no experiment so far has been able to measure it directly. See Michelson-Morley’s Null Result.

But the actual problem lies in combining the speeds that belong to particles, such as, light particles and the earth, which have a difference in inertia of many orders of magnitude. The vector algebra works only with particles or bodies that have inertia of similar orders of magnitude.

Lorentz transformation was an effort to resolve this anomaly, where velocities could not be simply added or subtracted per vector algebra. The following links provide the derivation of Lorentz transformation.

Reference from Khan Academy

Reference from Yale University

Lorentz Boost

The derivation of Lorentz transformation is based on the following assumptions.

Assumption #1: The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.

Based on Michelson-Morley’s experiment, the speed of light of 3 x 108 meters/second was not affected by the velocity of the earth, which is 3 x 104 meters/second relative to the sun. This velocity of the earth is 1/10,000 of the speed of light. The “v/c ratios” of most material bodies in the universe are of the same order. Therefore, this assumption is good for a “v/c ratio” of 1/10,000 or less.

Lorentz transformations may not be valid for “v/c ratios” that are much greater than 1/10,000 and close to 1, as found at the sub-atomic level.

Assumption #2: The gamma “fudge” factor is the same for observers in different inertial systems.

In this cosmos, each body is drifting in space under a balance of forces. These forces depend on the inertia of the body. Therefore, the inertial systems are not exactly alike, and we cannot assume the gamma factor to be the same for them.

However, this assumption is good as long as the difference in inertia among these systems is much less compared to their difference in inertia with light.

Lorentz transformations may not be valid for motion of particles with inertia much less than the inertia of earth and closer to the inertia of light, as is the case with sub-atomic particles.

Lorentz transformations are at the heart of special relativity. Therefore, these limitations apply to special relativity as well.

.

By vinaire | Also posted in Physics | Comments (3)

Michelson-Morley’s Null Result (old)

June 20, 2017 – 7:25 AM
maxresdefault
Reference: Disturbance Theory

Please see Michelson-Morley’s Null Result

“The situation grows more and more serious. Two assumptions have been tried. The first, that moving bodies carry ether along. The fact that the velocity of light does not depend on the motion of the source contradicts this assumption. The second, that there exists one distinguished coordinate system and that moving bodies do not carry the ether but travel through an ever calm ether-sea. If this is so, then the Galilean relativity principle is not valid and the speed of light cannot be the same in every coordinate system. Again we are in contradiction with experiment.”

~ Albert Einstein, Evolution of Physics by Einstein

.

The null results from Michelson-Morley’s experiment in 1887 initiated a line of research that eventually led to Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity. The expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist. The special relativity then ruled out a stationary aether.

Light seems to have both wave and particle characteristics. As a wave, light requires a medium; and as particles, light requires some system of coordination among particles. In either case, light requires some relationship within its background, which is space, even when there is no aether.

There seems to be an assumption that moving bodies travel through space without resistance. We do not see space. We can only see a body moving relative to another body. How do we know that a body is moving relative to space?

We all know about inertia. Newton defined it as follows:

“The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.”

If we postulate that inertia is the resistance of space to a moving body then a lot of observations fall into place.

  1. When there is acceleration then we know that a body is definitely moving relative to space.

  2. When there is no acceleration then a body’s acceleration is balanced by inertia.

  3. Light has a finite and constant speed because its acceleration is balanced by inertia.

  4. A body has a constant drift speed in space when its acceleration is balanced by its inertia.

  5. The drift speed of any object shall depend on its inertia.

We may then postulate space to be the background of no inertia in which bodies with inertia are drifting at speeds that depend on their inertia.

The difference between the speeds of light and the earth shall be constant because the difference between their inertia is constant. This explains the null result of Michelson-Morley’s experiment.

One may object to the above by saying, “The earth is orbiting the sun. Therefore, it is constantly accelerating in the radial direction towards the sun, but not in the tangential direction. So, there must be a slight difference in speed relative to light in the two directions.”

We may calculate the order of this difference as follows:

  1. The difference between the disturbance levels of the earth and light is roughly 186 (235 – 49). Therefore, the ratio of their frequencies is 2186.

  2. The ratio of their drift speed shall then be 293 or 1028.

  3. The drift speed of the earth shall then be (3 x 108 meters/sec) (10-28) = 3 x 10-20 m/s.

  4. The Michelson-Morley’s experiment is then required to detect a velocity difference of 6 x 10-20 m/s.

So far there has been no Michelson-Morley or another type of experiment that has the level of accuracy to detect the speed of the earth relative to “aether”, which, in this case, is space.

.

Conclusion

Thus, the null result from Michelson-Morley’s experiment is questionable when we consider space to be that elusive aether.

This then also makes the postulates of special relativity questionable when we consider inertia to be the resistance of space to a moving body.

This then limits the validity of the theory of special relativity to the explanation of phenomena where speeds involved are much smaller compared to the speed of light.

.

Comment (1/5/2019):

Moving bodies do not carry aether along because there is no aether. There cannot be stationary aether because only a system of infinite inertia can be stationary.

There is only a very ephemeral form of substance with inertia less than that of light. Light has its own inertia, which determines its velocity. Similarly, the source of light also has inertia that determines its velocity. Each velocity is constant in the coordinate system based on a scale of inertia.

.

By vinaire | Also posted in Physics | Comments (4)

The Problem of Aether

June 9, 2017 – 1:11 PM
Stellar_aberration_versus_the_dragged_aether
Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

James Bradley’s (1729) explanation for aberration of light became unacceptable in 1804 because light was established to be a wave. It was no longer looked upon as corpuscular, which was assumed earlier by Newton. So, the medium of light (aether) became an issue.

The aberration of light is an astronomical phenomenon which produces an apparent motion of celestial objects about their true positions, dependent on the velocity of the observer.

Pre-1800 Corpuscular theory of light – Light was considered to be made up of particles that had inertia and they traveled in straight lines. Aberration of light was explained very simply by James Bradley using this model for light. It was shown that the telescope had to be tilted to capture a vertically descending light particle because earth moved. This created the angle of aberration.

1804 Thomas Young – He proved the wave nature of light through the famous double-slit experiment. This revived investigation into the nature of the medium through which light moved. This medium was viewed as aether that filled all space. It was completely elastic as it could transmit light over infinite distances.

1810 François Arago – He expected the speed of light to be different as corpuscles of light were supposed to be affected differently by the gravity of different stars. But light from different stars produced the same refractive index, and, therefore, had the same velocity. This negated Newton’s corpuscular theory of light, and supported a uniform medium of aether.

1816 Augustin-Jean Fresnel – Since the speed of light was constant in aether, he expected it to have different values relative to earth as earth changed its directions. However, Arago’s results negated that. Therefore, Fresnel postulated that earth’s velocity did account for the aberration of light, but aether was partially dragged at the point of measurement to maintain a constant velocity of light. Fresnel calculated an aether drag coefficient based on the refractive index that seemed to explain the inconsistency.

1887 Michelson & Morley – Earth was expected to have a velocity relative to aether in order to explain the aberration of light. However, the velocity of light was found to be constant regardless of the direction in which earth moved. This created the same inconsistency as the Arago’s experiment, but on a much larger scale.  This could not be explained by Fresnel’s partial ether drag hypothesis.

1905 Albert Einstein – He explained the inconsistency by dropping the aether model and returning to the corpuscular theory of light. This generates questions about the very nature of light. Light cannot be a wave. It cannot be a particle with significant inertia either. The questions now become,

  1. If light is made up of particles that do not require a medium to travel, then how do these particles coordinate their motion?

  2. Matter has relative speeds. Light seems to adjust its speed to ‘c’ relative to any matter. So, how does light and matter coordinate their motion?

  3. Are light particles made up of electromagnetic fields? Do they exist within larger fields? If not, then what do we have?

The theory of relativity is too mathematical and does not seem to answer these questions

.

By vinaire | Comments (1)

The Faraday Atom

June 4, 2017 – 9:14 PM

Loop ball

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

The fundamental principles that Maxwell helped isolate are:

1.    A changing electric field produces a magnetic field of force

2.    A changing magnetic field produces an electric field of force

The next step is to generate a model based on these principles that we may visualize through Faraday’s lines of force.

When a current flows in a wire the magnetic lines of force loop around it. Similarly, when a magnet is moved through a wire loop, a current is generated in that loop. This gives us a basic structure as follows:

The electrical and magnetic lines of force may be visualized as two circular loops at right angles to each other, such that each loop passes through the center of the other loop.

If we model an atom based on Faraday’s lines of force, the entire atom shall consist of electrical and magnetic lines of forces coupled as above. There would be no sub-atomic particles. Such coupling can get quite complex as atoms grows in complexity.

Since the nucleus of an atom is positive, the electric lines of force in the atom would be mostly radial, and the magnetic lines of force would be mostly circumferential.

The atom is overall neutral. A neutral configuration shall consist of coupled electric and magnetic loops that are symmetrical. Symmetrical loops shall be circular. An asymmetric configuration shall consist of elongated loops resulting in charged or magnetized atom.

Under electrical induction, the electrical loop shall elongate producing positive and negative charge displacement. Under magnetic induction, the magnetic loop shall elongate producing North and South polarization.

When atoms are aligned in the plane of elongated electrical loops we shall have storage of electrical energy as in a capacitor. When atoms are aligned in the plane of elongated magnetic loops we shall have storage of magnetic energy as in a magnet.

It would be easy to distinguish between electric and magnetic lines of force.

When the opposite charges or poles exist in two separate objects situated close to each other, the elongated loop must pass through space from one to the other object. Here we have lines of forces that venture out in space but they always originate from and end in material atoms.  The displacement or polarization occurs in the atoms and not out in the space.

The “space medium” does not act like a dielectric as Maxwell assumed.

.

The electromagnetic phenomenon, such as light, may exist in space by itself as follows.

  1. The lines of forces are traveling through space as pulses.
  2. They exist as simple loops without atomic configuration.
  3. The electric and magnetic loops are symmetrical.

A free charged particle, such as a free electron shall be one end of the stretched loop of electric line of force. The other end of this loop may be attached to an atom (a positive ion) or simply extended into infinity.

The atom as a neutral particle is not really isolated. The lines of force extend from the atom into surrounding space to other atoms.

The atoms may appear discrete but they are never isolated unto themselves. They all connected as a continuum of lines of force.

Please note that this is only a working model of “Faraday atom”. The electrical and magnetic lines are always transforming into each other at a certain frequency.

All lines of forces are dynamic.

The nucleus of the atom is also made up of lines of force. These are extensions of the electromagnetic lines of force, but they have much higher frequency.

The nuclear lines of force have characteristics different from electromagnetic lines of force.

.

By vinaire | Also posted in Physics | Comments (0)

A Study of Maxwell

June 4, 2017 – 6:08 PM

Maxwell Cover

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

Maxwell (1831 – 1879) constructed his theory of Electromagnetism based on the inspiration he got from the experimental research of Michael Faraday (1791 – 1867); but there was a fundamental difference. Faraday believed in the idea of a continuum of the force of nature permeating all space.  But Maxwell ended up siding with the idea of isolated entities moving through a void of empty space.

Maxwell didn’t intend it that way for he writes in the preface of his major work “A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism”:

“Faraday, in his mind’s eye, saw lines of force traversing all space where the mathematicians saw centres of force attracting at a distance: Faraday saw a medium where they saw nothing but distance: Faraday sought the seat of the phenomena in real actions going on in the medium, they were satisfied that they had found it in a power of action at a distance impressed on the electric fluids.”

Maxwell seems to have tried his best to unlock the mystery of action going on in the medium that Faraday sought, but he did not quite understand what Faraday meant by “force of nature”. Michael Faraday was quite clear in saying that his ideas involving “lines of force” were an alternative to the aether theory. But Maxwell couldn’t move beyond the mechanical view of nature as presented in the theory of aether.

The excellent article “Why Maxwell Couldn’t Explain Gravity” points out where Maxwell was influenced by the aether theory and diverged from the ideas of Michael Faraday.

“Maxwell’s understanding of the electrical force that exists between charged particles was based on the idea that even the ‘empty space’ of the vacuum is actually permeated with some kind of substance, called the ether, which consists of individual parts that can act as dielectrics… In simple terms, he pictured ordinary empty space, when devoid of any electric field, as consisting of many small pairs of positive and negative charge elements, and in the absence of an electric field the two opposite charges in each pair are essentially co-located, so there is no net change or electric potential observable at any point. If an electric potential is established across some region of this medium (e.g., empty space), it tends to pull the components of each pair apart slightly. Maxwell termed this an electric displacement in the medium. Of course, the constituent parts of the dielectric pairs attract each other, so the electric displacement is somewhat like stretching a little spring at each point in space.”

The article goes on to say,

“It’s interesting that this theory, which supposedly denies the intelligibility of distant action, nevertheless ends up invoking (albeit on a very small scale) what appears to be elementary attraction between distinct and separate entities.”

Maxwell was thus unable to unlock the mystery of action going on in the medium because he assumed charges to be discrete. Discreteness implies separation and, thus, action at a distance.

Thus, Maxwell could not provide a solution to the problem of “action at a distance” that Faraday sought with his “lines of force”. However, Maxwell’s work did pave the way that could lead one out of the limitations imposed by ideas, such as, the aether theory based on discrete particles.

.

The most important conclusions that I draw from a study of Maxwell are as follows:

  1. A changing electric field produces a magnetic field of force

  2. A changing magnetic field produces an electric field of force

Thus, both electric and magnetic phenomena have to do with change and force. Change in one phenomenon seems to create force in another phenomenon. Therefore, each phenomenon seems to act as the potential for the other phenomenon. This is the bottom line in the conservation of energy.

This happens with light in space in the absence of discrete charge and mass. What part does charge and mass play? Is light the product of charge and mass, or is charge and mass the product of light? Or, is light, charge and mass the product of space?

  1. Per dimensional analysis provided by Maxwell, a charge has same characteristics as mass.

[M] = [Q] = [L3T -2] = Area x acceleration

Is the acceleration of two dimensional wave front of space in the third dimension somehow responsible for the production of light, charge and mass?

The questions asked in this essay shall be dealt with in subsequent essays.

.

By vinaire | Also posted in Physics | Comments (1)