The Physical Interpretation of - a Vindication of

S. J. Prokhovnik School of , University of N.S.W., Kensington, Australia, 2033

Z. Naturforsch. 48a, 925-931 (1993); received March 10, 1993

Modern astronomy has revealed the existence of a cosmologically-based fundamental reference frame associated with the distribution of in our . The existence of such a frame offers a firm to H. A. Lorentz's approach to the understanding of the relativistic effects associated with the transformation named after him. Lorentz's approach and his notion of an "ether" evolved over a number of years, and it has been further refined as a result of our new view of the universe. It now provides a complete interpretation of Special Relativity based on a single assumption - that -propagation takes place with respect to a unique, , fundamental reference frame. This interpretation links Einstein's theory with Lorentz's findings and so further develops our understanding of it; it also offers new insights for the better understanding of quantum and particle .

1. The Nature and Representation the reasons why Lorentz's approach was considered, of Einstein's Approach even by himself, to be incomplete. Einstein's operational emphasis implies, indeed, the Hendrik Lorentz believed to the end of his days that hidden existence of an actual "stationary frame", a his interpretation of relativistic effects and null-effect notion employed in many contexts of his 1905 paper phenomena (e.g. as manifested by the Michelson- [2]. Thus, in dealing with the of a "moving" rod Morley experiments), in terms of the existence of a according to 'stationary' observers, he uses c — v and unique reference frame associated with an aether, had c-(- y as the of light in the two directions relative some advantages over Einstein's approach. He gave to the moving rod. He goes on to explain that this due credit to the greater completeness of Einstein's means "that we cannot attach any absolute significa- theory which, he admitted, is mathematically simpler tion to the concept of simultaneity" [2], since than his own but at the cost of submerging the phys- synchronous (according to Einstein's light-signal con- ical basis of the theory so that "Einstein simply postu- vention which requires the of light to be taken as lates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and c in both directions) in the stationary system would not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental not appear so to observers and the Einstein-syn- equations of the electromagnetic " [1]. chronous clocks associated with the moving rod sys- Einstein's approach had other advantages, perhaps tem, and vice-versa. Thus Einstein actually realised not fully appreciated by Lorentz. Einstein offered a that his measurement convention introduced a syn- precise operational meaning for the coordinates em- chronism discrepancy effect which underlies 'the rela- ployed in the . Without Ein- tivity of simultaneity'. stein's measurement conventions in terms of reflecting Further, in his deduction of the Lorentz transfor- light-signals, the full significance of the Lorentz trans- mation, Einstein employs c — v and c + v freely as the formation and its consequences - for instance, the light-speeds relative to the moving system. Thus he "relativity of simultaneity" and the reciprocity of ob- employs a Lorentzian approach to the understanding servations between observers in different inertial and deduction of his results in spite of his denial of the frames - cannot be fully comprehended, even in terms actual existence of his "stationary frame" which makes of Lorentz's physically-based approach; this is one of these results physically intelligible. The subsequent re-expression of Special Relativity by Minkowski in terms of the invariance of the - Reprint requests to Professor S. J. Prokhovnik, School of metric Mathematics, University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington, NSW 2033, Australia. ds2 = c2 dt2 - dx2 - dy2 - dz2 ,

0932-0784 / 93 / 0800-0925 $ 01.30/0. - Please order a reprint rather than making your own copy. 926 S. J. Prokhovnik • The Physical Interpretation of Special Relativity removed all the physical content and light context of an observable unique reference frame (re- from Einstein's theory, and this is the way the theory vealed by modern astronomy) in respect to which all has been considered and taught ever since. In this way forms of propagate. did Einstein's theory and its presentation evolve after Quite independently Hendrik Lorentz [8] offered 1905, but it is important to realise that the theory the same contraction hypothesis in 1892, explaining evolved from long before 1905, and many scientists that this might well be due to the similar behaviour of were involved in this evolution. molecular and electrical , knowing that the latter are affected by the Heaviside result for moving charges. He presented this argument more 2. The Beginnings of Relativity Theory fully in his 1894 article [9] in which he also acknowl- edged the priority of this argument to Fitzgerald and The first of these was Voigt [3] who, in 1887, pro- Lodge. posed a set of Lorentz-type transformations which Lorentz continued to develop his theory of electro- might apply better to Maxwell's equations than does magnetic phenomena in moving systems and, inde- the . pendently, so did . As early as 1897 Next, Heaviside [4] deduced in 1889 a retarded poten- Larmor [10] deduced anew the retarded potential field tial result for the field of a charged particle moving at effect and the resulting by the fac- speed u through a . This result implied a com- tor ß~l for a system of charged particles; he then pression of the (co-moving) field in the direction of showed that -associated phenomena must , and a resultant contraction of the particle and then operate more slowly by the factor ß in moving of a system of particles by the factor, (1 — u2/c2)112 systems than in stationary ones; and, finally, he de- = ß~ \ in the direction of motion. The implications of duced the synchronisation discrepancy effect, vx/c2, this result were immediately appreciated by Lodge for a x (in the direction of motion) relating to and Fitzgerald, the latter being the first to recognise its "the difference in time reckoning" between the two great significance for making the null-results of the systems. The latter is, of course, the source of "the Michelson-Morley experiments physically intelligible. relativity of simultaneity", a second 'time effect' result- Thus in a letter to he wrote "We know (follow- ing from motion relative to a stationary frame, and the ing Heaviside's result - S.J.P.) that electric forces are interaction of these two effects produces the reciproc- affected by the motion of electrified bodies relative to ity of observations between observers in the two the ether and it seems a not improbable supposition frames and the observational equivalence between that the molecular forces are affected by the motion them. However, it was left to Lorentz [11] to describe and that the size of the body alters consequently" [5], the transformation which describes the interaction of thereby explaining the Michelson-Morley null-effects all these effects. without resort to the notion that the ether is carried Lorentz had been working for many years towards along by the Earth. So, as Bell [6] emphasises, Fitz- a transformation (of the different measures associated gerald did not simply offer an arbitrary hypothesis to with two different inertial frames) which would render explain the null-results; he showed that this hypothe- Maxwell's equations in respect to all inertial sis was reasonable because, following Heaviside, elec- frames. By 1904 [11] he had achieved this and was also trical forces change with motion, and he considered able to deduce from his transformation the length- that molecular forces might behave in a similar way. contraction and - dependence formulae, Later on, in his Unpublished Papers [7], Heaviside and other new results of electromagnetic theory. further proposed that the retarded potential effect Meanwhile, Henri Poincare had been watching and extends to gravitational fields, so that a system of commenting on these developments with great inter- neutral particles would be similarly contracted in the est. In 1900 he proposed [12] an 'impotence' Principle direction of motion. This was a brilliant insight, but of Relativity: 'In consequence of a generalised action- it could only be properly justified as a well-based reaction principle operating in the physical , hypothesis if, following Einstein's general relativistic movement relative to a hypothetical ether frame is not notion of gravitational waves, the transmission of detectable', so that all inertial frames are thereby ob- gravitational energy could be treated as having the servationally equivalent. He summed up his conclu- same limiting speed as other forms of energy in the sions [13] in 1905: enunciated a Light Principle ('The 927 S. J. Prokhovnik • The Physical Interpretation of Special Relativity is a limiting speed'), expressed what he a number of other consequences. His view of co-ordi- called "the Lorentz transformation" in its final and nates as necessarily based on conventionally-defined most satisfactory form, and pointed to the light-signal measurements encouraged an operational, properties of this transformation which represent the philosophically-positivist approach to all physical mathematical counterpart of the equivalence of iner- science. It was interpreted as meaning (contrary to tial frames and the reciprocity of observations be- Einstein's own views) that science should only deal tween such frames. with observations, and that laws can only relate such Thus by June, 1905, the essential bases of Special observations - that we should not attempt to try to Relativity and its physical interpretation had been understand what lies behind the observations, that developed. such attempts are futile and meaningless. It was in this operationalist climate that quantum theory developed and blossomed this century. Ein- stein, who had made important contributions to this Einstein's Contribution theory, was aghast at the quantum theorists who re- fused to recognise any objective reality behind the In July, 1905, Einstein's own contribution [2] to the observations and notions of quantum , and problem appeared, and it certainly advanced the theory the controversy around the physical meaning (if any!) and its implications a great deal. He treated the obser- of the quantum wave-function, etc., has continued vational evidence as his basic assumptions, his Rela- long after Einstein's frequent challenges to Bohr and tivity and Light Principles, and took the signal step of his "Copenhagen interpretation". defining what he meant by the distance and time co- Einstein's approach involved the theoretical devel- ordinates of an or body by proposing opera- opment of a problem which had been studied by his tional conventions which employed reflecting light- predecessors in terms of the physical consequences of rays and clocks. He proposed a similar convention for motion relative to an ether - a notion that Einstein synchronous clocks in a given inertial frame. dismissed as unobservable and unnecessary. Further, He then presented, for the first time, a systematic as we have seen, Einstein's approach was completely deduction, from his assumptions and definitions (of geometrised by Minkowski [15], and its physical con- the co-ordinates, etc.), of the Lorentz transformation, tent was thereby further concealed and neglected. In thus demonstrating that it was his conventionally- the ensuing positivist climate, attempts at realist phys- measured co-ordinates which were related by the ical interpretations were discouraged and derided - it transformation. was sufficient that a theory was mathematically self- He deduced, from the transformation, the length- consistent and 'worked'. So in this climate, the physi- contraction and time-dilation results, and proposed cal interpretation of relativistic effects developed by that the latter was an absolute effect for out-and- Lorentz and others was increasingly neglected and return journeys and should be detectable by compar- treated as redundant. ing similar clocks at the equator and poles of the Yet there has always remained a resistance to Ein- Earth. (This effect, associated with the Earth's rota- stein's approach. His deduction of an absolute time- tion, was indeed confirmed in an ingenious experi- dilation effect, which is a function of the speed of a ment by Hafele and Keating [14] 67 years later.) relative to a given inertial frame, has generated He deduced a new composition of for- a recurrent controversy around the so-called "clock mula, confirmed the invariance of Maxwell's equa- paradox", a paradox which apparently ignores the tions under a Lorentz transformation, and proposed reciprocity of observations between 'moving' and 'sta- audaciously to modify all the laws of mechanics as tionary' observers. This (and other) apparent ambigu- well as of electrodynamics and to make them ities in Einstein's theory is due, according to its critics, similarly invariant. This led directly to a demonstra- to its lack of physical basis; though, to be fair, the tion of mass-velocity dependence, and to a mass- ambiguities are only apparent from the viewpoint of energy equivalence relationship. the pure theorists who claim that the theory and its It is seen that Einstein's contribution heralded a results are perfectly self-consistent mathematically. veritable revolution in our ways of observing nature Nevertheless, an approach which might dissolve the and describing the physical laws of nature, and it had ambiguities could be considered preferable. 928 S. J. Prokhovnik • The Physical Interpretation of Special Relativity

The Cosmological Imperative In the new context of an observable and defined Lorentz appreciated the power of Einstein's approach fundamental reference frame for light propagation, the and admitted the incompleteness of his own. How- physical theory developed by Heaviside, Fitzgerald, ever, to the end of his life he believed in the heuristic Larmor, Poincare and Lorentz (and others) falls and explanatory advantages of assuming the existence into place very beautifully, and their programme has of a luminiferous ether. The notions about such an been further systematised and generalised by Ives ether had also undergone considerable evolution [18], Builder [19] and Prokhovnik [20], The 'Neo- throughout the 19th century. By 1909 it sufficed for Lorentzian' approach to Special Relativity resolves all Lorentz [1] that the ether be considered as the seat of the ambiguities and apparent paradoxes of the theory electric and magnetic fields, and he treated it as merely [21]. a unique inertial frame in respect to which light travels Of course, Einstein's inovative notions (for example, at speed c in all directions. Einstein's Light Principle the measurement meaning of space and time co-ordi- and the equivalence of inertial frames could then be nates and the consequences of his measurement con- deduced from the existence of such an ether. This also ventions), have proved tremendously important for explained why motion relative to the ether or the the completion of Lorentz's approach. Thus the link- effects of such motion could not be observed - a dis- ing of Einstein's theory and Lorentz's interpretation tinct handicap to the Lorentzian approach and an amplifies both the theory and its physical meaning, apparently decisive advantage for Einstein's. and provides an expression of Special Relativity based However, around 1930 the situation changed: our on a single assumption of a cosmologically-based fun- notion of the universe was completely altered by damental reference frame. In this new form the theory Hubble's astronomical revelation that the universe and its fundamental frame basis also offers new in- should be considered as an (expanding) ensemble of sights into quantum physics and quantum electrody- galaxies distributed fairly homogeneously on the large namics [17]. scale as far and wide as our telescopic vision stretches. Certainly, Lorentz, and his co-workers are fully vin- Since 1930 this view of the universe has been vindi- dicated by the findings of modern and par- cated and greatly amplified, and we can treat our ticle physics, and so is Einstein - his theory remains universe of galaxies as associated with a unique funda- entirely valid but becomes inestimably richer and more mental reference frame which, following the discovery intelligible through its Lorentzian interpretation. of Penzias and Wilson [16] is also associated with a universal microwave background of temper- Appendix: The Consequences of Movement ature 2.7 K. So, we can now actually estimate our Relative to the Fundamental Frame local motion relative to the universe at large by mea- suring the temperature of the background radiation in The existence of a fundamental reference frame for different directions from our standpoint; it appears to light propagation means that the speed of light is be about 300 kilometres per second. precisely isotropic with respect to any body (or funda- Thus, whether we like it or not, we do now have an mental particle or associated fundamental observer) observable 'preferred' reference frame, and it may be which is stationary in respect to this frame, /. It fol- shown [17] from the Robertson-Walker theory describ- lows, then, that the speed of light will not be isotropic ing this expanding frame that it is the unique frame with respect to a body or observer (or their associated in respect to which light (all forms of energy) propa- reference frame) moving, with velocity u (say), relative gates at speed c in all directions. The manifest exis- to /. It is easily seen that, in respect to such a body, the tence of such a frame constitutes a cosmological im- speed of light approaching the body will be as shown perative; yet strangely, this is ignored and evaded by in Fig. 1, where the main body of who still insist that the c' = (c2 — u2 sin2 0)1/2 + u cos 0 (1) Einstein-Minkowski version of Special Relativity is sufficient, as if no existed! Further, the for the direction making an 6 with the direction endeavours of particle physicists has led to the convic- of a. We may call the result (1) the primary anisotropy tion that empty space is by no means featureless but, effect due to motion relative to I. instead, should be considered as a physical - A second consequence of such movement results a likely seat for field activity as envisaged by Lorentz. from the retarded potential effect on the fields (gravi- 929 S. J. Prokhovnik • The Physical Interpretation of Special Relativity

to maintain its internal equilibrium. Hence, a rod of rest-length / inclined at an angle 8 to the direction of its velocity u, relative to /, will assume a length /' / (according to I observers), where c-u' V 2 2 1/2 Wi / c /(l-u /c ) (3) [1 — (u2/c2) sin2 6]1'2 G The time-dilation effect now follows as a direct con- sequence of the interaction of the primary anisotropy c-u -u c + u and contraction effects. Following Builder [19], con- sider a light-clock consisting of a rod of rest-length / with a mirror at each end to reflect a beam of light to and fro along the length of the rod. Let the unit of time ?N|C?-U8 be taken as the interval between successive light reflec- tions on one of the mirrors which is connected to a -counter. When the rod is stationary in /, the unit of time, t, is given by

Fig. 1. Speed of light relative to a body moving with velocity f=2//c. u with respect to the fundamental frame I. However, when such a clock moves with velocity u relative to /, the speed of light relative to the moving tational and/or electromagnetic) associated with the rod will, in general, be different for the directions de- moving body and its constituent particles. Following pending on the orientation of the rod-clock relative to Einstein's view of gravitational fields and in the con- the direction of u. For an angle 8 to the direction of u, text of the existence of a frame such as /, the variation the two light-speeds, cx and c2, are given by (1), so that of the potential at any point of a , 2 2 2 1 2 due to the movement of its source, will involve a time- Cj = (c — u sin 8) ' -I- u cos 8, 2 2 2 1 2 lag depending on the distance of the point from the C2 = (

measure of the speed of light, with respect to his co- free of any ambiguity, of Special Relativity. Their in- moving reference frame, is precisely c in all directions teraction is expressed by the Lorentz transformation. - as it is for (fundamental) observers stationary in I. They show how and why the Light Principle operates Thus Einstein's Light Principle becomes physically in respect to all inertial frames, they explain (cf. [22]) intelligible in our context. why any local experiment designed to detect an abso- It was in accordance with this Principle that Ein- lute velocity is bound to yield a null-effect. The exis- stein specified light-signal measurement conventions tence of a fundamental reference frame provides a (which assume light-) for synchronising clocks physical basis for these absolute anisotropy effects, and estimating the space and time co-ordinates of and their interaction produces the local observational distant events, etc. However, it now becomes clear equivalence of all inertial frames in respect to the laws that if observers, associated with a 'moving' reference of nature as expressed by the Lorentz transformation. frame, treat their inertial system2 as 'stationary' and This latter result, a manifestation of the principle of so synchronise their clocks according to Einstein, then relativity, is by no means fortuitous: it is a con- these clocks are bound to appear non-synchronous to sequence of a widely-operating, action-reaction prin- an observer in a different frame, and vice-versa. In ciple proclaimed by Newton, where in this case the effect, the employment of Einstein's conventions pro- anisotropy reactions to uniform motion, relative to I, duces [20] a synchronism discrepancy effect given by nullify precisely the observation by a comoving ob- server of such motion. Only by astronomical observa- 2 (ßud/c ) cos 6 , (5) tion can we discern the existence of the fundamental where d is the I measure of the length-interval separat- frame and our movement relative to it. ing the (moving) Einstein-synchronous clocks in ques- The interpretation, as above, of Special Relativity tion, and 6 is, as usual, the angle made by this interval completes Lorentz's programe for such an interpreta- with the direction of u. The result is, of course, equiv- tion. Lorentz's developing concept of an aether con- alent to the relativity of simultaneity factor deduced verged towards the notion that it had only the single by Einstein from the Lorentz transformation, and light-propagation property of our fundamental frame. since it is a function of u it leads [20] to the relativity He was aware of the Heaviside retarded-potential ef- of simultaneity in respect to any pair of inertial frames fect which must produce the length-contraction result, in relative motion and hence having different veloc- but remained to the end rather confused about the ities with respect to I. It is seen that these results nature of time-dilation and about the relativity of demystify Einstein's Light Principle, and simultaneity result which is a direct intelligible conse- the "relativity of simultaneity". quence of Einstein's measurement conventions. It re- The anisotropy consequences, (l)-(5), which affect mained for Builder [19] to disclose the source of these moving bodies and the observations of moving ob- two separate time results and hence a fully-in- servers,, provide a complete physical interpretation, tegrated "Neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of Ein- stein's Special Theory.

2 Given that the fundamental frame, /, is an inertial sys- Acknowledgement is due to Professor F. Winterberg tem, in the sense as described above, then any frame in uni- form motion relative to / at any locality must also be an for his proposal of the topic and for his constant inertial system. encouragement and advice to the author. 931 S. J. Prokhovnik • The Physical Interpretation of Special Relativity

[1] H. A. Lorentz, The Theory of (First edition [12] H. Poincare, Arch. Neerlandaies 5, 253 (1900). 1909), Dover, New York 1952. [13] H. Poincare, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris 140, 1504 (1905). [2] A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 17, 891 (1905). [14] J. Hafele and R. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972). [3] W. Voigt, Nackrichten von der K.G.d.W. zu Gottingen [15] H. Minkowski, Space and Time (1908), in: The Principle 2, 41 (1887). of Relativity, Dover, London 1952. [4] O. Heaviside, Phil. Mag. 27, 324 (1889). [16] A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, Astrophys. J. 142, 419 [5] G. F. Fitzgerald, Science 13, 390 (1889). (1965). [6] J. Bell, Physics World, Sept. 1992, pp. 31-35. [17] S. J. Prokhovnik, Proc. of Trani Conference (1992), [7] O. Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory, vol. 3, Chelsea Plenum, New York (in press). Publ. Co., New York 1971. [18] H. E. Ives, Phil. Mag. 36, 392 (1945). [8] H. A. Lorentz, Zitt. d. Akad. v. Wet te Amsterdam, [19] G. Builder, Aust. J. Phys. 11, 279; 11, 457 (1958). 1892-1893, p. 74. [20] S. J. Prokhovnik, Light in Einstein's Universe, Reidel, [9] H. A. Lorentz, Michelson's Interference Experiment Dordrecht 1985. (1894), in: The , Dover, London [21] S. J. Prokhovnik, Found. Phys. 19, 541 (1989). 1952. [22] S. J. Prokhovnik, Found. Phys. 9, 883 (1979). [10] J. Larmor, Phil Trans. Roy. Soc. London 190, 205 (1897). [11] H. A. Lorentz, Proc. Acad. Sei. Amsterdam 4, 669 (1904).