DOCSLIB.ORG

The Theory of Relativity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Theory of Relativity Home / Space/ Special reports The Theory of Relativity The Theory of Relativity can be divided into Special and General Relativity. The former was introduced in 1905 in an article that combined the principle of Galilean relativity with Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic waves. The Theory of General Relativity was published in a series of articles from 1915 onwards. Although the theory was not supported by empirical findings, it incorporated Newton's law of universal gravitation and the Special Relativity Theory. This was the reason for which it was readily accepted. In 1919 it was proven empirically with three tests which went down in history as the classical tests of General Relativity. Today the Theory of Relativity has been confirmed by a number of experiments and is essential to explain not only the macro world but also specific phenomena such as the mean lifetime of a muon. Let's proceed step by step and learn more about the three classical tests that confirmed the accuracy of the Theory of Relativity. Deflection of light by the Sun According to the Theory of General Relativity, light is bent when it passes close to a massive body. Before this the physicists Henry Cavendish in 1784 and Johann Georg von Soldner in 1801 had claimed that a massive object, or one that has mass, was capable of deviating light coming from the stars. Einstein was the first who measured the value of this deflection with precision. In 1919 the English astrophysicist Arthur Eddington, during an expedition to the island of Principe off the west coast of Africa, found evidence in favour of General Relativity while observing a solar eclipse. Image of the 1919 solar eclipse taken by Sir Arthur Eddington during the expedition that confirmed the deflection of light by the Sun predicted by Einstein's General Relativity Theory. Source: Wikipedia The experiment had to be able to observe the deviation of the light from a star when passing close to a massive body such as the Sun. In fact, according to the Theory of Relativity, since the light from a visible star is deflected as it passes near the Sun, the star should appear slightly further away (apparent position) with respect to its true position. Home / Space/ Special reports The presence of a massive body, in this case the Sun, deflects the path of starlight by a certain angle. From the Earth the star appears in a different position (apparent) with respect to its true position. Source: www.castfvg.it Eddington took many photographs of the event, but due to unfavourable weather conditions, the results were not very accurate and were criticised for a long time. However, they represented the first empirical evidence of light deflection and gave enormous prestige to Einstein's theory, making it well-known all over the world. It is said that when Einstein was asked what his reaction would have been had Eddington's experiment not confirmed his theory, he answered ironically: “Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway.” Subsequent tests have fully confirmed Einstein's predictions and today light deflection has become an important tool in astrophysics. For example, the phenomenon of gravitational lenses (see the Special Report, The phenomenon of gravitational lenses) can be explained solely with the deflection of light. In fact, the distorted images are produced when light coming from a distant celestial body is deflected by the gravitational field of a galaxy or a group of galaxies. Precession of the perihelion of Mercury According to Newtonian physics, in a two-body system consisting of a lone object orbiting a spherical mass, as in the case of Mercury’s orbit around the Sun, the shape of the orbit is an ellipse, with the Sun as one of the two focuses. However, it is observed that due to various factors, the perihelion of the planets, the point closest to the Sun, shifts. One of the main reasons is the gravitational attraction of the other planets. In the case of Mercury, the phenomenon is substantially due to the attraction of the Earth, Venus and Jupiter, and it is even more curious. In fact, from the very first observations, the planet presented a decidedly anomalous precession, so that, in 1859 it was considered one of the problems in celestial mechanics. The perihelion of Mercury, the point closest to the Sun, shifts 574” per century. 531” are mainly due to the gravitational perturbation of the Earth, Venus and Jupiter, while the remaining 43” can be explained with The Theory of General Relativity. Source: bo.astro.it Home / Space/ Special reports Measurements of the perihelion precession of Mercury were carried out by observing the transits of Mercury across the face of the Sun. The result was that the value of the said precession differed from the amount calculated with Newtonian mechanics, by about 43” (arcseconds). However, the Theory of General Relativity was able to estimate the shifting of the perihelion exactly, and for this reason it was immediately accepted by the scientific community. Gravitational redshift of light Gravitational redshift (i.e. when the wavelength moves towards the red end of the light spectrum), is the variation in the wavelength and therefore in the colour of the spectrum produced by radiant light in the presence of a gravitational field. When the light produced by a celestial body moves away from the gravitational field, it loses energy and therefore its frequency decreases. The more intense the gravitational field is, the redder its spectrum will be. A ray of light (a photon) loses energy as it shifts away from the gravitational field. The result is a decrease in light frequency and consequently a shift toward the red end. Source: www.introni.it The gravitational redshift was measured precisely only in 1959, with the Pound-Rebka experiment at Harvard University. In the experiment the redshift of two sources of 57 Fe gamma rays, positioned respectively on top and at the base of the Jefferson Tower, was measured. The results confirmed what was predicted by the Theory of General Relativity. A modern test: the strange case of the mean lifetime of a muon Out of the many modern tests that support the Theory of Relativity, one of the most curious ones regards the mean life of a mu meson, known as a muon. A muon is produced by the interaction of cosmic rays from space and particles of the atmosphere. These are fundamental, unstable particles with a mean life of approximately 1.5 microseconds ( µs), after which they decay into an electron and a neutrino-antineutrino pair. Muons travel at extremely high speeds that are very near to the speed of light (300,000 km/s). If we consider the mean lifetime of a muon and multiply it by its speed, we discover that before disintegrating, the particles travel approximately 450 metres in the atmosphere. And this is the particular characteristic of the muon: if the Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 15 kilometres thick, then, how is it possible to measure the arrival of muons on the Earth? Shouldn’t they disintegrate in the atmosphere after having travelled 450 metres? The explanation is very simple if we use the concept of time related to an observer of the Theory of Relativity, according to which, if two observers are in relative motion i.e. they move in relation to the each other, and they measure an event, it will occur that what they measure is not the same. The phenomenon is always valid but it is evident to observers that they are moving at speeds that are close to the speed of light. So let us consider the muons that cross the higher layers of the atmosphere. According to the Special Theory of Home / Space/ Special reports Relativity an event that occurs in a place, seen by an observer who is standing still in that place will have a certain duration, defined the proper time of the event. In the case of the muon, the proper time is the mean lifetime of the muon (1.5 µs). For an observer on the Earth, the decay rate will dilate, i.e. it will become much bigger. Time dilation depends on the speed of the object. The greater the speed, the bigger the time dilation. In the case of the muon, time dilates 25 times. This means that for an observer on the Earth, the decay rate becomes 37.5 µs. Again, multiplying this time interval by the speed of the muon it can be observed that the muon has travelled approximately 11 km, a distance that is much greater than 450 metres. So this explains the mystery of why about 40% of the muons reach the Earth. Let us now observe what happens from the point of view of the muon, or better of an observer moving along with the muon. In its reference system, the muon lives 1.5 µs. how then does it reach the Earth in such a short amount of time? The Special Theory of Relativity comes to our aid again. This time, however, let us consider the length contraction. A certain length L. measured in a reference system in which L is at rest, will contract if looked at from a system that is moving, respect to this one. The result is that according to the muon, the thickness of the atmosphere (L=15 km) is diminished by a γ factor, or Lorentz factor. The atmosphere will therefore appear to be 600 metres thick. Edited by Simona Romaniello Astrophysicist, scientific divulger, for the Planetarium in Turin, she is in charge of training and development and display of museum exhibits.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Henry Cavendish and the Effect of Gravity on Propagation of Light
    Eur. Phys. J. H (2021) 46:24 THE EUROPEAN https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/s13129-021-00027-4 PHYSICAL JOURNAL H Regular Article Henry Cavendish and the effect of gravity on propagation of light: a postscript Karl-Heinz Lotze and Silvia Simionatoa Friedrich Schiller Universit¨at Jena, Physikalisch-Astronomische Fakult¨at, Jena, Germany Received 21 April 2021 / Accepted 13 August 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract This paper is devoted to two hitherto unpublished original documents by Henry Cavendish (1731–1810) which provide insight into his calculations of the deflection of light by isolated celestial bodies. Together with a transcription of these documents, we comment on their contents in the present-day language of physics. Moreover, we compare them with a paper by Johann Georg von Soldner (1776–1833) on the same subject. 1 Introduction The history of ideas about the deflection of light by the gravitational attraction of celestial bodies goes back to the times of Isaac Newton (1642–1726). In fact, in his book Opticks [18] he, in 1704, asks the question (3rd Book, Query No. 1): Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays, and is not this action (caeteris paribus) strongest at the least distance? Another of his queries even gives us an idea of how Newton imagined light itself (Query No. 29): Are not the Rays of Light very small Bodies emitted from shining Substances? However, the first published calculation of this kind of light deflection goes back to the German astronomer and geodesist Johann Georg von Soldner (1776–1833) [25].
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein's Gravitational Field
    Einstein’s gravitational field Abstract: There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature the gravitational field in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here that this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with. 1 Author: Peter M. Brown e-mail: [email protected] 2 INTRODUCTION Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (EGR) has been credited as the greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th Century. This accomplishment is reflected in Time Magazine’s December 31, 1999 issue 1, which declares Einstein the Person of the Century. Indeed, Einstein is often taken as the model of genius for his work in relativity. It is widely assumed that, according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, gravitation is a curvature in space-time. There is a well- accepted definition of space-time curvature. As stated by Thorne 2 space-time curvature and tidal gravity are the same thing expressed in different languages, the former in the language of relativity, the later in the language of Newtonian gravity. However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is rather difficult idea to accept.
    [Show full text]
  • Light and Gravitation from Newton to Einstein
    Light and gravitation from Newton to Einstein Jean Eisenstaedt - Observatoire de Paris Abstract: How was treated the propagation of light after Newton, before Einstein? From the second half of the 18th century to the early 19th century, the Newtonian theory of propagation of light, a perfectly consistent applica- tion of the Principia to light was developed by John Michell (1724-1793) and then many philosophers. It was as well a classical relativistic optics of moving bodies. In the context of Newton’s Principia, light corpuscles were treated in the very same way as material particles. Thus they were subject to the Galileo- Newtonian kinematics: light velocity was not a constant. Light corpuscles were also subject to the Newtonian dynamics, in particular to two forces, the long-range gravitational force and the short-range refracting force acting on a glass, a crystal. Snell-Descartes’ sinus law implies that greater is the incident velocity of light, lower is the refraction angle on a prism. Thus the measure of the re- fraction angle is a measure of the incident velocity of light, a "method" due to Michell. In 1786 Robert Blair applied Michell’s method to light kinemat- ics and addresses in a very clear way what we call the Doppler effect. The effects of gravity on light in a Newtonian context are qualitatively simi- lar to those predicted by general relativity much later. In 1784 Michell pre- dicted the slowing-down of light by gravitation, and inferred the existence of dark bodies as Pierre Simon Laplace later called them; they are black holes’s cousins.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint Einstein
    Christopher Jon Bjerknes THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SAINT EINSTEIN Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1 EINSTEIN DISCOVERS HIS RACIST CALLING .................. 1.1 Introduction ................................................. 1.2 The Manufacture and Sale of St. Einstein . 1.2.1 Promoting the “Cult” of Einstein . 1.2.2 The “Jewish Press” Sanctifies a Fellow Jew . 1.3 In a Racist Era ............................................... 2 THE DESTRUCTIVE IMPACT OF RACIST JEWISH TRIBALISM ...... 2.1 Introduction ................................................. 2.2 Do Not Blaspheme the “Jewish Saint” . 2.3 Harvard University Asks a Forbidden Question . 2.4 Americans React to the Invasion of Eastern European Jews . 2.4.1 Jewish Disloyalty ........................................ 2.4.2 In Answer to the “Jewish Question” . 3 ROTHSCHILD, REX IVDÆORVM ............................. 3.1 Introduction ................................................. 3.2 Jewish Messianic Supremacism.................................. 3.3 The “Eastern Question” and the World Wars . 3.3.1 Dönmeh Crypto-Jews, The Turkish Empire and Palestine . 3.3.2 The World Wars—A Jewish Antidote to Jewish Assimilation . 3.4 Rothschild Warmongering...................................... 3.4.1 Inter-Jewish Racism ...................................... 3.4.1.1 Rothschild Power and Influence Leads to Unbearable Jewish Arrogance................................................ 3.4.1.2 Jewish Intolerance and Mass Murder of Gentiles . 3.4.2 The Messiah Myth ....................................... 3.5 Jewish Dogmatism and Control of the Press Stifles Debate . 3.5.1 Advertising Einstein in the English Speaking World . 3.5.2 Reaction to the Unprecedented Einstein Promotion . 3.5.3 The Berlin Philharmonic—The Response in Germany . 3.5.4 Jewish Hypocrisy and Double Standards . 3.6 The Messiah Rothschilds’ War on the Gentiles—and the Jews . 4 EINSTEIN THE RACIST COWARD ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • From William Hyde Wollaston to Alexander Von Humboldt
    This article was downloaded by: [Deutsches Museum] On: 15 February 2013, At: 08:42 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Annals of Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasc20 From William Hyde Wollaston to Alexander von Humboldt - Star Spectra and Celestial Landscape Jürgen Teichmann a & Arthur Stinner b a Deutsches Museum and Ludwig-Maximilians-University, München, Germany b University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Version of record first published: 13 Feb 2013. To cite this article: Jürgen Teichmann & Arthur Stinner (2013): From William Hyde Wollaston to Alexander von Humboldt - Star Spectra and Celestial Landscape, Annals of Science, DOI:10.1080/00033790.2012.739709 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2012.739709 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Papers-Relativity Theory/Download/8389
    WHAT CAUSES THE GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF LIGHT AND THE ANOMALOUS PERIHELION SHIFT OF MERCURY ? by Mark J. Lofts Abstract E stablished tradition asserts that Einstein’s General Relativity explain s Mercury’s anomalous perihelion shift and the doubled Newtonian d eflection of light by gravity . The se claims are in turn used to justify the theoretical concept of spacetime , a mathematically - based ‘fusion’ of space and time and the key concept underpinni ng General Relativity Theory . However, both of these very real phenomena readily reveal alternative explanations, these either partly unknown or unappreciated before the 1920s. A third observation attributed to General Relativity, the gravitational redshift of light , does not alone provide justification for spacetime. The theoretical predictions of Joachim von Soldner and of Paul Gerber , while significantly incomplete or incorrect, help to reveal the alternative and correct explan ations for the gravitational d eflection of light and the anomalous perihelion shift respectively , without requiring General Relativity and therefore without spacetime - based explanat ions either . The doubled Newtonian d eflection of light is explained by qua ntum theory while the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury is explained primarily by the rotation of the Sun. ------------------- Keywords : Einstein, Gehrcke, Gerber, Goudsmit, Kragh, Lenard, Seeliger, Soldner, Sommerfeld, Uhlenbeck, Mercury, Vulcan, general relativity, fine - structure constant, quantum spin, prograde, spacetime, blueshift, wave - p article dualism, gravitational deflection, perihelion shift, equivalence principle -------- ----------- Contents 1. The Equivalence Principle and the Gravitational Redshift 2. ‘Forbidden’ Reasoning from the Gravitational Redshift 3. Sommerfeld’s Quantum Theory. 4. Quantum Spin and the ‘Factor of 2’ Confusion. 5. The Doubled Deflection of Light by Gravity 6.
    [Show full text]
  • "Gravitational" Lens Experiment
    Didaktik der Physik Frühjahrstagung – Bonn 2020 The Glass "Gravitational" Lens Experiment Silvia Simionato Teaching Methodology in Physics and Astronomy RG, Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena (Germany) [email protected] Abstract Light deflection, in particular the gravitational-lens effect in its strong form, is an interesting and fascinating subject of modern physics and cosmology. Although it is conceptually articulated and complex, it is fortunately possible to approach this topic through a simplified method and analysis, involving different concepts of physics and mathematics typical of the last years of secondary school and first years of the undergraduate studies. The basic idea is the visualisation of light on curved paths under the influence of gravity. In fact, by combining optics and general relativity, it is possible to design plexiglass lenses specifically formulated to reproduce the images of any source, whose light is deflected by different types of celestial objects. The work with these lenses is moreover supported by simulations performed with the software Geogebra and the help of astonishing images from the best telescopes. All this makes gravitational lensing an excellent educational tool for teaching physics and mathematics using examples from astronomy and cosmology. 1. Introduction Einstein was also the first to consider the fact that When light coming from one or more distant sources other stars besides the Sun could act as gravitational passes by a mass distribution positioned between the lenses and deflect light of distant sources from its source and the observer, the light path is bent by the original path. But he gave no hope to such observa- gravitational potential of the mass distribution, from tions for basically two reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Precise Analytic Treatment of Kerr and Kerr-(Anti) De Sitter Black Holes As Gravitational Lenses
    Precise analytic treatment of Kerr and Kerr-(anti) de Sitter black holes as gravitational lenses. G. V. Kraniotis∗ The University of Ioannina, Department of Physics, Section of Theoretical Physics, GR-451 10 Ioannina, Greece. May 29, 2018 Abstract The null geodesic equations that describe motion of photons in Kerr spacetime are solved exactly in the presence of the cosmological constant Λ. The exact solution for the deflection angle for generic light orbits (i.e. non-polar, non-equatorial) is calculated in terms of the generalized hyper- geometric functions of Appell and Lauricella. We then consider the more involved issue in which the black hole acts as a ‘gravitational lens’. The constructed Kerr black hole gravita- tional lens geometry consists of an observer and a source located far away and placed at arbitrary inclination with respect to black hole’s equatorial plane. The resulting lens equations are solved elegantly in terms of Appell- Lauricella hypergeometric functions and the Weierstraß elliptic function. We then, systematically, apply our closed form solutions for calculating the image and source positions of generic photon orbits that solve the lens equations and reach an observer located at various values of the po- lar angle for various values of the Kerr parameter and the first integrals of motion. In this framework, the magnification factors for generic or- arXiv:1009.5189v1 [gr-qc] 27 Sep 2010 bits are calculated in closed analytic form for the first time. The exercise is repeated with the appropriate modifications for the case of non-zero cosmological constant. 1 Introduction The issue of the bending of light (and the associated phenomenon of gravita- tional lensing) from the gravitational field of a celectial body (planet, star, black hole, galaxy) has been a very active and fruitful area of research for fundamental ∗Email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Relativity from the 1919 Eclipse— a Question of Bias Daniel Kennefick
    Testing relativity from the 1919 eclipse— a question of bias Daniel Kennefick When interpreting experimental results, context is everything. The researchers who took and analyzed the most important eclipse data had good reasons for judging the experiment a victory for Albert Einstein. Daniel Kennefick is an assistant professor of physics at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. One of the most famous measurements in the history of Of course, it’s not possible to be certain about any recon- 20th-century astronomy was made over the course of several struction of nearly century-old experimental decisions, but I months in 1919. Teams of observers from the Greenwich and argue that the balance of evidence lies heavily in favor of the Cambridge observatories in the UK traveled to Brazil and view that the leaders of the 1919 expedition, Frank Watson western Africa to observe a total solar eclipse that took place Dyson and Eddington, had reasonable grounds for judging on 29 May 1919. Their aim was to establish whether the paths that their results were inconsistent with the prediction of of light rays were deflected in passing through the strong gravitational field of the Sun. Their observations were subse- quently presented as establishing the soundness of general relativity; that is, the observations were more consistent with the predictions of the new gravitational theory developed by Albert Einstein than with the traditional Newtonian theory. In recent decades many physicists and historians of science have cast doubt on the soundness of the famous experiment. They claim that the measurements made in 1919 were not sufficiently accurate to decide between the Einstein- ian and Newtonian theories of gravity.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravitational Lensing of the CMB by Tensor Perturbations
    Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Geneva for a degree of Master in Physics Gravitational Lensing of the CMB by Tensor Perturbations SUPERVISORS: Prof. Ruth Durrer Dr. Julian Adamek Vittorio Tansella April 2015 Abstract We investigate the properties of Gravitational Lensing by tensor perturbations and the e↵ect on the CMB temperature field. After a first introductory chapter and a second chapter where the formalism of Lensing by density perturbations is introduced as a reference for comparison, in the third chapter we discuss some aspects of lensing by tensor perturbations. The displacement vector of a null geodesic travelling through a tensor perturbed FRW universe is computed. This displacement vector has the unique feature of a curl- component at the linear level and so it is decomposed into its gradient-mode and curl-mode lensing potentials. We compute the power spectra of the two lensing potentials and we get a qualitative understanding of their properties by giving plots for a matter dominated universe. In the last section the modifications induced by this type of lensing to the temperature fluctuations field of the CMB are investigated and we find them to 7 be of the order of 10− , smaller than the cosmic variance of intrinsic CMB anisotropies for every observable multipole. Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 HistoricalRemarks.......................................... 2 1.2 TheUnlensedCMB ......................................... 3 1.3 SimpleExample:TheSchwarzschildLens . 5 1.4 LensMapping............................................. 7 2 Lensing by Scalar Perturbations 9 2.1 Perturbed Photon Path and Lensing Potential . 9 2.2 TheCMBLensedPowerSpectrum ................................. 13 3 Lensing by Tensor Perturbations 15 3.1 PerturbedPhotonPath ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Entanglement Interpreted As the Cooperation Between the Super- Elastic Double-Helix Photons and the Super-Elastic Double-Helix Gravitons
    Applied Physics Research; Vol. 13, No. 1; 2021 ISSN 1916-9639 E-ISSN 1916-9647 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Entanglement Interpreted as the Cooperation Between the Super- Elastic Double-Helix Photons and the Super-Elastic Double-Helix Gravitons. Quantum Cavendish Experiment. Intellectual Mastery of Nature (07.10.2020) Jiří Stávek1 1 Bazovského 1228, 163 00 Prague, Czech republic Correspondence: Jiří Stávek, Bazovského 1228, 163 00 Prague, Czech republic. E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 7, 2020 Accepted: November 17, 2020 Online Published: April 7, 2021 doi:10.5539/apr.v13n1p1 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v13n1p1 Abstract In our approach we have combined knowledge of Old Masters (working in this field before the year 1905), New Masters (working in this field after the year 1905) and Dissidents under the guidance of Albert Einstein (EPR Paradox). Two free-will partners A (Alice) and B (Bob) share each a photon from a photon pair emitted from the source and measure the correlations among those entangled photons. Based on the great work of the smartest theorists and experimentalists the interpretation of that entanglement correlations goes unequivocally for the supporters of Niels Bohr: the quantum mechanics (QM) is complete and cannot be modified in any possible way. J.S. Bell stated that all local hidden variable theories are excluded forever, and this is now the dominant statement in the “entanglement community”. Is there any chance to contribute anything reasonable in favor of Albert Einstein´s statement that the QM is incomplete? In our approach we have inserted two new local hidden variables γ and δ (gravitons emitted by the Earth towards individual polarizers = GAIA Effect) into the old trigonometric functions haversin (2θ) = sin2θ and havercosin (2θ) = cos2θ where haversine and havercosine represent orthogonal projections on hyperplanes.
    [Show full text]
  • Hasenöhrl and the Equivalence of Mass and Energy Arxiv:1108.2250
    Hasen¨ohrland the Equivalence of Mass and Energy Stephen Boughn∗ and Tony Rothmany Haverford College, Haverford PA 19041 Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544 LATEX-ed August 25, 2011 Abstract In 1904 Austrian physicist Fritz Hasen¨ohrl(1874-1915) examined blackbody ra- diation in a reflecting cavity. By calculating the work necessary to keep the cavity moving at a constant velocity against the radiation pressure he concluded that to a moving observer the energy of the radiation would appear to increase by an amount E = (3=8)mc2, which in early 1905 he corrected to E = (3=4)mc2. Because rel- ativistic corrections come in at order v2=c2 and Hasen¨ohrl's gedankenexperiment evidently required calculations only to order v=c, it is initially puzzling why he did not achieve the answer universally accepted today. Moreover, that m should be equal to (4=3)E=c2 has led commentators to believe that this problem is identical to the famous \4/3 problem" of the self-energy of the electron and they have invari- ably attributed Hasen¨ohrl'smistake to neglect of the cavity stresses. We examine Hasen¨ohrl'spapers from a modern, relativistic point of view in an attempt to un- derstand where exactly he went wrong. The problem turns out to be a rich and challenging one with strong resonances to matters that remain controversial. We give an acceptable relativistic solution to the conundrum and show that virtually everything ever written about Hasen¨ohrl's thought experiment, including a 1923 paper by Enrico Fermi, is misleading if not incorrect.
    [Show full text]