CRITIQUE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY (PRP-1) INTRODUCTION In 1887 Michelson and Morley attempted to measure the ether drift caused by the motion of the earth (at 30 km/s) in its orbit around the sun. The null result surprised everybody and for 18 years physicists tried unsuccessfully to explain the enigma. Finally, in 1905, Einstein published his revolutionary Special Theory of Relativity (STR) which rejected the ether and was quite controversial. It survived because a better solution has never been found. This may now gradually be changing. The present “Critique of Special Relativity” (PRP-1) is the first in a series of papers about “Post-Relativity Physics” (PRP). It is organized in 3 parts: Part I discusses alternative solutions in PRP for experiments and observation explained by STR. Part II discusses false arguments in favor of Special Relativity. It shows how the Sagnac effect and the GPS system have a natural explanation in classical physics, thus eliminating the need for alternative explanations in Relativity. In addition it shows that the proposed alternatives cannot work due to a fundamental flaw in Special Relativity so that the Sagnac effect and the GPS system actually disprove Relativity. Part III discusses experiments and observations which clearly disprove Special Relativity. PART I - ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS IN PRP FOR EXPERIMENTS EXPLAINED IN STR 1. THE ASSUMPTION OF ATOMIC RESONANCE CONTRACTION (ARC) Atomic Resonance Contraction (ARC) is a surprisingly simple alternative to STR’s kinematics. If we assume that atoms and therefore all solid objects contract by a factor 1/γ 2 in the direction of motion through the ether and by a factor 1/γ perpendicular to that motion (where γ = 1/(1-β2)1/2 with β = vc/ ) most ether drift experiments can easily be explained in classical physics. When it was first conceived this assumption appeared to be quite reasonable. After all, Schrȍdinger’s wave equation with its eigenfunctions and eigenvalues implied that some sort of resonance was involved. Could it be that electromagnetic waves were circulating within the atom? If so their path times would be increased by a factor γ2 longitudinally and by a factor γ transversally. In order to maintain the resonance phenomena these increases would have to be offset by a differential contraction of the orbits. In PRP-3 (The Physics of Atomic resonance) we will see how this differential contraction is accomplished in classical physics. Copyright © 2015 George A. Adriaenssens. All rights reserved. PRP-1 1 1.1 The Michelson- Morley Experiment In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley [1] performed an experiment that would revolutionize the world of physics. The experiment used a Michelson interferometer shown schematically in Fig. 1. Light from an extended source S is partly transmitted and partly reflected by a half-silvered plate P. After reflection by the mirrors M1 and M2 it reaches the telescope T where interference fringes can be observed. E. Hecht [2], pp 397-403, shows how circular interference fringes are created using an extended source and how linear Fizeau fringes can be created by slightly tilting one of the mirrors (M2 in fig. 1). Constructive interference occurs between two traveling waves with the same frequency when their phase difference is zero and destructive interference occurs when their phase difference is π. For an orientation of the PM1 arm parallel to the horizontal component v of the velocity of the earth through the ether, the path-time for PM1 = L1 is Lv LL1 T=+==1 TT or 11 1+ 11 ++−−β c c cv c1 L1 1 and for M1P = L1 T = . 1− c 1+ β The roundtrip path-time (for PM1P) is 2L 1 TT=+= T 1 (1) 11+− 1 c 1− β 2 . For the transversal arm the roundtrip path-time (for PM2P) is 2L2 1 T2 = (2) c − β 2 1 assuming that the angle θ is defined by cosθ = vc / as shown in Fig. 2. This assumption is incorrect and will be further discussed in section 6. For L1 = L2 = L and β <<1 the difference in path-times L TT−≅β 2 . 12c When the interferometer is rotated over 90º the roles of L1 and L2 are reversed so that L TT− ≅− β 2 . 12 c Copyright © 2015 George A. Adriaenssens. All rights reserved. PRP-1 2 The combined difference 2(L/c)β2 should result in a shift of the interference fringes. In the actual experiment no shift was observed. 2 This null result can easily be explained by ARC: L1 is reduced to L1 (1− β ) and L2 is reduced 2 1/2 to L2 (1– β ) so that, using equations (1) and (2), 22LL TT−=12 − 12 cc which is a constant, not influenced by orientation or velocity. The null result could also be explained by a physical length contraction , independently proposed by Fitzgerald and by Lorentz, which reduces L1 to 2 1/2 2(LL12− ) 1 L1(1–β ) so that TT12−= . c 1− β 2 Since L1 was approximately equal to L2 in the Michelson interferometer this difference was too small to be detected. This will be further discussed in the next section. 1.2 The Kennedy and Thorndike Experiment In 1932 Roy Kennedy and Edward Thorndike [3] performed an extremely accurate and stable experiment, similar to that of Michelson and Morley but with widely different lengths L1 and L2. As we have seen in section 1.1, the path-time difference, when the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction of (1–β2)1/2 is applied, is reduced to 2(LL12− ) 1 TT12−= c 1− β 2 This difference is not influenced by a rotation of the interferometer over 90° but is influenced by a change in β. At the time of the experiment Kennedy and Thorndike were already aware that the earth was moving with a velocity of about 400 km/s relative to the fixed stars and that the measurement of this velocity should vary considerably from season to season (see section 9.8, fig. 26). The stability of their interferometer over several weeks should have been sufficient to detect this variation. In the actual experiment no such variation was detected. This null result invalidated the Lorentz-Fitzgerald physical length contraction. As we have seen in section 1.1, ARC reduces the path-time difference to 22LL TT−=12 − 12 cc which is a constant, not influenced by orientation or velocity. 2. THE FABRY-PEROT INTERFEROMETER A typical example of a Fabry-Perot interferometer is illustrated in Fig. 3. Light from a point on an extended source is reflected back and forth between two parallel semi-silvered plates a distance δ apart. When the parallel beams a, b, c, d, … are focused by a lens one obtains very narrow circular interference fringes, each fringe corresponding to a different angle θ (see E. Hecht [2], section 9.6.1).The distance between these fringes is proportional to δ and , allowing for the interferometer to be used as a length “etalon” (the distance δ ) or for high precision measurements of . λ λ Copyright © 2015 George A. Adriaenssens. All rights reserved. PRP-1 3 Due to its inherent stability, it has been used e.g. to servo-stabilize lasers or to measure the speed of light [4](via c = ) with very high precision. In classical physics such a stability would not be possible because the path-time [ABCλν in fig. 3 = 2δ /(c cos )] for a round trip of the reflected light would be increased by a factor between and 2 depending on the direction of theθ motion of the interferometer through the ether. For velocities of about 400 km/s thisγ wouldγ mean variations of 2/2 of about1.8 x 10-6, whereas the precision of the speed of light measurements is 4 x 10-9. However these variations are eliminatedβ by corresponding ARC corrections. 3. FIZEAU and AIRY In 1851 Fizeau’s famous experiment with light circulating with and against flowing water showed a null result. Similarly in 1871 Sir George Airy showed that aberration did not change when a telescope was filled with water. In Special Relativity both experiments are explained by the relativistic addition of velocities. 1 c δ = − = Both experiments seemed to confirm Fresnel’s coefficient of drag 1 2 where n is n cm the index of refraction. cm is the speed of light in a transparent medium. It varies with the frequency of light for most substances. Incidentally, Fresnel died in 1827, 24 years before c Fizeau’s experiment. Fresnel’s coefficient of drag can be computed from cv' = + δ . A major m n problem with Fresnel’s theory is that it cannot explain why the index of refraction varies with the frequency of light. For Einstein this was an important consideration in support of Special Relativity. Fresnel’s concept of an elastic medium which is partially dragged along with the velocity v is incompatible with our model of the ether (see PRP-2). The solution in PRP is straightforward and is based on Richard Feynman’s “path integrals” discussed in much more detail by E. Hecht [2], sections 4.1 through 4.3. Hecht describes how light is transmitted. Of particular interest are fig. 4.6 and fig. 4.8. About fig. 4.8 he states that “most of the energy will go in the forward direction, and the beam will advance essentially undiminished”. This is directly applicable to the experiments of Fizeau and Airy. Copyright © 2015 George A. Adriaenssens. All rights reserved. PRP-1 4 4. HIGH PRECISION LASER EXPERIMENTS 4.1 Revised Laser Theory in PRP In sections 4.2 through 4.5 we will show how four high precision laser experiments can be explained in PRP based on a revised laser theory.