Special Relativity: Alternatives?

[arkain101]

Reply to popular and other confused readers.

 

First I stated observations I made of the physical world.

Post #1 and #3

 

I also stated the principles that were fromed from those observations.

Post #1 and #3

 

Later in this thread I gathered up these princples to desribe what they state overal as a theory and what it predicts.

post #8 - http://hypography.com/forums/142425-post8.html

 

 

 

I then set out to desribe real true ways to test this theory. One of which was the Michelson Morely Experiment. Under the circumstances and principles of this theory the Michelson Morely Experiment was incorrectly set up.

post #15 - http://hypography.com/forums/142527-post15.html

 

I desribed how to rearrange the Michelson Morely Experiment experiment to test for an aether effect known as aether wind. In this arrangement it would be possible to measure the predicted shift from an observer moving through an absolute space.

post #15 - http://hypography.com/forums/142527-post15.html

 

The Cerenkov Radiation post was only something to consider. It in my opinion supports the theory what and how light works.

post #16 - http://hypography.com/forums/142546-post16.html

 

 

So The theory is on relativity. It is however a theory of relativity with an absolute rest.

 

It can be tested in many forms.

 

It also has the capability to alternatively explain the results of many tests that measured dilations of 'time' and mass and length.

 

It is a work in progress of course so those explainations on past experiments and real world evidence of dilations will be some time.

 

I am looking for some experiments right now that may offer some support to the theory.

[arkain101]

Support on this theory.

 

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kingston.htm

The Michelson-Morley experiment compared the speed of light in two horizontal directions (relative to the surface of the earth) using an interferometer arrangement. This experiment played an important role in the birth of the assumption that the speed of light is constant. The speed of light would not be expected to change significantly in different horizontal directions. The maximum change of speed would be between a horizontal and a vertical direction since the gravitational environment would change the most between those directions. Thus the experiment is simply to calibrate the interferometer with both arms in the horizontal direction, and then rotate the apparatus around one arm so that the other arm is vertical. The length of the arms would have to be sufficient to make the difference observable. A length of 20 meters for each arm should be adequate, since the experiment based on the Mossbauer effect using a gamma ray from iron-57 (‘Harvard Tower Experiment’ by Pound, Rebka, and Snyder) was able to show the difference in speed over a distance of about 22.6 meters, although the results were interpreted as a change of energy rather than speed.

 

 

The Mössbauer effect

 

http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2002July/july2002Adetunji.asp

Enter Rudolf Mössbauer

In 1953 Rudolf Mössbauer....

 

The equipment Mössbauer used in his extension work is shown in Fig 4. The source was fixed to a rotating turntable, which served as Moon's gold-tipped rotor, and he chilled the source, turntable and absorber to liquid nitrogen temperature. For expediency, he geared the turntable using toothed wheels from children's construction sets, purchased locally.

 

 

 

With his hastily-constructed apparatus, Mössbauer recorded the recoilless nuclear resonance absorption of -rays by iridium-191 as a function of the linear (tangential) speed of the source. This line (Fig 5) constitutes the first Mössbauer spectrum. His work, incorporating this classic plot, was submitted to the journal Die Naturwissenschaften in August 1958 and was published within a matter of weeks.7 The short paper, scarcely 1000 words long, generated immense interest: within one week Mössbauer received 260 requests for reprints. Its use as an analytical method was soon recognised and this interest sustains: in 2000 Mössbauer spectroscopy featured in 1185 papers.

 

apparatus image. - http://www.rsc.org/images/adetunji_jul02_fig4_tcm18-36458.jpg

 

From what I gather;

 

The angle of light source propogation can directly affect the frequency emitted from the resonance of an excited gas.

 

I assume The ether wind effet would produce such results. These results are predicted in this alternative relativity theory and may support it.

[arkain101]

Note:

Extracted from ealier post to expose its importance.

Theory is as of now referred to as alternative relativity theory.

 

Testing this theory and the possibility of ether existence.

 

In my understanding, if the Michelson-Morely Experiment was rearranged to only send light in a strait line from, source to detector, a new result may come about.

 

For example:

 

lazer (light source 1a) to ------------> detector (1b) @ angle x

 

You would also send light in a perpendicular angle to a seperate detector in the same manner.

 

lazer (light source) (2a) to ------------> detector (2b) @ angle y

 

The prediction of this theory is that the result would find:

- a difference in arrival time for the two light sources

- a difference in frequencies between the two lights (if their sources were identical

- a velocity of the aether

 

This experiment would test this theory with firm authority. I'd be glad to see it fail or pass.

 

If it failed, then I would be satisfied. If it passed I would be glad to see new headway in science.

[CraigD]

The Michelson-Morley experiment, though simple in concept, requires precision interferometry that was and remains very demanding, beyond the abilities of all but the most dedicated armature scientists – and also resulting in controversy about the validity of its results.

 

Opportunely, we have available to us a more dramatic and straightforward source of speed-of-light measurement data for different relative velocities of the Earth than an M-M interferometer provides - 8 years of telemetry from the Galileo spacecraft as it orbited Jupiter, over 0.6 orbits of Jupiter around the Sun. As the orbit of the plane of the orbits of the major planets is close to the plane of the orbit of the solar system around the center of the galaxy at a speed of over 2*10^5 m/s, and the closest distance between the Earth and Jupiter is 6*10^11 m, the existence of a luminescent ether would have resulted in a 3 s difference in the travel time of a radio signal from Galileo to Earth when measured roughly 2200 days apart. I believe that time data was included in Galileo’s transmissions, and that its onboard clock was well capable of sufficient accuracy to measure such a large time difference.

 

Rather than attempting or attempting to have others conduct variations of the M-M interferometer experiment, I suspect it might be more productive to examine the Galileo data, which is either available, or could be made available and even interpreted by NASA/JPL staff. I’m unable to find any reference to this suggestion having been made before, which isn’t surprising, given that Special Relativity was such a well-accepted theory at and after the time of the Galileo mission.

[arkain101]

As the orbit of the plane of the orbits of the major planets is close to the plane of the orbit of the solar system around the center of the galaxy at a speed of over 2*10^5 m/s, and the closest distance between the Earth and Jupiter is 6*10^11 m, the existence of a luminescent ether would have resulted in a 3 s difference in the travel time of a radio signal from Galileo to Earth when measured roughly 2200 days apart. I believe that time data was included in Galileo’s transmissions, and that its onboard clock was well capable of sufficient accuracy to measure such a large time difference.

 

I cant be postive that this is true.

 

I have shown that for # velocity an object travels away from an observer the light will increase in equal value of velocity from the source.

 

This means that in an aether enviroment light is also constant to all observers. The light will remain at C to all observers including when the source is changing velocities relative to the observer.

 

However, if the observer itself changes velocity, this does not affect the lights velocity in relation to the source, or the aether, and the added velocity of the observer must be taken into consideration as to only affect its own frame.

 

As I understand this has not been introduced, but I am proposing it is a fact.

 

So in reply to

the existence of a luminescent ether would have resulted in a 3 s difference in the travel time of a radio signal from Galileo to Earth when measured roughly 2200 days apart.

That is not the case. However, it is possible I did not assume your unspoken mechanics of it correctly.

What I have done is shown the classical operation of aether would have shown a time delay as you have said, but that is not the case in the form I have developed and am proposing is fact.

 

For example.

You must exclude the velocity of an observer to affect the velocity of the light that is surrounding it. The light remains at C regardless of the observers velocity in this aether form.

 

The thing that does change is the rate at which you observe change in incoming light (as in a clock will seem to move faster but this is only the light apearing to move faster) aswell as an increase of frequency. Thus it appears time will speed up if you accelerate towards light, but that is only the visual data coming at you more frequently, which is exactly how we measure time in the first place, what we see, which is incoming light or incoming change.

 

The wave of light itself does not increase in KE as the observer changes speeds, what does change is the time the same energy is delivered.

 

It is ver close to being identical to current space-time (explaination) however it is provable to be done with aether.

[arkain101]

Rather than attempting or attempting to have others conduct variations of the M-M interferometer experiment, I suspect it might be more productive to examine the Galileo data, which is either available, or could be made available and even interpreted by NASA/JPL staff. I’m unable to find any reference to this suggestion having been made before, which isn’t surprising, given that Special Relativity was such a well-accepted theory at and after the time of the Galileo mission

 

I agree, and I will tak the time to research into Galileo. However, for anyone willing to take my word on it, the test will give a definitive conclusion.

[arkain101]

Lets take a look at a current typical explaination to how relativity comes about.

quote from: http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/galilean.html

 

Suppose that you are on an airplane. At 12:00, you leave your seat to talk to a friend a few rows in front of you. At 12:15, you return to your seat. You would probably say that: at 12:15, you were at the same point in space where you were at 12:00. However, what would a ground-based person claim? If the plane were going 600 mi/hr, that person would claim that: at 12:15, you were at a point in space (600*(15/60)=)150 miles away from where you were at 12:00.

 

Narrator says,

 

Observer at rest can claim the person on the plane moved 150miles from 12:00 to 12:15.

 

Observer in plane can say to himself: at 12:15, you (observer on plane) were at the same point in space where you were at 12:00.

 

Thus we have 150miles versus no miles in change.

 

However, just as equally at the same time.

 

The observer on the plane can say, the observer on the ground moved 150miles as this 'equation' (600*(15/60)=)150m states, as he flies past the observer on earth.

 

All the while the observer on the ground can state the same quote "at 12:15 you (observer on ground) are at the same point in space where you were at 12:00."

 

These are two equall and opposite options to the scenario.

 

It sounds familiar to the twin paradox. Two inertial frames.

But lets say we do not know which object was the original accelerator.

 

Lets say the plane has actually been in space for 6million years (or some other value that causes the frame responsible for acceleration to be an unkown excluded vairable) and neither one can claim which had come under acceleration during there close interaction in space.

 

I state that dilations will also occur in this aether relativity theory however the are explained in a different manner on top of that the results in the calculations will remain consistant.

[Farsight]

I can't keep up, arkain.

 

As a passing comment, I think you should be cautious about the word aether. It's not well-liked. Why don't you talk about a special relativity founded on space instead? Use the word space rather than spacetime and there's your aether. It's not the same as the aether of old, and you have to employ velocity as a fundamental ingredient based on c, as well as taking care with words like speed, acceleration, years, and frames. But it works. The thing is, it all pans out back to Special Relativity again, even if you now understand it the way I think Einstein intended - I was rather hoping my essay on the other thread showed you that Special Relativity is crushingly simple and devastatingly correct, albeit not for the reason people think.

[Qfwfq]

resulting in controversy about the validity of its results.

But there's no controversy about the validity of Lorentz-covariant dynamics. Try designing accelerators and analysing the data with some alternative.

[arkain101]

Not to be smart, but this is not just 'some' alternative. It is nearly identical to all current theory. However there is an added absolute rest of space, but in a new form that I showed still complies to experimental data.

 

I can not get too much deeper into this theory right now.

 

craigd, I'd like you to explain to me why the moving Galileo spacecraft would have delay, as said:

 

As the orbit of the plane of the orbits of the major planets is close to the plane of the orbit of the solar system around the center of the galaxy at a speed of over 2*10^5 m/s, and the closest distance between the Earth and Jupiter is 6*10^11 m, the existence of a luminescent ether would have resulted in a 3 s difference in the travel time of a radio signal from Galileo to Earth when measured roughly 2200 days apart. I believe that time data was included in Galileo’s transmissions, and that its onboard clock was well capable of sufficient accuracy to measure such a large time difference.

 

Since my knowledge of the formula is not all that extensive i'd apreciate you to layout a quick calculation that I could look at and see whether or not the theory could apply to solve that problem.

[arkain101]

A chart that summerizes what I have said to show the difference and simularity between the two theories.

[IDMclean]

The only difference then would be one of absolute reference.

 

Which would say there is a preferred frame of reference. Who's frame of reference, then would this be?

[arkain101]

The only difference then would be one of absolute reference.

There are several differences. I did not list Everything but I compared what I could to Principles in Special Relativity. Time for example is be viewed in a new site.

Having the theory correct would lead down a different road than current physics. A road where everything is much more clearly understood. Eg. Time and its concpets.

 

Which would say there is a preferred frame of reference. Who's frame of reference, then would this be?

 

There is experimental support to this frame of reference. I also mentioned an apparattus of how to test whether this absolute rest frame is factual.

 

I clearly described the method the Michelson-Morely experiment will fail in detecting aether wind in the section on that experiment.

 

Its up to experimental evidence and tests to make a conclusion.

[CraigD]

craigd, I'd like you to explain to me why the moving Galileo spacecraft would have delay, as said:…

When I taught freshman Physical Science, I liked to summarize the course’s brief treatment of “modern physics” with a slightly distorted, simplified “history of the theory of Special Relativity”. I think a retelling of it would help explain what I described in post #21.

Once upon a time, physicists believed that light traveled through a medium – called “the luminescent ether” – in much the same way that sound travels through air, or waves through a body of water. The speed you’ll measure for these kind of waves are independent of what creates them, but depend on how you are moving – if you travel toward where they originated, you’ll measure the speed as greater, away from it, as slower (insert an example of measuring wave speed by counting wave as they pass the side of a boat moving against, then with, the waves)

 

In 1887, a couple of physicists, Al Michelson and Ed Morley, decided to try this with light. (here comes the distorted-for-the-sake-of-making-it-understandable part) They made a nifty gadget that measured the speed of light, and put it on the fastest moving thing they could find – the planet earth, and measured the speed of light moving an unknown speed in the ether, then 6 months later, when the Earth had circled the sun and reversed direction, moving in exactly the opposite direction. They expected to find that the speed of light they measured one way was faster or slower than the other way by 2 times the speed at which the Earth travels around the Sun.

 

To their surprise, it didn’t. They spent years convincing themselves something wasn’t wrong with their gadget, then years more explanations that didn’t work very well, until finally, in 1905,Al Einstein explained the theory of Special Relativity.

Of course, this isn’t quite what M & M did – they didn’t have a nice “speed of light measurer” accurate enough to detect a difference in speed of light measurements as small as two times the Earth’s orbital speed, so they actually made a more precise, but less understandable device – an interferometer – capable of detecting tiny differences in the phase of light. In principle, however, the experiment can be done with a sufficiently precise “speed of light measurer” just by pointing it in 2 different directions.

 

A radio signal sent from a precise distance at a precise time can be used to measure the speed of light – that’s essentially how systems like GPS find distance, given a known position and speed of light, and the simple formula: Distance = Velocity * Time. The precision of using this formula to find Velocity given a known Time and Distance depends on how precise our timer is, and how great the distance. The transmitter on Galileo is very far away, so a light measurer made using it, JPL’s Deep Space receiver Network, and a reasonably accurate clock on either end is capable of measuring the speed of light with much greater precision than needed given the difference in speed “pointing forward” and “pointing backward” along the solar system’s path thought the galaxy.

 

If the radio-frequency light moving between Galileo’s transmitter and the DSN’s receiver is moving at a constant velocity relative to something independent of Galileo and the DSN – called by convention “the luminiferous aether” – we should be able to measure the relative motion of either by the difference in measure lightspeed between them in different directions. If we can’t, light is behaving in a way unlike more obvious things like sound waves, water waves, and machine-gun bullets, and a theory is needed to explain how. After a century, the favorite theory to explain this remains Special Relativity.

[IDMclean]

Your reply has very little to do with my questions. You make assertions about what will be predicted, without talking about how, or why it will be predicted, within the frame of it's postulates.

 

I observed that according to your table of differences the only fundamental difference is:

The only difference then would be one of absolute reference.

You responded with:

Time for example is be viewed in a new site.

Having the theory correct would lead down a different road than current physics. A road where everything is much more clearly understood.

 

I do not see how these two are linked other than the result of the difference is what you have responded with. You did not infact list any other key differences, that did not result from the introduction of that single difference.

 

Care to elaborate on the differences? I don't want conjecture on what it could mean for the whole of physics, I want what it means in terms of this theory in opposition, as an alternative, or as a supplemental theorem to special relativity?

 

I asked:

Who's frame of reference, then would this be?

There is experimental support to this frame of reference. I also mentioned an apparattus of how to test whether this absolute rest frame is factual.

 

on a branched note, in responce to:

Time for example is be viewed in a new site.

This specifies what, but does not specify how. How would time be viewed in a new sight? You assert here, but do not then support or explain.

 

Keep thinking, but try to keep more critical. I like to read what you write, so do keep it up.

[arkain101]

Care to elaborate on the differences?

:fly: thats all you needed to ask.

 

I sure will do my best. (but as a note, I am expressing the theory as best I can, but I can not answer all questions related to it in pure mathamatical form. That is why one would have to take my word on it and investigate it for themselves. So I apologize for not being able to answer as you expect. I am suggesting this thoery is possible, I am not proving it is.)

 

This specifies what, but does not specify how. How would time be viewed in a new sight? You assert here, but do not then support or explain

You hit the head. I have not explained each statement.

Its because it wasnt related to your post and I didnt have the energy today to express the entire statements.

 

You said the only difference -you see- is absolute reference. But there is however ALSO differences in the time dilation and the dimension dilation. Whether you noticed or not. So in your technical way of communicating, it was correct of me to respond by saying there is more differences than one, and now that you have asked to see more, I will answer that request. ;)

[IDMclean]

Yes, and as I said also in the last post, was that it was the only fundamental difference. Time Dilation and Dimensional Dilation are superficial differences resulting directly from the aforementioned fundamental difference.

 

That is: If you assert that there is no absolute frame of reference, then there can not be absolute scales of space-time. If however there is an absolute frame of reference, then there are implicitly absolute scales of space-time.

 

So I am asking for non-superficial differences. Hence Fundamental. Change the fundamental, and you change the results.