The three figures (A, B, and C) are simple but they do something important. They reverse the reference frame for Einstein's original train/lightning thought experiment, which is used to illustrate the first step in the derivation of relativity theory (then, they shift the motion back to the train, so this reversed view of those events is easier to visualize). This reversed view of that original experiment provides important new information:
With this reversed view, it becomes clear that the nature of light is more complex than has been assumed and that if Einstein's original train/lightning thought experiment were actually carried out in a laboratory, the findings would be the same as in the Michelson-Morley experiments --that is, each observer would actually see each of the lightning flashes simultaneously. That means the first step in the derivation of relativity theory (the relativity of simultaneity theory) is not correct, and no part of that theory could be correct from that point forward.
In Einstein's original experiment, it is stipulated that lightning bolts strike the ground simultaneously at each end of a fast-moving train at the moment a central observer on the train is directly opposite a second observer on the ground. It is argued (and proven by the Michelson-Morley findings) that the light from each flash would reach the observer on the ground simultaneously, since that observer would be halfway between the two flashes and not moving relative to them. So, that observer would conclude that the two flashes occurred simultaneously.
The observer on the train, however, would be moving toward the place where the front flash occurred and away from where the rear flash occurred while the light from each flash was moving toward that observer. So, that observer (the theory argues) would have to encounter the light from the front flash before the light from the rear flash by at least some finite amount and therefore would have to conclude that the two flashes did not occur simultaneously (see paragraph below).
(This assumes that the observer could not detect that the train was moving. For example, if the experiment were carried out in deep space with no visual cues about relative motion.)
That is the relativity of simultaneity theory. It is based on the assumption that the appearance of simultaneous events will be different for different observers depending on their motion relative to those events. No proof was ever provided for this assumption, but it appears to be so obviously correct that no proof seems to be needed ...until it is closely examined. Figures A, B, and C were designed to examine that assumption and prove that, in fact, that assumption is not correct.
In Figure C, which is Einstein's original thought experiment with the reference frame reversed (as explained in the first paragraph), flashes of light occur simultaneously on each end of a fast-moving train at the moment a photon detector at the center of the train is located directly opposite a similar detector on the ground. In this case, the flashes are simultaneous in the reference frame of the train, and the train detector is halfway between the two flashes and not moving relative to them. So, the Michelson-Morley findings prove that the light from each flash will reach that detector simultaneously, which is the same as the conclusion reached in the original experiment but with the reference frame reversed.
However, unlike the conclusion in the original experiment, in this reversed experiment, it cannot be argued that the light from each flash would reach the other detector (the ground detector in this case) at different times, as would have to be the case if the conclusions in the original experiment were correct.
On the contrary, if each flash on the train occurs at the moment the central detector on the train is directly opposite the detector on the ground (that is, at the moment the ground detector is halfway between the light sources), then the empirical laws of light propagation prove that the light from each flash would also reach the ground detector simultaneously, regardless of the motion of those light sources.
In other words, if each flash occurs at the moment each detector is halfway between the two light sources, then light will radiate out from each flash in all directions and reach each detector simultaneously, despite the fact that those detectors would be moving apart during the whole time.
That conclusion is counterintuitive, but unlike the conclusion in the original experiment (which seemed so obviously correct that it did not need any proof), this conclusion is based on some of the most carefully replicated and confirmed empirical findings in all of physics --the empirical laws of light propagation.
Therefore, what these deceptively simple figures really do is provide solid empirical proof that the speed of a train will not combine with the speed of light to reach any meaningful conclusion. That won't surprise anyone familiar with the behavior of light, but these illustrations provide the necessary proof.
These illustrations show that by merely reversing the reference frame for one of the clearest and best known experiments in the physics literature (Einstein's original train/lightning thought experiment), it becomes equally clear and fully proven that the important conclusion from that experiment (that the appearance of simultaneous events will be changed by the relative motion of the observer of those events) is not correct.
Because these findings are simple and based only on undisputed laws of physics, the actual derivation of these findings may seem unimportant. However, because these findings are simple, they may appear to have been stumbled upon by accident and therefore perhaps to bear only a tangential or somehow artifactual relationship to the theories involved. It should be explained that, although the finding that led to these discrepancies (a problem concerning relativistic mass) was stumbled on by accident, this problem concerning the relativity of simultaneity was not stumbled on by accident. It has a solid foundation going back to that earlier problem concerning relativistic mass.
This discrepancy concerning simultaneity all but disappear without the illustrations shown in Figures A, B, and C. It is still possible to see this problem without these illustrations (by carefully examining the original train/lightning thought experiment, even without reversing the reference frame), but the problem is not easy to see without them, even when knowing almost exactly where to look. So, this discrepancy concerning simultaneity would not be easy to discover by accident, and it certainly bears more than a tangential relationship to the theories involved and cannot be ignored or set aside.
The realization underlying Figures A, B, and C --that by merely reversing the reference frame for the train/lightning thought experiment it becomes clear (and fully proven) that the concept of simultaneity is not relative and that some new explanation will be needed for the observed constant speed of light and other empirical findings of relativity-- was derived from a fully workable solution to the problem concerning relativistic mass, and that same solution also proved that measurements of length could not contract in the direction of an observer's motion, which is assumed in all descriptions of relativity theory.
The conclusion that measurements of length must remain constant for all observers pointed to exactly where at least some problem in the existing theory had to be located. Yet even knowing almost exactly where to look for that problem, and almost exactly what to look for, it still took more than a year to identify exactly what was breaking down in the existing theory and understand how to construct these figures to make this problem more easily visible. But once this second problem was found, exactly where the solution to the first problem said it would be, that gave these findings a level of confidence even beyond the laws of physics.
More information will be provided about this derivation once the solution for the problem concerning relativistic mass is opened for discussion. In the mean time, that solution contains speculations that would be inappropriate before any agreement is reached that there is even a problem in the existing theory.
The problem in the relativity of simultaneity shown in these illustrations is obviously a serious problem for the existing theory, but this will not be a problem for physics itself. On the contrary, this problem in the existing theory provides a rare opportunity for physics to move forward faster than perhaps ever before.
The solution to the mass problem discussed in the section above (the solution that pointed to where some problem in the existing theory had to be located) is a fully workable solution to the problem of how a force of acceleration could increase the momentum of high energy particles without changing their mass or speed, and how that could explain the constant speed of light measured in all inertial frames.
It also answers the question in Figure C concerning that counterintuitive behavior of light, and it explains all the empirical findings of relativity explained by the existing theory. It does this more concisely and coherently than the existing theory, and most important, it does all this without requiring the concept of simultaneity to be relative.
The same solution also solves a number of other problems in the literature that no earlier theory has been able to solve, such as the discrepancy between relativity theory and quantum mechanics concerning the structure of space and nature of gravity, the awkward theoretical problems that would result from being able to travel backwards in time, and the curiously similar characteristics of particles resulting from collisions at higher and higher energies (see references).
There will undoubtedly be suggestions put forward by many different authors to solve all of these problems once it is recognized that there is at least some problem in the existing theory. Once that happens, the solution to the related problems described above will be posted on these pages to add to those considerations.
And once the problem summarized in Figure C is recognized and solved, no matter what solution for that problem is finally accepted, there will then be an opportunity to re-evaluate all of the empirical evidence in this area, and physics itself will move rapidly ahead. So, this problem for the existing theory will not be a problem for physics. It will be an opportunity for physics to resolve some earlier conflicts and move forward.
|
All Rights Reserved
e-mail:rhaubrich@physicsprize.com
