In article "Did a "big explosion" of Universe take place?"
W.W. Glushko make a hypothesis founded on the fact of the inconstant
of the light velocity. Besides he passed into silence that this fact
refute an exsistence of general principle of relativity. But was this
experiment unexpected? Are there another observations, experiments and
facts contradicting with the general principle of relativity? Yes, there
are. How can we explain that general principle of relativity have appeared
and have not been refuted for 90 years?
An occurrence of the general principle of relativity was due to the
following events in physics:
Michelson's experiments on the attempt to reveal movement of the
Earth with respect to ether;
Kaufmann's experiments with fast motion of electrons in a transverse
magnetic field;
the introduction of transformations for the Maxwell equations
conserving their form in the inertial frame.
We can trace some stages of drawing up of the general principle of
relativity. In work "Interference method of Michelson" [5] issued in 1815
Lorentz grounded hypothesis about shortening long measures of moving
bodies. In this work was shown that shortening long measures is in
proportion to "Lorentz factor", explaining "negative" result of
Michelson's experiment that played a main part in appearance of the
general principle of relativity. After that in work "Electromagnetic
phenomena in system with any velocity that less then velocity of light"
[6] (in 1904). Lorentz transfer his hypothesis about shortening long
measures of moving bodies to Kaufmann's experiments, where he display a
good consent of experiments and hypothesis with application of "Lorentz
factor"
Besides all, in the Lorentz's above – mentioned work the co-ordination
transformations of inertial systems for which form of Maxwell's equations
is well preserved are used for the first time.
Here Lorentz express thought that law of interactions and movements for
gravity behave as laws for electromagnetism. Thus in this work Lorentz
expressed all main ideas of general principle of relativity.
From 1898 to 1905 Poincare write some articles in which he discuss
Lorentz's hypothesis and Michelson's interference experiment as well as
problem of the time measuring where he try to solve the task of
simultaneous of events. There he show that on center of this task is
another problem. It is problem of constant speed of light as signal with
help of which we can regulate clock and determine local time.
At last practically simultaneously (with 25 days of difference) in 1905
fundamental works on special theory of relativity: "To electrodynamics of
moving bodies" by Einstein [11] and "About dynamics of electron" by
Poincare [12] were received to the press. But if Poincare elaborated this
ideas gradually acknowledging priority most of work for Lorentz, while
Einstein put forward his work as something made completely.
In spite of general likeness of ideas main difference of Poincare's
works from Einstein's articles is that Poincare expressed necessary doubt
in his theory – hypothesis. So concerning problem of the velocity of the
light he wrote: "In accordance with Lorentz's theory two segments will be
equal if light pass them for the same time. Perhaps enough to refuse from
this definition and whole Lorentz' theory will be destroyed completely as
it happened with Ptolemy's system after Copernicus' interference". Thus
Poincare understood unstablement of adoption of postulate about constancy
of the light velocity in inertial system independently from movement of
the source and the receiver.
Perhaps, they did not know about the property of the light to
appearance of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein works. Perhaps, another
experiments (besides Michelson's experiment) and observations that led to
strange conclusion for physicists were not made? It is strange because
independence of the light velocity from the receiver velocity is not
grounded by physical reasons but only is founded on Michelson's
experiments.
Of course, decisive experiments on revelation of ether were executed
later. The relict background was revealed in 1979 only [13]. However,
there was the star aberration [14]; observations of deflection of eclipse
of Jupiter's satellite (Römer) [15]; Arago's experiments with prisms [16];
Fiseau's experiments [17] on partial dragging of light by moving water;
Fiseau's and Foucoult's [18] experiments on definition of decrease of the
light velocity in the more dense medium. Fresnel [19] and Stoks' [20]
theories on the ether dragging by bodies and Fresnel drag coefficient were
known.
There are observation experiments, theories and hypotheses. It follows
from this that light's velocity from stars and speeds of the Earth are
added by classical manner. On another hand Arago's experiments showed that
movement of Earth do not influence upon optical phenomena near to surface
of the Earth. It may mean that ether is immovable with respect to the
Earth. Fresnel made conclusion that the Earth drags ether. The star
aberration and Arago experiments show that the ether dragging by the Earth
have relation to the Earth only but not solar system on the whole. Hence
it follows that the stratum of the dragged ether has a small size and has
to have baric gradient. It means that the velocity of the light is not
constant. On another hand such distribution of ether in universe point out
to investigators that every cosmic body has the ether lens. Such ether
lens has to distort the motion of light that was revealed later but at the
general relativity position.
Hertz made conclusion about the partial ether dragging by moving bodies
too. In work "About basic equations of electrodynamics of moving bodies"
[21] issued in 1889 Hertz inferred new equations of electromagnetic field
taking into consideration motion of electromagnetic system with respect to
the ether with speed U. It follows from this equation that two
charges interact as two currents immovable with respect to each other but
movable with respect to ether. The last fact is confirmed by experiments
but does not follow from the Maxwell equations. [22]
Thus we can see that after appearance of the theory of general
relativity the development of the physics lost contact with analysis of
natural phenomena, observations and experiments. Not in vain Einstein
proclaimed the new principle of the development of the physics: "...it
(physics) is the creation of human intellect with its free contrived ideas
and conceptions".
Investigators contrary to observed event proclaimed that the ether
dragging by the bodies could not exist because that can not be proved with
the help of already known airhydrodynamic theories. Lorentz made just such
conclusion in his work "The interferencial experiments by Michelson".
After that Einstein and Infeld in their book "Evolution of physics"
[23] wrote: "Development of Fresnel's hypothesis require assumption in
respect to connection between the ether and the moving matter" and in this
reason it can not be adopted". At the same time Newton's hypothesis about
absorption of the ether by bodies and Rimann's hypothesis about emission
of the ether by bodies were known. These hypotheses explain the mechanics
of interaction of bodies and assume the ether dragging by the bodies were
known.
Already after appearance of the special theory of relativity
experiments that should restore the justice in respect to ether and turn
down the special theory of relativity were implemented. Implementing
experiments during 25 years Miller discovered the velocity height
dependent gradient in the ether that is perpendicular to the surface of
the Earth. Miller was made to renounce his conclusion like as inquisition
made to refuse Galileo from his convictions. The scientists trying to
prove the absurdity of special theory of relativity was thrown down to the
ridicule and the obstruction.
The most brilliant experiment testifying the existence of ether was
executed by Harres [23] in 1912. It was interferencial experiment on a
revolving platform. This experiment was repeated by Sagnac [26] (1913) and
by Pogany [27] (1925). Results of experiments were named "Sagnac's
phenomenon". Vavilov wrote, "If Sagnac's phenomenon was discovered before
the receipt of second range results (the Michelson experiment), it would
regard as the brilliant evidence of the ether existence" [28].
The experiment on the revolving platform showed that the ether dragging
by the platform on background of the ether dragging by the Earth is very
small and practically is equal to zero. For all that the velocity of light
and the velocity of the platform are added on classical manner that in its
turn means the absolute negation of the postulate on the constancy of the
velocity of light in the special theory of relativity.
The rise of "the Lorentz factor" has the grounded reasons. This factor
account the light dragging by moving second medium relatively to first
medium by consideration of the light motion in two media moving relatively
each other. In the work "The ether and matter" Larmour (1900) [29]
theoretically obtained the Fresnel drag coefficient, "the Lorentz factor"
and the "relativistic formula of the addition of the velocity as a result
that light, like waves, spread with constant velocity relatively to
immovable medium. By the transition in another medium moving relatively to
first one the light move with constant velocity too but relatively to
second medium.
Thus if there is a complete dragging of ether at surface of the Earth
then ground experiments will show the same and constant velocity of the
light at any directions. It is just what the Arago – Michelson experiments
showed.
The light is electromagnetic oscillations and the Maxwell equations
describe the interaction electromagnetic fields in immovable ether. It is
natural to expect that the Maxwell equations must save its appearance
after "relativistic" transformation in which "Lorentz factors" play
principal part. The full dragging of the ether by every new transition in
the inertial frame of reference is implied. Thus the dependence of the
Maxwell equations to the "relativistic" transformation is purely
mathematical (no physical) regularity. The matter with modification of the
mechanic lows to subordinate its to "the coordinate transformation in the
form of invariant of the Lorentz group" is not all right. The Kaufmann
experiments with fast motions of electrons in a transverse magnetic field
served as a basis for such modification. The "Lorentz factor" turned out
suitable for the "explanation" of the experiment results. Lorentz again
applied his hypothesis on reduction of the longitudinal size of a body and
introduced the conception on longitudinal mass. It is meant that the
electron mass increase with the velocity growth. The increase of the
electron mass have influence on the mechanic lows although the problem of
the electron motion in magnetic field is problem of electrodynamics (field
– particle).
Lorentz perfectly having known the electrodynamics of particle –
particle by Weber [30] and having written himself the electrodynamic law
of field – particle ignored them for explanation of the Kaufmann
experiments because he was devoted to his hypothesis on reduction of the
longitudinal size of the electrons and bodies when the velocity of their
motion increased and also because that hypothesis had a good conformity to
the Michelson experiments creating illusion of the universal
regularity.
It is necessary to notice that in the Weber electrodynamics particle –
particle, the Lorentz electrodynamics field – particle and in the Gerber
law on gravitation act different multipliers but close to "Lorentz factor"
in their shape. It means that with some mistake increasing by approach to
the velocity of interaction they can be united with "Lorentz factor". That
is why this factor fined itself suitable for "the explanation" of the
Kaufmann experiments at the electron velocity v ≤ 0,7 c the
velocity of light.
Thus we can say that absurd amalgamation of laws of interactions with
laws of the light motion in two medium have occurred. Three more absurd
statements became foundation for that: 1) the increase of the body mass by
the increase of the body velocity; 2) independence of the light velocity
from the motion of the inertial frame of reference; 3) the negation of the
any opportunity to define the motion of inertial frame of reference.
The first basis. We can ask ourselves what will occur if two
interacting bodies are mowing with respect to each other by the velocity
of interaction? The potential of the interaction will be fully late if the
spreading of the one occurs by the velocity of interaction. The bodies
stop the interaction and the force of the interaction become equal to
zero. We have two point of unknown law: this is the Newtonian law (for
gravitation) and the Coulomb law (for electricity) by relative velocity of
interaction equal zero but by the velocity of bodies equal to the velocity
of interaction forces of interaction will be equal zero.
The Gerber law (on gravitation) explains an anomalous displacement of
planets perihelia (discovered 17 years before appearance of general theory
of relativity). The Lorentz law (field – particle) could be used in order
to explain results of the Kaufmann experiment with fast electrons in
magnetic field. Decrease of force of interaction by increase of velocity
of electrons reasonable to explain by the delayed potential not the
increased mass of electrons. Hence the adaptation of the mechanic laws for
the general principle of relativity is not competent.
The second basis. The conclusion on the independence the light
velocity from motion of inertial frame of reference contradict to the
observations of Römer and Bradley, the experiments of Fiseau and Sagnac
and now – to experiments of Glushko.
The third basis. The impossibility to determine motion of the
inertial frame of reference by any experiments crashed down too. The
measuring of velocity of The Earth, The Solar system and Galaxy was
implemented with help of anisotropy of the so cold "relict
background".
Thus all three grounds on the general principle of relativity turned
out incorrect. Hence, general principle of relativity merely does not
exist in the nature. However, the theories of relativity have acquired
"stability of Ptolemy's system" and "...are protected with unusual passion
and opponents subject to any attacks" (Timirjazev) [34].
The literature:
A.A. Michelson. Relative movement of the Earth and a
lightcarriing ether. Amer. J. Phys., 1881, 22, p. 120...129.
A.A. Michelson and E.V Morley. About relative movement of
the Earth in an lightcarriing ether. Amer. J. Sci., 1887, 34, p.
333...345.
W. Kaufmann. Phys. ZS, 1902, b. 4, s. 105. In article of G.
A. Lorentz "The Electromagnetic phenomena in the system moved with any
velocity, smaller velocity of light", 1904.
W. Kaufmann. Gott. Nachr., Math. – phys. Klasse, 1903, s.
90. In article of G. A. Lorentz "The Electromagnetic phenomena in the
system moved with any velocity, smaller velocity of light", 1904.
G.A. Lorentz. Interferential experience of Michelson. From
the book "Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen
Erscheinungen in bewegten Korpern. Leiden, 1895, par. 89...92.
G.A. Lorentz. The electromagnetic phenomena in the system
moved with any velocity, smaller velocity of light. Proc Acad.,
Amsterdam, 1904, v 6, p 809.
H. Poincare. The measuring of time. "Revue de Metaphysique
et de Morale", 1898, t. 6, p. 1...13.
H. Poincare. The optical phenomena in moved bodies.
Electricite et Optique, G. Carre et C. Naud, Paris, 1901, p. 535...536.
H. Poincare. About a principle of relativity of space and
movement. The chapters 5...7 of the book "Science and hypothesis".
Paris, 1902.
H. Poincare. The present and future of mathematical
physics. The report which has been printed out in a magazine "Bulletin
des Sciences Mathematiques", 1904, v. 28, ser. 2, p. 302.
A. Einstein. To an electrodynamics of a moved body. Ann. d.
Phys., 1905 (the chapter has been received in printing June 30 1905), b.
17, s. 89.
H. Poincare. About dynamics of electron. Rendiconti del
Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 1906 (chapter has been printed July 23,
1905) v. XXI, p. 129.
B. Kory, D. Wulkinson, J. Smith and others. Experiments on
anisotropy of relict radiation. In: G. De Vaucoulers. A. J., 58, p. 30,
1958.
D. Bradly. The letter to Galleo. 1728.
O. Römer. The proof concerning velocity of light. 1675.
D. F. Arago. Experiments on attempt of detection of
influence of the Earth on refraction of light from stars in a prism.
1810.
I. Fiseau. About a hypothesis concerning a light ether and
about one experiment, which, apparently, shows, that the movement of
bodies changes velocity, with which light is propagated inside these
bodies. C. R., 1851, 33, p. 349...355.
L. Foucoult. About velocity of light in the various media.
Ann. de Ch. et de Ph., 1854, t. 41, p. 123...164.
O. Fresnel. The letter to Arago "Concerning influence of
movement of the Earth on some optical phenomena". 1818.
G.G. Stoks. About aberration of light. Phil. Mag., 1845,
27, p. 9...15.
H. Hertz. About basic equations of an electrodynamics of
moved bodies. 1890.
J.C. Maxwell. A treatise on an electricity and magnetism.
V. 2
A. Einstein, L. Infeld. Evolution of physics.
D.C. Miller. Experiments on an ether wind and definition of
absolute movement of the Earth. The report in Case school of applied
science, 1933.
F. Harres. Die Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes in bewegten
Korpern. Dissertation, Jena, 1912.
G. Sagnac. L'ether lumineux demontre par l'effekt du vent
relatif d'ether dans un interferjmetre en rotation uniforme. C. R.,
1913, 157, p. 708...710.
B. Pogany. Uber die Wiederholung des Haress – Sagnaschen
Versuches. Ann. Phys., 1926, 80, p. 217...231.
S.I. Vavilov. The experimental basis of a relativity
theory. Collection of works, v. 4, Academizdat, M., 1956.
J. Larmor. Aether and matter, Cambridge, 1900.
W. Weber. Werke, Vol. 4, 247...299, Springer, Berlin, 1894.
H.A. Lorentz. The electronic theory. Leiden, 1892.
P. Gerber. Space and temporary propagation of gravitation.
Z. Math. Phys., 43, p. 93...104, 1898.
C.F. Gauss. Works, v. 5, Royal scientific society,
Goettingen, 1867.
A.K. Timirjazev. A principle of relativity. In collection
"The theory of relativity and materialism". M. – L., 1925.
Is published earlier:
"Science of Kazakhstan", 20 (56), October 15...31,
1995.
Знаете ли Вы, что "тёмная материя" - такая же фикция, как черная кошка в темной комнате. Это не физическая реальность, но фокус, подмена. Реально идет речь о том, что релятивистские формулы не соответствуют астрономическим наблюдениям, давая на порядок и более меньшую массу и меньшую энергию. Отсюда сделан фокуснический вывод, что есть "темная материя" и "темная энергия", но не вывод, что релятивистские формулы не соответствуют реалиям. Подробнее читайте в FAQ по эфирной физике.
