I have my own ATM theory, but, as a newcomer to the forums, I feel it to be preferable to “test the water” with an apparent conceptual flaw in Einstein’s theory. If this is well received, I would like to expand on it. I would apologise in advance if this conundrum has been aired before…

Firstly, I propose to include a brief resume of the history leading up to Einstein’s theory. I am aware that this is well recorded and well known; but it is fundamental to the discussion, and I feel it necessary to reiterate it briefly…

Prior to Einstein’s theories, it was thought that space existed as a material medium. In Einstein’s words “It is characteristic of Newtonian physics that it has to ascribe independent and real existence to space and time as well as to matter, for in Newton’s law of motion the idea of acceleration appears. But in this theory, acceleration can only denote ‘acceleration with respect to space’. Newton’s space must thus be thought of as ‘at rest’, or at least as ‘un-accelerated’, in order that one can consider the acceleration … as being a magnitude with any meaning”1.

It was realised that the velocity of the Earth as it orbited the Sun was sufficient that the motion with respect to the “light medium” of an observer on the Earth should cause measurements of the velocity of light to vary. However, Michelson and Morley’s results (published in 1887) found no such variation. In 1895 H A Lorentz proposed that the effect of the motion was there, but could not be detected because there was another factor that counteracted, and hid, it. This was the effect of the motion on the physical dimensions of the measuring apparatus. In 1904 he formalised this idea and quantified it as an effect on the shape of the orbits of the electrons of the atoms making up the apparatus. The motion of the Earth with respect to space was minutely foreshortening them. This was originally referred to as the Lorentz contraction, but is now know as the Fitzgerald-Lorentz effect.

However, to conform to Michelson’s results it must be noted that:
· If either effect existed in isolation, it would be detected by Michelson’s apparatus.
· Hence, both effects must exist, or neither.

What is the relevance of this to Einstein’s theory?


Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity

In 1905 Einstein published his original Theory of Relativity. In this he not only rejected the existence of the ether as a medium occupying space, but also the existence of space itself as a real entity with physical properties. In his words “The introduction of a ‘luminiferous ether’ will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ‘absolutely stationary space’ provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place”2.

Einstein also suggested that it was not just the material objects that were being foreshortened by the Lorentz effect; it was also acting on the distances between objects. However, there is a problem with this view. If there is no “preferred frame of reference” or “light medium” then the effects of motion with respect to it cannot arise. This suggests that Einstein’s use of the Lorentz contraction in this conceptual framework is inappropriate.


Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

Einstein changed the conceptual context for his General Theory. In this he introduced the idea that field effects in general, and the gravitational field in particular, exists as a material entity. Einstein described electro-magnetic fields as an “irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter in the theory of Newton… There is no such thing as an empty space… Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field”.3

I wish to avoid a discussion of whether Einstein's treatment of the gravitational field is, for practical purposes, tantamount to a material space. It is sufficient to note that:
. If we assume that the theory implies that space exists as a material entity, Einstein’s use of the Lorentz contraction does not conform to Michelson’s results, because he has omitted the contrary effect.
. If we assume that the theory does not imply that space exists as a material entity, then (as above) the Lorentz effect cannot arise.

References:
1,3 Appendix V “Relativity The Special And The General Theory” A. Einstein. June 9th 1952.
2 “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905.

Are you proposing that *some* particular careful measurement would reveal a problem here, or are you saying that all of GR's predictions are correct but that some underlying statement that Einstein made doesn't make sense to you concerning the reality of space as an entity?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi Antoniseb, thank you for commenting on this. I'm not in a position to say whether this is a matter which is amenable to measurement. I propose it as a conceptual question about Einstein's use of the Lorentz contraction. Neither am I in a position to say whether the predictions of GR are correct or not, and I do not presume to do so. But if Einstein is right, does that imply that Michelson was wrong? There appears to be an inconsistency between them, that is the conundrum.

Ich bin ein Physiker, therefore if measurement is not amenable, then fuggetaboutit!

OK, next ATMer!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Hi Maksutov, thank you for your comment. Perhaps I should not have claimed any ATM credentials when proposing the conundrum. I would welcome your views on this apparent discrepancy, and whether that is amenable to measurement to resolve.

Einstein’s theory did not require an aether; it was superfluous. The Michelson and Morley experiment found no evidence of an aether.

What is the apparent flaw in GR?

What is your ATM theory?

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

A luminoforous eather is not required but a background with curled dimensions like in String Theory may create a field in which the particles interact. The particles mediate the information and causes an oscillation of the space in the higher dimensions. (Planck length/deBroglie wave length)

It's not so much that the strings need another dimension to interact as a physical space in which to oscillate. I'm not dismissing it a priori although I don’t see how it ties into the OP about a flaw in GR and a luminous aether.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Hi Jamini, thank you for your comment. As you say, the Michelson and Morley experiment found no evidence of an aether. However, to reconcile this with the prevailing belief in the existence of one, Lorentz proposed the existence of the Lorentz contraction. It's only purpose was to negate the effect of the motion with respect to the (presumed) aether. If you extract the aether from the scenario, then:
a) There does not appear to be any reason to presume the existence of the Lorentz contraction.
b) If the Lorentz contraction DID exist, it should have shown up in Michelson and Morley's results (as it was not counteracted by the aether).

That is precisely the conundrum I'm questioning. Now this could be a simple lack of understanding on my part, in which case I'd be grateful for enlightenment.

On your second point, I don't think this thread is the right place to introduce an ATM. I'm sure the moderator would (rightly) object. However, if the response to my posting is favourable, I'll put it in a new thread (and duck)!

Thanks again for your comment...

jedaisoul: there's a great deal of confusion about aether. Do note Einstein's Leyden address in 1920:

..according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Personally I think the flaws are interpretational, with people saying "Einstein meant this" instead of actually reading what he said. For example, in the original GR translation there's not one mention of curved spacetime.

A curved spacetime is an open question for me. There has to be a background causing a time dilation. If gravity is mediated by gravitons there have to be a field made of gravitons as a background for any other particles.

If a string oscillate it has to be made of something or to be in a medium. If a string is not a substance we can't observe the oscillations. A substance oscillate only. A pure mathematic wave oscillate in our imagination but we can't sense it, I think.

Thank you Farsight for this comment. Re the original GR paper, I assume you are referring to a translation of Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916. I've just briefly re-read it (the translation), and agree that there is no mention of curved space time. I agree that it is vital to refer back to the original works.

However, I'm not sure that the quotation from the Leyden address does answer the problem. I deliberately tried to avoid the question of whether space is a material entity in GR by pointing out the apparent flaw in both alternatives. In what way does Leyden resolve this?

Thank again for your time, and interest in the issue.

From Wiki:

Main article: Status of special relativity

'Special relativity is accurate only when gravitational potential is much less than c^2; in a strong gravitational field one must use general relativity (which becomes special relativity at the limit of weak field). At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below quantum effects must be taken into consideration resulting in quantum gravity. However, at macroscopic scales and in the absence of strong gravitational fields, special relativity is experimentally tested to extremely high degree of accuracy (10^-20) [6] and thus accepted by the physics community. Experimental results which appear to contradict it are not reproducible and are thus widely believed to be due to experimental errors.'

What part don't you like? You can only nibble at the edges; there is nothing grossly wrong with the theory. And SR is only a special case of GR, which is more accurate, just as Newtonian is only a special case of SR.

Ethera esta no neccessito.

In GR, spacetime has always been curved. The curvature is derived from the stress-energy tensor, now called the Einstein equation:
R_uv - (1/2) _guv R = (8 Pi G/c⁴) T_uv

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

If you believe that it is purely mathematical then it does not exist in reality and I'm not sure why you would want to pursue it. If strings - or something like them do exist in reality, they require a physical space in which to oscillate into the various particles and that is why string theories require extra dimensions. That's one of the reasons the theory holds so much fascination; it's not a theory of conjecture filled with a lot of ad hoc tweaks; all of the parameters are required and predicted by the theory itself, including gravity.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Strings are a one-two-three approach to universe, and gravity falls out naturally. The Wiki articles on String Theory and M-Theory are quite understandable. We can't test the predictions yet, but we're close.

I don't see any quandrum. The concomitant effect of Lorentz contraction is fairly straightforward.

Let's say a ship passes Earth at a velocity u on a vector towards Planet X, where distance x is always measured from Earth's reference frame O. Assume Planet X is at rest relative to Earth, eliminating any relative motion. If the ship’s speed remains constant at velocity u then the time required for the voyage is t = x/u, as measured from Earth's reference frame.

From the frame of the observer O' on the ship we can with equal legitimacy consider the ship at rest and Earth to be accelerating relative to the ship at velocity u. From the ship's reference frame, the distance from the Earth to Planet X is x', or u = x'/t . But we also require u = x/t in Earth’s frame as they are both describing the same u, hence:

x’/t’= u = x/t

and since t = ^yt', we must also have

x = ^yx'.

Hence the distance between fixed points, as measured by the ship, is shorter than that measured by Earth’s inertial frame by a factor of 1/y because Earth and Planet X represent the moving system as measured from the ship.

This is the simplest application I can think of for the Lorentz contraction and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "aether drag''

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

I completely agree. There are also a number of excellent books on the subject of String/M/Brane Theories.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Hi John, thanks for your comments. I am not convinced by this statement. Special Relativity was defined with a different conceptual framework from GR, as was pointed out in the OP. There is a special case of GR which is analogous to Special Relativity within the context of GR. That does not make it the same as Special Relativity.

Of course, I may be getting the terminology wrong. If you define SR as the special case of GR then the statement "SR is only a special case of GR" is true, but self evident. My comments on the Special Theory refer to it as defined by Einstein in 1905. I believe that those comments are valid in that context.

I am not a linguist, so I'm afraid I can guess the meaning of the last three words, but "Ethera" defeats me.

Turning to the main thrust of your comments. You appear to be saying (if I may paraphrase it) "hang the concepts, GR works". I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to say whether GR works or not, and would not presume to comment on that. The conundrum I put is conceptual.

Anyway, thanks again for your comments. But however valid they are, are they relevant to the conundrum?

You are definitely getting your terminology wrong. SR simply becomes GR with the addition of the Lorenz Transformation, making the theory covariant with objects in motion.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Hi Jamini, this seems to be a circular argument. You appear to have assumed that the Lorentz contraction will arise in this circumstance without any compensating factor, and therefore your results "prove" that it does.

I have suggested by a process of logic that:
a) In the absence of a material space, the Lorentz contraction cannot occur.
b) In the presence of a material space, the Lorentz contraction should be counteracted, resulting in no apparent change to the velocity of light.

I cannot see where your example has taken the compensating factor into account?

Hi again. With respect, I can only refer you to "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905), and "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" (1916). These are (I believe) the seminal works by Einstein on Special Relativity and General Relativity respectively. The Lorentz effect appears in both.

However, I accept that it may be that the abbreviation SR is generally used to refer to the special case of the General Theory. I am only just becoming used to the abbreviations used on this site (and perhaps elsewhere?). I use the term "Special Relativity" to refer to Einstein's 1905 paper.

No, it demonstrates how the Lorentz contraction must "arise" without a requirement for any "compensating factor" (or aether).

Using actual math and physics, please demonstrate your claims in a and b above, accompanied by your corresponding experimental data.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

I am very familiar with both of those books.

You are correct in your definitions: SR = Special Relativity; GR = General Relativity. I think you are confusing Lorentz contraction with Lorentz transformations.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Lorentz contraction does occur. As I recall, the most elegant demonstration that is for microwave cavities. Many microwave devices use resonant cavities, which are carefully machined to the wavelengths required. Often they are carried in aircraft capable of Mach 2 to 3, which causes enough contraction in the direction of motion to shift the frequency - but - the time dilation takes care of the the problem. SR to the rescue.

As to the conumdrum, don't worry about it. MM and Albert were still thrashing it out. There's definitely no ether, to the limits to which we can test. Better to spend your time pursuing string theory. Those fellows might be correct. Try some of Michio Kaku's books.

Excellent point! I just finished Parallel Worlds, after reading Hyperspace and I rank Michio Kaku right up there with Brian Greene, Lisa Randall and Leonard Susskind. I am just starting a new book: "Many Worlds in One" by Alex Vilenkin, which came highly recommended by one of my BAUT friends.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

See Foresight's quote in #10 from Einstein's Leyden address in 1920.

Thanks for the suggestion.

This might be the only answer! I've read appendix V "Relativity and the Problem of Space" (which Einstein addded in 1952 to an earlier work "Relativity The Special and The General Theory"). This is the last written work I'm aware of by Einstein that deals with the subject of space. In it he says "There is no such thing as empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field." I understand what he is saying, but I'm still not certain whether this means that, in the presence of a field, space exists as a material entity, or not!

Thanks for your comments, they have been most helpful.

Einstein was describing a gravitational aether, not a luminous aether or a Newtonian aether representing absolute space. Ironically, he also addresses the curvature of space in layman's terms.

__________________
"I just have not come across anything that explains what I am trying to suggest."
- EU proponent not wanting credit for statement

Jedaisoul:

To restate your question (just to make sure I've got it right), your wondering how it is that there can be no ether, and yet also have michelson's apparatus contract due to Lorentz contraction and STILL get no measured difference in the speed of light? Since the apparatus is in motion, one of the axis should have shrunk and therefore light should have had a different measured speed on that axis. Is that about right?

One point of special relativity which seems to have been missed here is that it's effects only become noticable with REALTIVE motion (hence the "relativity" in special relativity).

That means that every observer can always view themselves as being stationary, and then everything else is simply in motion relative to them. In fact, every observer absolutly WILL see themselves as stationary.

This means that Michelson and Morley, who where standing next to the apparatus as it orbited the sun, where stationary relative to the apparatus. That means from their point of view, they where viewing it as moving at speed 0. Therefore, the Lorentz contraction was also 0. This is why they failed to measure a change in the speed of light.

If they where in motion relative to the apparatus, then the Lorentz contraction would have been something besides 0, and yes, they would deffinetly have seen a change in the speed of light. So the answer to your apparent conundrum seems to be that since they where stationary compared to the apparatus, the Lorentz contraction was 0 for them, and that should take care of your conundrum.

Hope that helped!!