V.6 No 1


On correctness of basic postulates of SR

2. The physical meaning of postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames (L-postulate)

Let us begin with the L-postulate, as it is definitively important for formulation of relativistic principle of relativity. Einstein reflected it distinctively: “It (the theory of relativity – Authors) took from the Maxwell – Lorentz theory its premise of the constant speed of light in the void space. To agree this premise with the equivalence of inertial systems (special principle of relativity), it was necessary to deny the idea of absolute pattern of simultaneity; furthermore, the Lorentz transformation for the time and space coordinates served to pass from one inertial system to another. The whole content of special theory of relativity is in the postulate: the laws of nature are invariant in relation to the Lorentz transformation” [6, p. 753].

In this citation we first of all can follow the gradation of the structure of SR in which not the relativity principle preceded the L-postulate but vice versa, the simultaneity of events was sacrificed to the light speed constancy in all inertial reference frames. Basically, nothing of surprise, as the law of propagation of light that carries information greatly determines the structure of Galilean transformation. Should the light speed was added to the source speed, the Galilean transformation would some change, too, though not so much as in case of Einsteinian light speed constancy in all frames, where not only spatial coordinates but the time became relative.

And the difficulty is not in the sequence of postulatory formation of conception but in the very meaning of L-postulate. Note: in this citation Einstein states that SR took from the Maxwell – Lorentz theory the premise of light speed constancy in the void space, – and he repeated it in other works. But first, in the Maxwell theory, as well as in Lorentz theory, there did not appear the void space in the Einsteinian meaning – the space without the luminous aether, while already in his first work of 1905 Einstein formulated this stipulation of relativistic conception unambiguously: “With it the introduction of ‘luminous ether’ will appear excessive, as in the suggested theory we do not introduce ‘the absolutely resting space’ having special properties, and any vector of speed is attributed to no one point of space in which the electromagnetic processes occur” [7, p. 8].

But not only and not so much the speed vector hindered Einstein. He took the aether away from the relativistic conception just because in presence of aether he might not introduce the light speed constancy in all mutually moving frames: “It is easy to see further, we have to refuse the luminous ether. Actually, if each ray in a void propagated with the speed c in relation with the frame K, then the luminous ether has to be at rest everywhere with respect to K. But if the laws of light propagation in the frame K' (moving in relation to K) were same as in K, we have to premise with the same right that the ether is at rest also in the frame K'. Since the premise that the ether is at rest in two frames at the same time is absurd and since it would be no less absurd to prefer one of them (or of infinitely large number) of physically equivalent frames, we have to refuse the introduction of the idea of ether which turned into an useless makeweight to the theory as soon as we refused the mechanistic treatment of light” [8, p. 416]. Here we see for the first time the main, though hidden principle of the approach to the studies widely applied by relativists: “If the experiment is discrepant with the theory it is for worse for the experiment”. They imposed this principle on physics, having substituted the study of natural phenomena by thinking them out. In this meaning the aether was actually incompatible with SR, and not only because it rested or, as relativists said, was exceptionally mechanistic. Whatever would be the properties of the aether, if it was responsible for propagation of EM oscillations, they might not even speak that the properties of these oscillations and, the main, the speed of these oscillations propagation in space were same with respect to mutually moving frames, while the L-postulate automatically establishes this stipulation in the relativistic conception. And relativists were not a list embarrassed even that they themselves understand, having perverted the idea of electromagnetic processes, they lead themselves to a deadlock of discrepancies: “When we introduce the field as an elementary concept, this causes the inconsistency of the theory as the whole. The Maxwell theory (in the relativistic statement – Authors), though it correctly describes the behaviour of electrically charged particles, does not explain the behaviour of density of electric charge, i.e. it does not provide the theory of particles themselves. Thus, they have to be considered on the basis of old theory as material points. The combination of the idea of continuous field with the idea of material points lumped in space appears contradictive. The sequential field theory requires from all these elements of the theory to be continuous, and not only in time but also in space, and in all its points. Hence, the material point as a basic concept has no place in the field theory. Thus, even if we distract from the gravity that we have put aside, we cannot think the Maxwellian electrodynamics a complete theory” [9, p. 722]. Not they are guilty but, again, the Maxwell theory and classical understanding of physical point, which relativists will go on using, as they don’t suggest any basic breakthroughs in the understanding of laws of nature, they confine themselves exceptionally to the substitution of existing understanding by their clearly discrepant interpretations. Well, if speaking of, which development needs the Maxwell theory in its original statement, this would be not the way of transformation of the idea of speed of EM processes propagation in space and time but the way of change of the conservation laws for stationary field by related laws for dynamic fields, and we showed it in our studies [10]–[12]. The results of those studies show, the conservation laws become really 4-D but do not lead to the light speed constancy in all frames. They interrelate the conservation laws with the laws of induction being the second part of the Maxwell’s system of equations, and they substantiate the possibility of propagation in free space of longitudinal EM wave whose existence was rejected by Maxwellian theory just because of incomplete system of basic equations.

Contents: / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 / 37 / 38 / 39 / 40 / 41 / 42 /

Hosted by uCoz