Skip to main content

Can a Lorentz Aether theory Explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment?

A theory of relativity already governed Newtonian mechanics. It's impossible according to Galilean relativity, to perform a mechanical experiment that tells one if she is in constant motion or at rest. Galileo's transformation equations were as follows


A problem became apparent when Maxwell published his equations of electromagnetism. He discovered that the speed of light is constant and propagates through an "aether". Motion through the aether of space is absolute and not relative and thus one could discover using light rays if they were traveling at a constant motion or at rest, violating Galieo's thesis. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the failure to detect such motion. Something was obviously wrong.


Galileo had not understood the effects of time dilation and length contraction. Today most physicists explain these effects as simply the result of time and spatial coordinates. These are not invariant and change from coordinate system unlike proper coordinates. Lorentz transformations are supposed to rotate these coordinates.

Lorentz, Larmor, FitzGerald and Poincare tried to explain the effects as the result of motion through the electromagnetic field. Since material objects are bound together by electrical forces its natural to consider that they themselves should be affected by motion through space. Our question "can a Lorentz aether theory explain the Michelson-Morley experiment?" is in fact equivalent to "can these effects be explained using the electromagnetic field?" John Bell showed that the answer was in fact yes.

Lets limit ourselves only to a simple example, a hydrogen atom with one electron moving along the z axis. Consider what happens to the orbit of the election. When the atom accelerates in an electric field our motion equation is


Where r is the position of the election in the field. At high velocity the familiar momentum equation is unsatisfactory.


Instead it's replaced with a modified formula proposed by Lorentz


Provided that acceleration is smooth. the nucleus will experience FitzGerald contraction in the direction of motion and the orbit will appear elliptical rather than circular. This orbit will now occur over a period larger than the original, such that it experiences Larmor dilation. The total number of orbits for a time t with velocity V(t) is given by


This suggests that we should describe the variables of the system to incorporate these effects. 


 


The moving orbit described with the primed variables is the same as the stationary orbit. One can extend this description to the field of the uniformly moving charge. During any orbit


One only has to now take a suitable origin for z and t in order to derive the standard form of the Lorentz  transformation equations. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Three Things William Lane Craig Gets Wrong About the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Proposal

Classical standard hot Big Bang cosmology represents the universe as beginning from a singular dense point, with no prior description or explanation of classical spacetime. Quantum cosmology is different in that it replaces the initial singularity with a description in accord with some law the "quantum mechanical wave function of the universe", different approaches to quantum cosmology differ in their appeal either to describe the origin of the material content of the universe e.g., Tyron 1973, Linde 1983a, Krauss 2012 or the origin of spacetime itself e.g., Vilenkin 1982, Linde 1983b, Hartle-Hawking 1983, Vilenkin 1984.

These last few proposals by Vilenkin, Hartle-Hawking and others are solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and exist in a category of proposals called "quantum gravity cosmologies" which make cosmic applications of an approach to quantum gravity called "closed dynamic triangulation" or CDT (also known as Euclidean quantum gravity). I&#…

How Should Thatcherites Remember the '80s?

Every now and again, when I talk to people about the '80s I'm told that it was a time of unhinged selfishness, that somehow or other we learned the price of everything but the value of nothing. I can just remember that infamous line from Billy Elliot; 'Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher. We all celebrate today because its one day closer to your death'. If it reflected the general mood of the time, one might wonder how it is she won, not one but three elections.

In an era when a woman couldn't be Prime Minister, her launch into power was accidental owing in part to Manchester liberals and the Winter of Discontent. Yet I'm convinced her election victory in '79 was the only one that ever truly mattered. Simply consider the calamity of what preceded it, the 1970s was a decade of double-digit inflation, power cuts, mass strikes, price and income controls, and the three day week. Britain was sick, it needed fundamental restructuring but no one seemed to quite under…

Can inflation be eternal into the past?

Back in 2003 a paper appeared on the arXiv titled "Inflationary spacetimes are not past complete" that was published by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin which has had considerable amounts of attention online. The theorem is rather uninteresting but simple and doesn't require a very complicated understanding of math. So I thought I'd explain the result here.

It's purpose is to demonstrate that inflationary models are geodesically incomplete into the past which they take as "synonymous to a beginning" but Vilenkin stresses that the theorem can be extended to non inflationary models so long as the condition of the theorem that the average rate of expansion is never below zero is met. These models too then are incomplete into the past. Consider the metric for an FRW universe with an exponential expansion


Where the scale factor is


Since the eternal inflation model is a "steady state cosmology" the mass density and the Hubble paramet…