V. N. Matveev and O. V. Matvejev

A macroscopic object consisting of a rod equipped with a pair of synchronized clocks is examined. General physical relations are directly derived from Lorentz transformations for the case of the rod's one-dimensional motion (along the X axis) – the uncertainty relation of the object's x coordinate and the projection of its impulse along the X axis, px, and the uncertainty relation of the object's observation time, t, and its energy, E. The relations take the form: ΔpxΔx ≥ H and ΔEΔt ≥ H. The H value in the relation has action dimensions and is dependent upon the precision of the rod's clocks and its mass.

It is shown that if the macroscopic object in and of itself performs the function of an ideal physical clock, the relations derived in the limiting case then take the form of ΔpxΔx ≥ h and ΔEΔt ≥ h, where h is the Planck constant.

Vadim N. Matveev is an engineer-physicist. A graduate of Leningrad Electrotechnical Institute (LETI), V.I. Matveev has been over 30 years engaged in fundamental and applied research within physical photography (electrophotography). He is the author of a number of works, also making about twenty inventions in the field of electrophotography. Actively involved in the development of electrophotographic copiers, he was the designer and product manager of the USSR first small-size colour copy machine. It was during this period that V.N. Matveev took a great interest in the special theory of relativity and wrote a number of works though unpublished at that time. Certain ideas contained in these works became part of V.N. Matveev's book “Entering the Third Millennium without Physical Relativity?” issued by CheRo Publishers in 2000.

Since 2005 V.N. Matveev has been collaborating with his son O.V. Matveev. In the process of their joint work, treating physical relativity as uncertainty determined by the ambiguity of the concept of a physical object, V.N. Matveev and O.V. Matveev found a direct relationship between Lorentz transformations and correlations of uncertainties of coordinate-impulse and time-energy. During the same period, departing from the movement of bodies in fluids, they managed by means of simple methods of Newtonian mechanics to build a simulation model of relativistic effects. One may get acquainted with earlier works of V.N. Matveev as well as with his “The Strange Regularities Linking Lorentz Transformations to Quanto-mechanical Correlations of Uncertainties” and “The Complete Simulation of the Theory of Relativity by Means of Newtonian Mechanics” on the pages of this website.

Contact: matwad(eta)mail.ru

 

Matveev V.N., Matveev О.V.

Introduction

The Internet forums on physical, mathematical, philosophical and even religious issues frequently become a stage for discussions on Zeno of Elea, the ancient Greek philosopher. Even though in such discussions an idea of the inanity of Zeno’s aporiae and the naivety of this ancient Greek is frequently heard, an interest in Zeno’s aporiae is not waning.

No doubt, these days there are very few who seriously accept the conclusions of Eleatic thinkers as to the impossibility of motion; still their logical deductions have not lost their attraction even today. Zeno’s name is mentioned not only in the history of ancient Greek philosophy. The slowdown of quantum processes discovered a quarter of a century ago was given the name of the quantum Zeno effect (QZE) [1] and is treated in the most serious scientific journals.

“Dad, is it really so that mass depends on energy?”, C. Adler, an American physicist was asked by his son.
“No! Or rather - yes. Actually it doesn’t, but don't tell your teacher about it”, C. Adler answered.
The next day the physicist’s son stopped studying physics.
From the article by L.B. Okun, published in the “Advances in Physical Sciences”, vol. 158, issue 3, 1989, pp. 511-530

Einstein’s special theory of relativity has never given a moment's peace to sceptics casting their doubts on it. One of the reasons for such non-acceptance of the special theory of relativity is that the sizes of physical quantities as inherent properties of an object may depend on its relative velocity, which, in its turn, is dependent on an arbitrary selection of reference frames. The same length of the same extensive object, for instance, may be different within different reference frames. This dependence is appropriately called the physical relativity, and the theory assigning a major part to the physical relativity is therefore called the physical relativism.

Quote

“Dad, is it really so that mass depends on energy?”, C. Adler, an American physicist was asked by his son.

“No! Or rather - yes. Actually it doesn’t, but don't tell your teacher about it”, C. Adler answered.

The next day the physicist’s son stopped studying physics.


From the article by L.B. Okun, published in the “Advances in Physical Sciences”, vol. 158, issue 3, 1989, pp. 511-530

The opponents of physical relativism cannot reconcile themselves with the fact that the sizes of physical quantities inherent in an object depend not only on composition, structure and physical state of this object, but also on the velocity of the given object and the measuring devices relative to each other.

It is a widely spread opinion that physical relativism is only denied by the critics of the theory of relativity. In reality, attempts at derelativisation of the special theory of relativity, including rather successful ones, have been made not only by critics, but by supporters of the special theory of relativity as well. One of the first attempts of this kind was Minkowski’s proposition to substitute the term “the principle of relativity” with the term “the postulate of the absolute world”. Minkowski understood the absolute world as a four-dimensional mathematical formulation where four-dimensional similarities of relative sizes of physical quantities acquired the absolute (mathematically invariant) nature and were not dependent on an arbitrary selection of a reference frame. Despite Minkowski’s proposition, the special theory of relativity retained its name, even though many physics do not consider this name as representing term’s physical content. The four-dimensional formalism failed to crush physical relativism and prevent further growth of its popularity. This occurred due to the following. Firstly, in order to discard the physical relativity one has to accept objective reality of the theoretically introduced four-dimensional quantities and the imperceptible four-dimensional space. Secondly, and it is radical indeed, one has to treat dimensions of practical physical quantities as non-real, with space and time as such also belonging here. Minkowski declared them “shadows” of the four-dimensional space. However, such radicalism turned unacceptable to many of the physicists, with no other methods of derelativisation found for a long time.

Another attack on physical relativity took place at the end of the 20th century with the promotion of non-relativistic nature of mass. Because of this promotion initiated, among others, by the American physicist C. Adler and the Russian physicist L.B. Okun the concept of relativistic mass was found faulty and substituted with the concept of invariant (absolute) mass. Likewise, the “world’s most famous formula” E=mc2 was found faulty and replaced by the formula E0=mc2. The appearance of a small zero subscripting the letter E in the formula E=mc2, though attracting little attention of non-experts, produced a noticeable effect. Since 2006 the concept of relativistic mass and the formula E=mc2 in its original interpretation have been excluded from the curricula of the Russian school.

Thus, a good hundred years after the appearance of the concept of relativistic mass, the absolute (invariant) mass was officially rehabilitated. Then what is to be done with other relativistic magnitudes? Shall we give another hundred years to each of them?

There is no need doing so as the solution to the problem of physical relativity is already in place. One may find it in V.N. Matveev’s book “Entering the Third Millennium without Physical Relativity?” The book gives cogent arguments that physical relativity is uncertainty caused by incomplete (partial) concretization of an object. The “same” partially concretized extensive object possessing, let us say, different lengths in different reference frames is approached here as a magnitude of concrete sub-objects (objects of a higher degree of concretization) of different lengths, with each of concrete sub-objects possessing a certain length. V. N. Matveev’s approach completely frees the special theory of “relativity” from physical relativism, preserving the picture of an ether-less world. It was this approach that enabled V.N. Matveev and O.V. Matveev to reveal the existence of a direct relationship between Lorentz transformations and the quanto-mechanical correlations of uncertainties (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle), presented in the article “The Correlations of Uncertainties in General Physics as an Implication of Lorentz Transformations”.

Some years ago V.N. Matveev and O.V. Matveev developed a simulation model of the special theory of relativity, which by means of simple methods of Newtonian mechanics reproduced all “relativistic” effects in fluids – the length contraction of an object in the direction of its movement, the relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, the twin paradox, Doppler’s relativistic effect. This model makes us repeatedly address the ideas of derelativisation of the special theory of relativity and the reasons for the derelativisation process being so problematic. The model is presented on this site in the article “The Complete Simulation of the Special theory of Relativity by means of Newtonian Mechanics".

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE

THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND ATTEMPTS AT ITS DERELATIVISATION .DOC .PDF

 

The speed of light relative to the Earth surface is shown as depending on the direction of its propagation. Clock synchronization.

Einstein's theory of clock synchronization is based on an arbitrary, as noted by Einstein [1], assumption of the equality of the speed of light in opposite directions and on experimental data on the “constancy” of the average speed of light on the way “there and back”.

All earlier experiments to measure the speed of light were conducted by measuring it with just one clock, doubling the distance between a transmitter/receiver and a reflector and calculating the time of signal propagation on the way to the reflector and back.

Poincare, Reichenbach, Tyapkin, Brillouin [2-5] and many others noted that only measuring the speed of light by using a pair of clocks that have been pre-synchronized at points A and B in space could yield the speed of light in one direction – from point A to point B. All other methods, even including, as shown by Karlov [4], the method of astronomical observations used by Roemer, yield an average value of the speed of light in opposite directions.

© 2010-2011. THEORY OF RELATIVITY: THE TRUE FACE
Vadim N.Matveev matwad@mail.ru