Or how to change the century-long-overdue relativistic paradigm which is still constricting the evolution of physics
I said earlier that one of the reasons for my preferring Asimov's description of the Michelson-Morley experiment was what I believe to have been a “slip of the tongue” on the part of that author. Now is a good time to reveal it.
By and large, Asimov's description of the experiment is right at the end of his book (Asimov's new guide to science is almost 1000 pages long). A summary of the main points of the experiment, however, is presented on page 350. And in that summary I read the following:
If the earth is moving through a motionless ether, Albert Michelson had reasoned [before conducting the experiment], then a beam of light sent in the direction of its motion and reflected back should travel a shorter distance than one sent out at right angles and reflected back. (My italics.)
Michelson's initial reasoning was clearly the common sense reasoning. Need I explain why? No, I don't think so. This reasoning is so common that just about anyone should easily arrive at the same conclusion. After analysing the experiment mathematically, however, the conventional conclusion was that exactly the opposite is the case! Why? What could possibly change the initial reasoning so dramatically? Asimov says nothing about that in his book, and (as far as I know) neither does anybody else. Of course, the relativists will immediately remind you of certain assumptions (the laws of physics in inertial frames of reference, principle of relativity applied, etc.), but a solid line of reasoning proving that those assumptions are warranted and indispensable... I have never seen anywhere. And that's not all. Even with those assumptions employed, I challenge any physicist to prove that the conventional mathematical analysis is superior to the common sense analysis. Come on, you physicists out there, show me the error in the common sense reasoning below.
- The experiment was designed to establish if there is a frame of reference at absolute rest (call it ether, call it space, call it what you will).
- The initial assumption was that there is such a frame of reference.
- Therefore, all measurements involved should be performed relative to that assumption.
Now, in the case where the beam of light was sent out in a direction perpendicular to that of the earth's motion, the conventional analysis does measure the distance travelled by the light relative to that assumed frame of reference. (“In the time it takes light to reach the mirror the motion of the earth has carried the mirror from...”, remember?) In the parallel case, however, the distance travelled by the beam of light is not measured relative to the assumed frame of reference—even though the same reasoning should categorically be employed. (That's simply because in the time it takes light to reach that mirror, the motion of the earth has carried it from its original point—relative to the assumed frame of reference at absolute rest—to another point, relative to the assumed frame of reference at absolute rest!) A visual description of the common sense reasoning in the Michelson-Morley experiment is shown in the animation below.
In natural language, then, the common sense analysis of the parallel journey says: In the time it takes light to travel from its source to the mirror at its velocity c plus earth's velocity v, the mirror has moved in space a certain distance—which I shall denote z. The distance travelled by the light in the first leg of the parallel journey is, therefore, in mathematical language: (d+z)/(c+v). In the return leg, on the other hand, in the time it takes light to travel back from the mirror to the source the motion of the earth has carried the source a certain distance in space in the direction of the earth's motion. Mathematically this leg of the journey is expressed thus: (d-z)/(c-v). A visual depiction of this common sense analysis of the parallel journey completed by the light is shown in the animation below.
Now, the total time taken by the light to complete the journey in the direction parallel to the earth's direction of motion is:
So how does the common sense result compare to the conventional result of the parallel case? Let's put them side by side and see:
Now we can extract the final conclusion in the common sense analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment by comparing the two results above. And since I am only interested in a qualitative analysis of the experiment I can easily derive the final conclusion I have been seeking:
Thus, if there is a need of me to say this, for any value of v greater than zero the time taken by the light to cover the distance from its source to the mirror and back is shorter than the time taken by the light to complete the perpendicular journey! And, of course, this conclusion is exactly the same to Michelson's original one (the one put forward by the common sense), and is the exact opposite of the conventional conclusion. Surprised? You shouldn't be. When between the rational analysis of a phenomenon and its formal (mathematical) interpretation there are conditions (assumptions) imposed by the dogma, chances are that the general sense will no longer be common and that the common will no longer make sense. The history of physics is littered with such examples, and more often than not one idea is replaced by its exact opposite.
So the common sense analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment leads to a completely different conclusion than the conventional analysis employed by the establishment since 1887. Nonetheless, the two different approaches have something in common: They both conclude that there ought to be a difference between the times taken by the light to complete the two return journeys. The experiment, however, did not detect the difference predicted. Now, we have seen how the conventional establishment dealt with that most unexpected result. Through the propositions of people like Lorentz and Fitzgerald, and with the theoretical contributions of others, the undesirable result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was assimilated in the conventional understanding by being "explained-away" by the special theory of relativity. One might argue (quite rightly) that the undesirable result of the MM experiment was assimilated and “explained away” by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald proposition, but that argument would be unacceptable to the conventional establishment. “Sure”, they would say, “the proposition that objects in motion contract in the direction of their motion by an amount proportional to the motion's rate does, somehow, explain the findings of Michelson and Morley—but that is not enough”. “Why not?”, you might dare to ask. “Because the Lorentz-Fitzgerald proposition does not eliminate the classic idea of a luminiferous ether. The special theory of relativity does that, and that's ultimately what the result of the M-M experiment tells us ”. Hmmm... At this point I shall resist the temptation to contest the validity of the last remark, and I shall proceed instead to explain the result of the M-M experiment by using the common sense version of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald method.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction could be seen as a desperate and unwarranted act, whose sole reason for creation was to provide some explanation for the inconvenient result of the M-M experiment. Now, to provide an explanation for the negative result of the M-M experiment I will also put forward a proposition. A proposition much more plausible than the conventional Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, I should say. And I say that simply because the common sense proposition I will use to explain the result of the M-M experiment is not only able to do that; it is also logically coherent—and, therefore, mentally comprehensible.
The common sense proposition says that all objects in motion extend (in the direction of their motion) and contract (in the direction at right angles to the direction of motion) by an amount determined by their intrinsic velocity.
I believe that some of you have expected to eventually see my proposing that objects in motion extend in the direction of motion, rather than contract, for that proposition was certainly “on the cards”. After all, how better to resolve a line of reasoning that ultimately led to a conclusion diametrically contradictory to the conventional one. But how many of you have anticipated the other half of my proposition—that objects in motion do also contract (along the direction perpendicular to that of motion)? Not many, I'm sure. I am quite firm in my belief, however, that there is an absolute necessity for a two-fold extension-contraction process to explain the result of the M-M experiment in a logically consistent, and physically sensible, manner. In fact one of my many arguments against the special theory of relativity is concerned with the purported manner in which the contraction experienced by objects in motion takes place. After all, what physical object could contract (by an amount that, theoretically, could be anywhere from near zero to 99.9999999999999999999999% infinite) in one direction without experiencing an automatic extension along its perpendicular axis? How could a material object of this Universe, which has contracted in the direction of its motion from its length of (say) many kilometres to a fraction of a millimetre, and which has consequently suffered an increase in its density that is very close to infinite, remain unchanged in shape along the axis perpendicular to the direction of its motion? The special theory of relativity is silent on this issue, and so are the works of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and others who concerned themselves with writing about the conventional understanding over the years. But if the professed contraction is a real phenomenon, as it is asserted, then the physical changes I've just mentioned should definitely come into play. It is primarily for these reasons that my common sense proposition had to consist of a two-fold transformational process.
That is all I need to say about my common sense analysis of the M-M experiment, as far as I'm concerned. Naturally, my next step is concerned with a review of the special theory of relativity from the perspective created by this analysis. It is time to see if the "fruits" of my labour are tastier than those offered by the conventional establishment, and, indeed, if they are also easier to digest.