Dynamic Absolute Space: Explanation of null result of Michelson- Morley Experiment

[lidal]

Dynamic Absolute Space : explanation of the null result of Michelson- Morley experiment

 

Henok Tadesse e-mail: email and telephone removed by moderator

 

The beloved idea of relativity (Galilean invariance and Einstein's two postulates) with the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment at first seem to bring an end to the problem of absolute motion once and for all. It is when one considers Sagnac's and Michelson-Gale experiments equally supporting the validity of absolute motion that one realizes relativity is not the whole story.

For anyone who is unbiased and who seeks the truth, it is impossible to settle in one view (either relativity or absolute space) and one always keeps swinging between the two because of these contrasting experiments equally support each view and because there is no theory yet that reconciles the two or decisively eliminates one or the other view.

The controversy over the validity of relativity or absolute space lasted for a century and still remains unsettled and the contrasting results of these experiments is one of the main factors. Few theories exist that decisively reconcile the results of these two contrasting experiments. Ether and emission theories fail to explain the MM null result and special relativity requires length contraction and time dilation and denies absolute motion altogether. All existing emission theories disagree with the many experiments confirming the independence of the speed of light of the speed of its source. Therefore, few theories exist that agree well with all experiments and observations and that decisively settled the controversy. In light of this situation, new and better theories are still needed even if anyone believes in the correctness of existing theories.

The new theory of ‘Dynamic Absolute Space’ proposed here has the potential to reconcile the contrasting results of Michelson-Morley and Sagnac’s experiments and agrees with the postulates of special relativity and with experiments that confirm the independence of the speed of light of the speed of its source. The new theory is a framework that reconciles Galilean and Einstein’s invariance principle with the ever existing concept of absolute space.

The theory of ‘Dynamic Absolute Space’ proposed here states that absolute motion is a change in state of motion rather than motion relative to some universal reference. Absolute motion in space is a change of the state of motion of a body from its uniform rectilinear state of motion in which it has been for a long enough time.

Imagine a body has been in uniform rectilinear motion in free space for a long enough time, and that it is at rest in some inertial frame. According to the theory of ‘Absolute Dynamic Space’, the absolute velocity of the body is zero, even if it is not at rest relative to other bodies. Absolute reference frame is the inertial reference frame in which a body has been at rest for a long enough time. Therefore, any acceleration of the body in this inertial reference frame will result in absolute motion of the body in space. As the body starts accelerating, its absolute velocity increases and is determined as the time integral of its absolute acceleration, with t=0 taken as the time at which the body started accelerating, and its initial absolute velocity being zero because the body was initially at rest in that inertial reference frame. For accelerations that are not too small and for short-term, absolute velocity is the time integral of the acceleration of the body.

 

Assume that the body, after accelerating for some time, settles on a new velocity V1 relative to that inertial frame. Thus, the absolute velocity of the body in space at the end of the acceleration period will be V1.

Assume that the body remained in the same state of motion for a long enough time. According to the new theory, although the absolute velocity of the body was V1 at the end of the acceleration period, it will gradually reduce back to zero if the body continues to remain in the same state of motion, i.e in a uniform rectilinear (unaccelerated) motion. This means that the absolute velocity of the body will ‘discharge’ gradually towards zero, analogous to a capacitor discharging gradually to zero voltage.Note that this doesn’t mean that the velocity of the body relative to other bodies decreases.

The above definition of absolute velocity as the time integral of absolute acceleration applies correctly for accelerations that are not too small and is correct for short-term. Suppose that the body continuously accelerates for a long time. In this case, the absolute velocity cannot be determined accurately by integrating the acceleration over such a long time. Although the absolute velocity of the body continuously increases due to the acceleration, it will also ‘leak’ , so the absolute velocity is always less than the time integral of the acceleration taken over a long time interval.

During and for some time after the acceleration, the absolute reference frame continuously changes and finally settles to be the inertial reference frame in which the body is at rest. This means that when a body has been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time, its absolute velocity in space reduces gradually to zero and the new rest frame of the body becomes the absolute reference frame for that body, and the absolute velocity of the body is zero as it is at rest in this frame. Any subsequent acceleration of the body results in motion of the body in this reference frame, and hence in absolute motion. The absolute velocity of the body is the velocity of the body in the reference frame in which the body has remained at rest for a long enough time.

The inertial reference frame in which a body has been at rest for a long enough time becomes the absolute reference frame for that body.

Therefore, the absolute velocity of a body in space is determined both by the acceleration of the body and the length of time the body remains in a uniform rectilinear motion. The longer the time a body remains in its state of uniform rectilinear motion, the more time available for the absolute velocity to ‘discharge’ back to zero. This also means that the larger the acceleration, the more accurately the absolute velocity of the body be determined as the time integral of acceleration.

Thus the more accurate definition of absolute reference frame is : the inertial reference frame in which the velocity of the body is the absolute velocity of the body because the absolute reference frame of a body changes continuously (is dynamic).

The theory of ‘Dynamic Absolute Space’ can explain the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. This theory reconciles Galileo’s invariance principle and the two postulates of Einstein with the concept of absolute space. Relativity (Galilean and Einstein’s invariance) is valid in a steady state condition whereas absolute space is valid in non steady state condition. Relativity is valid when a body has been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time, and absolute space is valid otherwise.

According to this theory, the absolute velocity of Michelson Morley’s interferometer (of the earth) is much smaller than 30Km/s even though its velocity relative to the sun is 30Km/s. The earth can be considered to be in an almost uniform rectilinear motion in the analysis of Michelson –Morley (MM) experiment and that is the cause of the observed null result. As the earth has been in an almost uniform rectilinear motion for a very long time in its orbit around the sun, the rest frame of the earth can be considered as an absolute reference frame for all experiments that are done on earth. Therefore, the state of motion of the MM device should be changed in order to detect the expected fringe shift. The MM device should be accelerated to a velocity of 30Km/s relative to the earth to observe the expected 0.04 fringe shift.

However, as such a high (change in) velocity is practically difficult to attain, the MM device can be accelerated to about 5Km/s relative to the earth, say by mounting it on a space shuttle, to observe a fringe shift corresponding to 5Km/s.

Why did Sagnac’s and Michelson-Gale experiments not also show null results? Unlike Michelson-Morley’s interferometer, Sagnac interferometers continuously accelerate due to their rotation. Therefore, these devices are always in non steady state condition and hence are always in absolute motion and thus show the expected fringe shifts.

Speed of light and dynamic absolute reference frame

Inertial/ non-inertial source and observer

An inertial source/observer is a source/observer that has been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time. All inertial sources/observers can be considered to be at absolute rest in space. Thus the absolute reference frame for an inertial source/observer is a reference frame in which it has been at rest for a long enough time.

A non-inertial source/observer is not only a source/observer that is accelerating but also that has not been in a uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time. A non-inertial source/observer is considered to be in absolute motion in space. The absolute reference frame for a non-inertial source/observer is the reference frame in which the source/observer has been at rest for a long enough time before its acceleration.

More accurately, the absolute reference frame for a body is the inertial reference frame in which the velocity of the body is the absolute velocity of the body because the absolute reference frame for the body changes continuously.

‘Inertial / non-inertial’ not only means absence or presence of acceleration, but also means that the body has /has not been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time .

The speed of light is C ± V for all non- inertial observers and is equal to C for all inertial observers. All observers who have been in a uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time (inertial observers) will measure the speed of light to be equal to C, irrespective of their velocity relative to the source.

Non inertial observers will measure the speed of light to be C+V, where V is the absolute velocity of the observer. Note that V is not necessarily the velocity of the observer relative to the source, but the absolute velocity of the observer, which is the velocity of the observer relative to the inertial frame in which the observer has been at rest for a long enough time before its acceleration.

The explanation for the absolute constancy of the speed of light C for all (inertial) observers has been presented in my previous post 'Relativity of Electromagnetic Fields'.

The speed of light from an inertial source is isotropic and is equal to C in the absolute reference frame (i.e the rest frame of the source) when observed with inertial observers and is anisotropic for non-inertial sources. The anisotropy of the light from a non-inertial source is measured (observed) in the absolute frame, which is the reference frame in which the source has been at rest for a long enough time before its acceleration.

 

Corrections:

Paragraph 3:

" Ether and emission theories fail to explain the MM null result ..."

should be corrected as

" Ether theories fail to explain the MM null result ..."

Edited September 28, 2013 by Phi for All
email & telephone removed - discussion should remain here

[swansont]

As with most discussions of the history of absolute vs relative, the null result of the MM experiment is stressed while there is no mention of stellar aberration.

[lidal]

Dynamic Absolute Space: explanation for the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment

Henok Tadesse, email: email removed by moderator

Rotation and translation are the two (fundamentally different) kinds of motion in the universe. Rotational motion is the same in all inertial frames and hence can easily be understood as absolute motion. Translational motion, on the other hand, can be understood easily only as a relative motion and has never been clearly understood as an absolute motion. The results of Sagnac’s and Michelson-Morley’s experiments show that reality agrees more with logic.

 

Einstein denied the validity of absolute motion altogether because of logic and because of null result of Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment. However, it may still be possible to find a logic for absolute (translational) motion. If rotational motion is absolute then absolute translational motion must also be valid somehow and be confirmed experimentally. One reasoning behind this hypothesis is that we assume absolute translational motion in the analysis of Sagnac’s effect and get the correct result, even though the fringe shift in the final formula is explained in terms of the angular velocity (rotation) of the apparatus rather than the translational velocity of the source and the detector.

 

With the existing logic we are used to in discussions about absolute motion, however, one will always end up in the “ relative to what?” question that always leads to confusion. Therefore, absolute translational motion must be redefined if it is to be valid logically. Absolute (translational) motion can be redefined as resulting from a change in state of motion (acceleration) of a body rather than as motion relative to some universal, static, absolute reference frame. According to the new theory, there is no universal, static absolute reference frame but there is a dynamic absolute reference frame associated with every object in the universe. Every object that is (has been) in uniform rectilinear ‘motion’ (for a long enough time) is at absolute rest and its absolute reference frame is the reference frame in which it has been at rest for a long enough time. Just after the state of motion of that body changes (acceleration), the body will develop an absolute velocity in that reference frame but that reference frame is also dynamic: changes continuously as the body continues to accelerate. Thus two bodies may be in relative motion and yet may have the same absolute velocity or may be at rest relative to each other and yet may have different absolute velocities at some instant of time.

 

The fundamental difference between rotational and translational motions is that, in the absence of acceleration, the universe gradually ‘forgets’ any translational absolute velocities but always ‘remembers’ rotational (angular) velocities. The null result of Michelson – Morley’s experiment and the positive result of Michelson-Gale experiment support this view.

Therefore, according to the theory of Dynamic Absolute Space,

1. Absolute (translational) motion arises with change in state of motion (acceleration)
2. Absolute motion or absolute reference frame is dynamic.

Absolute (translational) velocity is dynamic. This means that it will ‘charge’ when there is acceleration and ‘discharge’ , with some time constant, when there is no acceleration. This is analogous to the charging and discharging of a capacitor.

 

Thus, although the velocity of the earth relative to the sun is 30Km/s, its absolute velocity in space is almost zero because the acceleration of the earth is almost zero and because it has been in this state for a long enough time and hence accounting for the Michelson-Morley null result.

An inertial body is a body which is in uniform rectilinear motion AND has been in this state for a long enough time.

 

The center of the wave fronts from an inertial source moves with the source. This can explain the null result of MM experiment. And an inertial observer moving directly towards the source always measures the speed of light to be equal to C. This means that the radial component of the source-observer relative velocity has no effect on the velocity of light, in steady state (inertial) conditions. The author has already proposed an alternative theory to relativity for this: ‘Relativity of EM fields ‘ ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0065v3.pdf ). The lateral component of the relative velocity, however, will affect the velocity of light measured by the observer. This can explain the phenomenon of aberration of light. (http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0014v2.pdf )

 

Apart from the newly introduced concept of dynamism of absolute motion, the difference between Absolute Dynamic Space (ADS) theory and emission theories is that in emission theories the light beam acquires the whole velocity of the source but in ADS theory the light beam acquires only the lateral component of the (relative) velocity of the source, in inertial (steady state) conditions.

 

This theory doesn’t disagree with the experimentally established independence of the speed of light of the speed of its source because, according to ADS theory, the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source in non-inertial conditions (as in experiments). The lateral component of the source-observer relative velocity affects the velocity of light only in inertial conditions, as in the phenomenon of aberration of light.

 

The theory of ‘Absolute Dynamic Space’ reconciles the notion of absolute motion with Galileo’s principle of invariance and Einstein’s two postulates. Galileo’s principle of invariance and Einstein’s two postulates are valid in the steady state (inertial) conditions.

This theory, together with the ‘Relativity of EM Waves/light ’ already proposed by the author, explains many of the phenomena and experiments:

• Experiments confirming the independence of the speed of light of the speed of the source
• Michelson –Morley experiment null result
• Stellar aberration
• Sagnac effect

Dynamic Absolute Space-3.pdf

Edited September 28, 2013 by Phi for All
email removed - discussion should remain here

[Greg H.]

For anyone who is unbiased and who seeks the truth...

I stopped reading right about there.

 

If you were really unbiased, you wouldn't need to point out that your view is unbiased. That's a trick used by sophists to get people to subconsciously agree with them because no one wants to be thought of as biased and against the truth.

[swansont]

If rotational motion is absolute then absolute translational motion must also be valid somehow and be confirmed experimentally. One reasoning behind this hypothesis is that we assume absolute translational motion in the analysis of Sagnac’s effect and get the correct result, even though the fringe shift in the final formula is explained in terms of the angular velocity (rotation) of the apparatus rather than the translational velocity of the source and the detector.

 

 

The Sagnac experiment doesn't have translational motion, it has rotational motion. This objection is over before it even begins.

[lidal]

The light source and the detector are assumed to be in (absolute) translational motion in the analysis of Sagnac effect. This is the simplest analysis of the experiment.

[swansont]

How's that? We know that it's rotating. That's not even a relativity experiment — you can confirm that with a Foucault pendulum.

[lidal]

I meant that the Sagnac device is rotating, but the source and detector are in translational motion around the center of rotation, some what like the earth is in translational motion in its orbit around the sun. In the analysis of Sagnac effect, absolute translational motion of the source and detector is assumed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_interference)

i.e translational motion in curved/circular path