Five Proofs of Isotropic Length Expansion Accompanying Relativistic Time Dilation
[1]
Robert J. Buenker, Fachbereich C - Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Bergische University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
The manner in which the lengths of objects vary when they undergo acceleration is investigated based on a variety of considerations, both experimental and theoretical. The relativistic velocity transformation (RVT) is especially helpful in this regard because it ensures that the relative speed of an object as it travels between two fixed points must have the same value for all observers. Consequently, an observer with a slower proper clock must measure a shorter distance between these points than his counterpart who has not experienced time dilation. This result is opposite to what one expects from Fitzgerald - Lorentz length contraction (FLC), which is an unavoidable consequence of the Lorentz transformation (LT). Examination of Einstein’s derivation of the LT shows that it relies on an undeclared assumption regarding the nature of a normalization function that appears in a more general form of these equations. This fact puts the RVT on a firmer theoretical basis than the LT and opens the way to remove the above contradiction in a straightforward manner. An alternative LT is defined which is not only consistent with Einstein’s two fundamental postulates of relativity but which also agrees with experimental findings that indicate that clock rates are always related by a strict proportionality: t=Qt’. Four other examples are presented which confirm the above conclusion that lengths expand isotropically when time dilation occurs.
Relativistic Velocity Transformation (RVT), Time Dilation, Transverse Doppler Effect, Alternative Lorentz Transformation (GPS - LT), Isotropic Length Expansion
[1]
A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 17, 891 (1905).
[2]
H. A. Lorentz, Versl. K. Ak. Amsterdam 10, 793 (1902); Collected Papers, Vol. 5, p. 139.
[3]
J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972); 168 (1972).
[4]
H. J. Hay, J. P. Schiffer, T. E. Cranshaw, and P. A. Egelstaff, Phys. Rev. Letters 4, 165 (1960).
[5]
C. W. Sherwin, Phys. Rev. 120, 17 (1960).
[6]
R. J. Buenker, Apeiron 15, 254 (2008).
[7]
R. J. Buenker, Apeiron 16, 96 (2009).
[8]
R. J. Buenker, Relativity Contradictions Unveiled: Kinematics, Gravity and Light Refraction (Apeiron, Montreal, 2014), pp. 55 - 60).
[9]
R. T. Weidner and R. L. Sells, Elementary Modern Physics (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1962), p. 410.
[10]
R. A. Serway and R. J. Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 5th Edition (Harcourt, Orlando, 1999), p. 1262.
[11]
A. Laub, T. Doderer, S. G. Lachenmann, R. P. Huebner and V.A. Oboznov, Phys. Rev. Letters 75, 1372 (1995); http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction.
[12]
L. de Broglie, Compt. Ren. 177, 507 (1923).
[13]
R. J. Buenker, Apeiron 20, 27 (2013).
[14]
W. H. E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 28, 215 (1938).
[15]
R. D. Sard, Relativistic Mechanics (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1970), p. 95.
[16]
T. Wilkie, New Scientist 27, 258 (1983).
[17]
C. M. Will, Was Einstein Right? (Basic Books Inc., U. S, 1993), p. 272.
[18]
A. Einstein, Jahrb. Radioakt. u. Elektronik 4, 411 (1907).
[19]
M. von Laue, Ann. Physik 23, 989 (1907).
[20]
L. H. Thomas, Nature 117, 514 (1926); Phil. Mag. 3, 1 (1927).
[21]
A. A. Michelson, Am. J. Sci. 34, 120.
[22]
A. H. Bücherer, Physik. Z. 9, 755 (1908).
[23]
A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 18, 639 (1905).