CLASSIC CONCEPTIONS OF SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY.
TRIUMPHS AND DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY
Abstract
This work is devoted to the anniversaries of the Relativity Theory creation, life and creative work of its author – Albert Einstein, triumphs and difficulties of this theory as well as alternative views at space, time and gravitation.
1. Introduction
Contemporary physics, as considered, is based on two «foundations»: Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory. This work is devoted to the creation anniversaries of the first one, i.e. history of the Relativity Theory creation, life and creative work of its author – Albert Einstein, triumphs and difficulties of this theory as well as alternative views at space, time and gravitation.
At once it should be noted that two concepts or two theories are included actually in the term «Relativity Theory»: The Special Relativity (SR) [1], created by Einstein in 1905, i.e. exactly 100 years ago, and The General Relativity (GR) [2], created by the same author in 1915, i.e. exactly 90 years ago. It should be added as well that this year there is 50 anniversary since the death day of Einstein, who died in 1955, his age was 76 years.
What do these two theories of relativity represent conceptually?
If to tell very briefly, so SR united space and time into single four-dimensional space-time and showed how the coordinates of some events in this four-dimensional one would be transformed at transition from one to any other inertial reference system, i.e. to the coordinate system moving evenly, rectilinear, with permanent speed.
Space, time and gravitation were united in GR, i.e. this theory can be called rightly as the new theory of gravitation, which described gravity interactions in four-dimensional space-time.
By other words, SR is a certain part of GR. In this sense they are inseparable, although some gravitation cases can be presented without SR. So, for example, the gravity interaction in GR is brought to the Newton’s gravitation law for two reposing material points.
So, let us be absorbed by the physics atmosphere of centenary remoteness and observe, what caused the appearance of SR and then GR.
2. Physics crisis of XX century beginning
In classic physics, i.e. in that physics, which was formed by XX century end, three fundamental principles became firmly established (assertions based on certain facts):
1) relativity principle, saying that the physics laws are identical in all inertial reference systems and that it is impossible to set the selected position of some one by no mechanical experiments;
2) principle of the light velocity constancy asserting that the light velocity in relation to a receiver does not depend on the source movement velocity;
3) principle of time absoluteness, meaning identicalness of its flow in all inertial reference systems.
It should be noted that the third principle wasn’t formulated in the obvious type in classic physics at the very beginning, because nobody did suppose something other at all, i.e. this principle was simply implied as understanding in itself. But it was formulated since the classic physics principles began to be transmitted to the electrodynamics (in particular, optical) phenomena on the eve of XIX and XX centuries and the requirement paradoxicality of their simultaneous implementation came to light.
This paradoxicality was caused by both the insufficient study of light nature and the absence of the time other imagination, than those were formed within the classic physics framework. From one side, if light consisted of particles (within the light corpuscular theory), so the first principle would execute, but the second wouldn’t executed. From other side, if light was a wave (within the light wave theory) spreading in ether from point to point, so the second principle would executed, but the first wouldn’t executed, because the selected reference system can be bound to this environment that conflicts with the first principle [3].
The second contradiction can be shown more evidently as follows. Lets the spaceship sweep over with permanent but pre-light speed by the immobile observer (in some reference system), and at the moment of their most rapprochement (when it is possible to ignore the distance between them) there is the light flash (it is unimportant, who did it – the observer or astronaut on spaceship). Then after a while the light wave front will be like the sphere in the center of which he is, taking into account the light speed constancy according to the immobile observer imaginations.
The spaceship will relocate also in space for the same time, but astronaut on its board, taking into account the second physics principle, must be in the sphere center of the same radius as well, which the light wave front is the surface. But the same sphere can not have two foci! And this contradiction based on sensible logic and, it would seem, correct principles were the basic problem of XIX century end and the beginning of XX century.
3. Special Theory of Relativity
And what do physicists do for this contradiction solution? Without selecting any of them, it is necessary to show the logic which misguide all of them. The matter is the persuasion appeared at the end of XIX century that, taking into account the light velocity limited nature, the information about simultaneous events for one observer will be unsimultaneous for another, moving relatively the first. Then it was offered to use a lot of the clocks located in those space points to simplify the events analysis of times and intervals between them, where the indicated events occur. The mislead appeared on this basis, as it strengthen the opinion firmly about the time unidimensionalness.
The mislead sense resulted in the following. Even if the first and second principles for the mechanical phenomena are executed fully and does not conflict with the mechanics laws, so the third principle should be modified (considering that three principles but not two were in contradiction at once [3]), introducing so-called local time, which flows on a moving spaceship another way than the time of immobile observer. Thus two first principles were succeeded to reconcile as well as agree that the observers, immobile and moving observers see on the shipboard different (let’s underline - different!) spheres formed by the light wave front.
If at first development stages of this point of view since Fogt (1887), Lorentz (1892, 1895, 1904) and concluding by Puankare (1905), unidimensional local time in the moving reference system was examined as certain mathematical principle necessary for the first two principles concordance, so it was converted into objective physical property by Einstein (1905). At the same time he stuck the ether refusal as a physical environment filling the whole outer space [4] for all physicists. Both the first and second were Einstein’s error and that is why.
The first is related to the fact though really existent connection between space and time came to light on the border of foregoing ages, but this connection was immediately presented asymmetrically: space was measured by three coordinates, and time – by one. Obviously that their aggregate as so-called four-dimensional space-time could not become deformed symmetrically as for its nature at transition from one reference system to another. Lorentz’ transformations appeared from here and there, which described this unsymmetry. But there is a question: if space and time is tied-up between themselves, why so asymmetrically? And does tying-up asymmetrically mean non-equivalently?
However Lorentz’ transformations, which came in the stead of Galilei’s transformations, had their trump, their triumph: at last, they made Maxwell’s electrodynamics equalizations as invariant at transition from one inertial reference system to another. But these equalizations have failing, which Maxwell even knew that they are not full, because they do not describe moving charges and open-ended currents. And that is why they result in a conclusion that only transversal electromagnetic waves (flat or spherical) can exist in nature. With such conclusion the history of XX century gave birth the nature anomalous phenomena heap and only in 90th single physics enthusiasts opened experimentally longitudinal waves at last, which are beyond the «Procrustean bed» of Lorentz’ transformations in any way.
Now let’s pass to Einstein’s second error – refusal of ether. Not only this refusal deprived material transmitter energy, because the Universe space became empty, so it comes also into conflict with longitudinal electromagnetic waves existence.
In this case the reasonings should be conducted ex contrario. Let’s assume that ether exists. But then every waves distribution must be accompanied by its particles displacement. If there are transversal waves, which vectors of electric and magnetic tension are mutually perpendicular and simultaneously perpendicular to waves distribution direction, i.e. located in the transversal plane to waves distribution direction, why the ether particles can be displaced only in this plane, i.e. have two freedom degrees only? If the space three-dimensional, so it can be concluded on legal ground that the ether particles have three freedom degrees, and longitudinal waves are possible as well. But they conflict with Lorentz’ transformations. And where is the exit from this bewitched circle?
And an output invites to by itself: if Lorentz’ transformations dissatisfy to the nature real phenomena, so it is needed to refuse them simply, get back to physics bases, analyze them and offer new transformations of space and time at transition from one inertial reference system to another. Especially because 100 years ago there was no such clear determination of length and time units, as nowadays.
4. Crisis of Lorentz’ transformations
From the philosophical point of view space and time are categories, designating the basic forms of the matter all types existence. Space expresses the order of separate objects existence, time is the order of the phenomena changing [5].
The length, which characterizes an extent, remoteness and moving of bodies or their parts along the setline, is the space measure. Time characterizes the successive changing of the phenomena and matter states, and also their life duration [6].
Without going into the determinations and description history of physical units various systems, we will specify modern determinations of the length and time units only: meter and second. And let’s begin it with a second, as this unit got its modern determination earlier than a meter.
Development of molecular and atomic spectroscopy enabled exactly enough to bind time units to the vibrations period, corresponding the spectral line of some element. Therefore the second determination valid until nowadays was given by the XIII General Conference decision on measures and scales (1967), according which the second duration is 9 192 631 770 of radiation periods corresponding the transition between two superthin levels of caesium-133 basic atom state [7]. Consequently, the above-mentioned periods number will be equal simply to caesium-133 radiation frequency.
The measurings exactness increase allowed binding the length unit – a meter to the wavelength of the certain spectral line. The krypton-86 orange line was accepted as such one. This line corresponds to electron transition in the krypton atom between the certain quantum states. According to the determination accepted at XI General Conference on measures and scales, a meter contained 1 650 763,73 of wavelength in this spectral line vacuum.
However further achievements of laser technique and quantum electronics, high accuracy, which succeeded to be attained at light velocity measuring, allowed to link the length unit determination – a meter with the time unit – a second - together. And the XVII General Conference on measures and scales made decision to give the following, valid until now, the meter definition: the meter is the distance passable in vacuum by a flat electromagnetic wave for 1/299 792 458 seconds. The light velocity value is accepted as the value, not subjected to clarification at such meter determination, i.e. it is exactly equal 299 792 458 m/s.
Thus, the second is the certain number duration of caesium-133 radiation periods and the meter is the certain distance passable by the electromagnetic wave. But nothing forbids using that electromagnetic radiation for meter determination that is used for the second determination. Therefore we use the radiation corresponding to transition between two superthin levels of basic caesium-133 atom state for the reasonings simplification in future.
It is not difficult to make equivalent proportions of two valid determinations of meter, second and agreement accepted above. So, it turns out of the second determination that the wavelength of above-mentioned caesium-133 radiation is equal 0,0326122557 m, and the meter, accordingly, will be equal 30,6633189 of this radiation wavelength.
Here we came to conclusion that one meter is equal 30,66331899 of the radiation wave-length corresponding to the transition between two superthin levels of caesium-133 basic atom state that is like the meter determination, given by the XI General Conference on measures and scales in 1960. If we take another radiant, so we’ll obtain another number. And caesium-133 is chosen of those considerations that its frequency is very stable.
Now it is not out of place to tell about the author’s time imagination. But at first one proverb should be reminded that is used more frequently than in businessmen circles: «time is money». So money act part of universal equivalent in society by means of which an exchange of goods and services happens. And the money inlaid in business brings a profit in the course of time, i.e. new money. The above-mentioned proverb is apparent from here.
But, probably, a few physicists from modern ones (and businessmen the more so) turned attention on the fact that there is other connection based on the use analogue between money and time. Strangely enough, ancient philosophers were better well-informed about it than we’re informed now. And the paper’s author [4, 8], suggesting to measure time in units of mass (by kilograms, grams, pounds, ounces etc.).
And now I give my own time determination: time is some universal equivalent by which the comparison of various processes flowing speed is performed. The concept of time is senseless out of these processes [3]. In some cases they use year, in other – month, in third - hour, in fourth – minute, and in physics in the international units system SI – second - as an equivalent. Even if it is uncomfortable (for quickly changing processes, for example), so they use a millisecond, a microsecond or even more little period of time as the standard equivalent part for the processes comparison.
As the processes can not flow differently, as by the position change (moving, flow from one place to another) of some mass (energy), so the transition from an artificial parameter (time) to natural one (mass) taking into account its minimum possible value (quanta) appears not only reckless (by impression), but also timely (by necessity) idea of the XX century end, which the paper’s author expressed [4, 8]. Therefore the author put again the time concept in its frames which exceeded the bounds in the XX century, growing into everything, whichever, except the equivalent for the comparison of various processes flowing speed. The special and general theories of relativity as well as other theories were created outside these frames. And in some theories the authors ended by that they began to materialize time and even invented the time particle – a chronon.
And can the processes flow in all three spatial directions? Yes, they can. So time is three-dimensional. By other words, the scales of space and time in all three spatial directions can be different. Therefore in general case it is necessary to talk about six-dimensional space-time (3+3), but not about four-dimensional one (3+1) at any integration of these two properties.
5. Two ways in gravitation theory creation
The people familiar with quantum mechanics know that it has two mathematically equivalent formulations: matrix and wave. The similar situation was formed in GR as well: the field formulation appeared besides geometrical one. If the first one describes the matter motion on the distorted space-time background by it, the second is the field theory like Maxwell’s electromagnetism theory, in which the fields variables are considered on the flat world background.
Even in 1905 at first Puankare suggested the idea of relativism theory construction for all physical forces, including gravitation, in flat four-dimensional space in the paper «About the electron dynamics». He marked also that the gravity field must spread with the light speed and as the interaction delay is assumed, so its material transmitter should be.
Some later Puankare expressed the supposition that future physics must include the Plank’s discovery of the electromagnetic field quantum character. Thus, Puankare can be considered as the ideological founder of that way, which is called as relativistic quantum gravitation in modern language and in which the gravitation is considered as the material field in flat space-time [9].
This way is similar to that, on which the whole non-gravity physics development really went on that resulted in such fundamental theories creation as quantum electrodynamics, quantum theory of electroweak interactions, quantum chromodynamics. Obviously, quantum gravity dynamics should be included in this group.
However in 1915 Einstein opened other way, at which gravitation is described not as the matter, moving in space and time, but as curvature of space-time under the action of the whole non-gravitating matter. Afterwards this way was called as geometrodynamics. Thus, GR put the gravitation in exceptional position in relation to other physical interactions, as it was stipulated not by material interaction transmitters, but space-time curvature itself.
Substantially, the empty space surrounding material objects, materialized with GR creation as though it could distort, broaden, compress and even spread as gravity waves. Thus no special transmitters of the gravity field were foreseen. By other words, it simply lost its physical essence, remaining here as means of interaction between objects.
Thus, two ways were already defined sharply at the beginning of XX century for the gravitation theory, which some people inclined to consider as alternative, mutually exclusive, and other as complementary (for example, wave and matrix forms of quantum mechanics). However the second way got the primary development with GR creation, and the first one was forgotten as though.
6. General Relativity Theory
The GR creation by Einstein – as contrary to SR – was always considered as the striking example of the problem development and decision from start to finish by one unique scientist. But also here climbing up scientific Olympus «from a back door» was not done without efforts. And here repeatedly robbed Puankare was ahead of Einstein on ten years, creating the first and unique relativistic gravitation theory until 1916. And exactly this theory exhaustively explaining physical essence of gravitation by difficult mathematical apparatus, made the kernel of Einstein’s paper «Bases of General Relativity Theory» [10]. The fact was suppressed also that the mathematician D. Gilbert got and published this theory basic equalization earlier, after which the denomination «Einstein’s equalization» was assigned afterwards [11].
Really surprising history happened with Gilbert’s equalization. It was reported in private correspondence to Einstein by Gilbert who stuck to the first scientist with questions: and they say what did you get? Gilbert «deceived» for a long time without wishing to give out his own results to the nimble colleague, but then he exposed them to publication for the persistent correspondent. And he suddenly read surprisingly in the next Einstein’s message: imagine, he said, I came to such conclusion exactly just before your letter receipt ... Here Gilbert grabbed his head and, cursing himself for hastiness, asked to accelerate the article publication with his equalization which was called as «Einstein’s» all the same afterwards [12]. Only this fact can explain that Einstein’s article on GR of 1915th end was presented without proof (he snaffled a result, but he did not know a conclusion).
7. Alternative theories of gravitation
If do not take into consideration Birkhoff’s paper dated 1944 [13], which is detached somehow and in which the gravity field equalizations are postulated simply, so the revival of the strict field approach to the gravitation theory started only since 1961 beginning with Tirring’s paper [14]. The revival of this way, probably, is related to GR inability to respond numerous questions in its ordinary form, including ones in the cosmology field.
Currently 5 basic directions can be selected in physics, somehow or other joining the Einstein’s and Puancare’s ideas concerning the gravitation and unified field theory [15]:
1. Theory of space, time and gravitation as Einstein’s GR, in which gravitation is considered as geometrical property of space-time and radically differs from all other types of physical interactions [21, 23, 33, 36-39]. Space between atoms, planets, stars and galaxies is considered empty and distorted somehow. For many tens of years, passing after GR creation, it seems, everything possible is explored in this theory. Therefore this approach is valuable only in a theoretical and retrospective aspect, because today even skeptics understand clearly that absolute emptiness is impossible.
2. Gravitation field theory as the absolute alternative of GR. This theory is built on a background of flat (Euclid) space. The works by Yu.V. Baryshev, M. Moshynsky and, in Baryshev’s opinion, G.D. Birkhoff, V.E. Tirring, G. Kalman, S. Deser, R.P. Feynman and even A. Puancare can exemplify.
3. Gravitation field theory as alternative of GR, but assuming geometrical interpretation. A.A. Logunov’s relativistic gravitation theory can exemplify. The approach is supported by Yu.M. Loskutov, M.A. Mestvirishvily, Yu.V. Chugreev, A.V. Genkom, Yu.P. Vibliy and other physicists.
4. Gravitation field theory as other mathematical form of GR. Ya.B. Zeldovich, V. Ginzburg, L.P. Grischuk, A.N. Petrov, A.D. Popova had always an outlook to such problem. Above-mentioned V.E. Tirring and S. Deser asserted the same, in my opinion.
5. Geometrized theories, in which the attempt of the unified field theory construction, looking like GR, but including other interactions as well, is given. This direction continues Einstein’s program, realization of which he devoted the last 30 years of his life. G.I. Shipov’s physical vacuum theory is related to it, which is supported by A.E. Akimov, E.A. Gubarev, A.N. Sidorov, I.A. Volodin.
If Einstein’s GR is built in four-dimensional space-time on symmetric tensors for which the equality is true, so the number of measurings is multiplied in the theories of the fifth direction either it is considered that (i.e. twisting is taken into account) or that and other is done. Shipov’s theory is just based on the second way, i.å. the twisting use in four-dimensional space-time. (It should be noted that the conservation laws exist only for symmetric tensors).
8. Quadrodynamics
My universe theory from the day of the first new results obtaining developed 18,5 years (as a whole I am engaged in this field study and research more than 30 years) and currently it is either in the shade of Einstein’s GR or in the shade of theories, opposable to it, while actually it relates neither to that nor other. Having genetic link to GR, it cardinally differs from this theory at the same time and needs the proper name.
As considered GR is the relativistic, but unquantum theory of space, time and gravitation. The theory developed by me is based on GR mathematical apparatus (i.e. on the tensor calculation and differential geometry of multidimensional spaces) [15], but according to its last (2002) [16, 17] content is the ether relativistic quantum theory and actually is the unified theory of all fundamental interactions. As for our perception (including by devices) only 4 fundamental interactions are accessible (gravitation, electromagnetism, nuclear and weak interactions), and there is only 4 basic equalizations (for free space) in my theory, so this one served as the reason to call it as quadrodynamics.
It should be noted that GR is also the unified fundamental interactions theory as for its content actually, however this fact was understood by neither its creator nor contemporaries and followers until nowadays due to considerable complication of the theory mathematical apparatus and plenty of the errors or interpretations laid in it.
Currently it is possible to call the following 10 basic quadrodynamics differences from GR:
1) the completely symmetric 6-dimensional space-time (3 spatial coordinates + 3 temporal), which only turns into 4-dimensional (3 + 1) as well as in GR at measuring on local scales, is used instead of the asymmetrical 4-measured space-time (3 spatial coordinates + 1 temporal);
2) at the same time space and time turned into continuous actually at space-time dynamic deformation due to the discrete value, where its dimension sense is lost;
3) the group of affin coordinates transformations, which saves the light cone equalization as unchanging, is used instead of Lorentz’ transformations;
4) the light velocity instead of constant became a tensor and only at measuring according to proper scales of space and time remained a constant as in GR;
5) The Universe is homogeneous, isotropic and flat (these properties are put into the theory from outside as experimental facts) in global scales initially, i.e. it has Euclid’s geometry in contrary to the Universe indefinite geometry in GR;
6) the Universe became stationary-static (non-expanding) with the appropriate change of all (all!) physical laws of its functioning instead of dynamic (in a standard cosmological model);
7) these components deviations from the flat space-time tensor components are used in quadrodynamics instead of absolute values – components of metrical tensor in GR (as it is done in so-called field formulation of GR), the light velocities multiplied to square that forms the field potential components in aggregate;
8) quadrodynamics contains only 4 basic equalizations instead of 6 equalizations in GR (for the space-time dimension 3+1, as in GR);
9) instead of 10 variables (metrical tensor components) in GR quadrodynamics contains 6 variables in a general view, 3 of which reflect the static constituent projections of the charge electric field (i.e. the ether polarization near a charge), and 3 other ones - dynamic deformation projections of this field on three coordinates axes (there is only 4 according to proper scales of the charge space and time of such variables);
10) instead of one force (gravitation) in GR, quadrodynamics describes 4 fundamental interactions as multipole-multipole electric charges interactions at the matter levels different on scales (ether amers, electrons-positrons, charges atoms and combinations of various levels).
9. Conclusion
Quadrodynamics had not a single contradiction with nature until now, while GR was always included into the conflict with properties of the real world, especially in the cosmology area. A traditional electrodynamics is also contradictory and incomplete. Therefore in future the further development task not the gravitation theory (only the applied aspects are important in it), but electrodynamics as the bases of all fundamental interactions.
References
1. Einstein~A. ``Zur Elektrodynamik der bewegter K\"{o}rper,'' {it Ann. Phys.}, {\bf 17}, 891 (1905).
2. Einstein~A. ``Die Feldgleichungen ger Gravitation. {\it Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss.}, {\bf 48}, 2, 844--847 (1915).
3. B.V. Medvedev «Theoretical physics principles». - Moscow: «Nauka», 1977, 496 p.
4. V. Pauli «Theory of relativity». - Moscow: «Nauka», 1991, p. 23-24.
5. L.A. Sena «Units of physical values and their dimensions». - Moscow: «Nauka», 1988, p. 48-50.
6. I.M. Galitsky. «New in physics, mathematics, science». - Gomel: FENID, 1992.
7. I. M. Galitsky «About new physics (Principles)». Spacetime & Substance, 2, 2, 84-94 (2001).
8. DISCUSSION: N. A. Zhuck – I. M. Galitsky. Spacetime & Substance, 2, 2, 96 (2001).
9. A. Pies «Scientific activity and Albert Einstein’s life». – Moscow: «Nauka», 1989, 568 p.
10. V.K. Bulavin «Genius of all times. (To Albert Einstein’s 120 anniversary and 80-anniversary of great legend about him)» // Newspaper «Duel», N 32 (123), 10 August, 1999.
11. A.A. Tyapkin, A.S. Shibanov «Puankare». – Moscow, 1979.
12. V.P. Visgin «Relativistic theory of gravitation». – Moscow, 1981.
13. Birkhoff G.V. «Flat space-time and gravitation». //Gravitation, v. 2, ed. 2, 1996, p. 21-29.
14. V.E. Tirring «Alternative approach to the gravitation theory». //Gravitation, v. 2, ed. 2, 1996, p. 40-58.
15. N.A. Zhuck “Cosmology”, Kharkiv, Model Vselennoy Ltd, 2000, 464 p. (in Russian).
16. N.A. Zhuck «Quadrodynamics: The New Relativistic Quantum Theory of Space, Time and Fundamental Interactions». Published by Infobank Ltd. in 2004, Kharkiv, Ukraine, 24 p.
17. N.A. Zhuck «Quadrodynamics as the new relativistic quantum theory of space, time and fundamental interactions». Spacetime & Substance, 4, 2, 49-57 (2003).
See http://proza.ru/2010/06/04/579.