The speed of light is the first fundamental constant Among Galileo's failures, one is so instructive that one hesitates to call it a failure. In his last book, Galileo spoke about an attempt to measure the speed of light, and, apparently, the reason was the measurement of another

132. What is the speed of light and why is it so important? The speed of light (c) plays the role of infinite speed in the Universe. Just as infinity is unattainable, the speed of light is unattainable for a material object. Why is it unattainable? Energy is related to mass. If

Electrodynamics. Speed ​​of light Change the concept of space and time decisively became possible only after advances in the study of the nature of electricity and magnetism. Skipping the names of a number of remarkable scientists who made discoveries in this area,

IV. Is it possible to reach the speed of light (and look at yourself in the mirror)? We have gone terribly far from the original question, and this is no good, because it is a very good question - so good that Einstein himself asked himself. However, you probably think that we

II. Is it possible to change reality just by looking at it? Light is definitely a wave. Young's double slit experiment proves this definitively and irrevocably. Well, is the question closed? We're daydreaming. Newton was absolutely convinced that light was made of particles, and he was not

VII. So what are my chances of changing the past? Listen, in the end, can I create a time machine or not?! You? Hardly. Is it physically possible for a supercivilization? Probably, but it highly depends on the existence of all sorts of things like wormholes, cosmic strings

On the constancy of the speed of light. Analysis of Einstein's postulates

Let us ask ourselves a simple, at first glance, question: “relative to what is the speed of light constant in the special theory of relativity (STR)?” Many of those to whom I asked this question shrugged their shoulders in surprise, but, after thinking, somewhat hesitantly said: “relative to emptiness.” However, in practice, the speed of movement of one material object (including a particle or a light wave) can be determined relative to a frame of reference associated with some other material object, and not “relative to emptiness,” since emptiness itself, if it can really exist in nature , is not matter and is not characterized by any physical constants. A. Einstein holds the same opinion regarding emptiness: “... in the special theory of relativity, a region of space without matter and without an electric field appears completely empty, i.e. it cannot be characterized by any physical quantities...".

In emptiness there are no material objects with which one can associate a frame of reference. Determine the speed of light relative to this “regions of space without matter and without electric field” impossible due to the impossibility of creating a reference system “attached” to space. Then, after all, relative to what is it constant?

Let's try to understand this issue in more detail and listen to what A. Einstein himself says on this topic: “...Examples of this kind(previously we were talking about the interaction of a magnet and a conductor with current, which are in a state of relative motion. Author's note) , as well as failed attempts to detect the movement of the earth relative to the “luminiferous medium,” lead to the assumption that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of phenomena correspond to the concept absolute rest (emphasis added) and even, moreover, to the assumption that for all coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are valid, as has already been proven for first-order quantities. We intend to turn this assumption (the content of which will henceforth be called the “principle of relativity”) into a premise and, in addition, make an additional assumption, which is only in apparent contradiction with the first, namely, that light in emptiness always propagates at a certain speed V(in modern designation - S. Author's note), independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Talking about property mismatch here physical phenomena condition "absolute peace" A. Einstein emphasizes one of key points his theory is the absence of a luminiferous medium (“ether”) that fills space, which is a carrier of light waves and a conductor of electromagnetic interaction, with which many scientists previously associated the concept of “absolute rest.” A. Einstein quite rightly believes that any rest is relative, that is, any frame of reference can only be at rest relative to some other frame of reference.

In this regard, it is necessary to make a small digression. Physicists have so far been unable to reliably detect either the luminiferous medium itself or the movement of the Earth relative to this medium. The results of some well-known experiments to detect the movement of the Earth relative to the “ether” need to be confirmed by other independent experiments. Nevertheless, even if the facts of confirmation take place, then what grounds will we have to assert that it is with the “ether” that a reference system that is motionless relative to space can be associated? As we have already said, in empty space there cannot be a frame of reference “attached” to space, therefore the rest of the “ether” can only be established relative to a frame of reference associated with some other material object, but not with space. Reliable detection of a luminiferous medium will likely allow scientists to understand nature much more deeply the surrounding world, but will not allow using this medium as a reference system that is at rest relative to space, that is, in a state "absolute peace".

So, according to the “assumption” of A. Einstein, “ light always travels in emptiness at a certain speed" C. This speed does not depend "from the state of motion of the radiating body." But, nevertheless, relative to what can this speed C be determined (measured)? A. Einstein answers this question in §2: “Further considerations are based on the principle of relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light. We formulate both principles as follows.

1. The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not depend on which of the two coordinate systems moving uniformly and rectilinearly these changes in state belong to.

2. Each ray of light moves in a “resting” coordinate system with a certain speedV, regardless of whether this ray of light is emitted by a body at rest or in motion".

It is clear that since being in a state of uniform rectilinear relative motion "in the void" coordinate systems are completely equal, then any of them can be considered “at rest”, then the other will be “moving”. Accordingly, if we or someone else chooses the first system as “at rest”, then the speed of light relative to it should have the value C. If we (or someone else) designate the second system as “at rest”, then the speed relative to it light should also have a value of C.

In other words, the speed of light propagation "in the void" according to Einstein’s formulation of the “principle of the constancy of the speed of light” must always have a value C relative to ANY coordinate system moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to any other coordinate system.

In his work, A. Einstein gives a slightly more precise formulation of his “principle of the constancy of the speed of light”: “...it can be considered established that light, as follows from the Maxwell-Lorentz equations, propagates in vacuum with a speed C, at least within a certain inertial system coordinates K. In accordance with the special principle of relativity We must count (emphasis added) "that this principle is also true in any other inertial frame."

It seems that the link to " Maxwell–Lorentz equations", given in last quote, is not entirely correct, since J.C. Maxwell and G.A. Lorenz associated this coordinate system with the luminiferous “ether” filling the surrounding space. According to their belief, light does not spread " in emptiness at speed C", but just the opposite - in a material environment characterized by certain physical constants. In this case, the speed of light can be constant and equal to C only relative to the coordinate system “associated” with this material environment.

In his work, A. Einstein gives a simplified formulation of his “principle of the constancy of the speed of light”: “The speed of light in empty space is always constant, regardless of the movement of the source or receiver of light”.

As can be seen from these formulations, the measured value of the speed of light in empty space according to A. Einstein is always equal to C, even if these measurements are carried out not only relative "radiating body", but also relatively "light receiver" which is a clear paradox from the point of view classical physics. Why a paradox? First of all, due to our understanding of the fact that in the general case the movement of the light receiver and the movement of light are not interconnected by any cause-and-effect relationship, and are not limited by anything in “ completely empty" area of ​​space speed "light receiver" in principle, can have any arbitrary value relative to moving light waves. If the light and the receiver move independently of each other, then how does the speed of light turn out to be Always equal to C relative "light receiver"? Contrary to practice and logic according to A. Einstein "we must count" the movement of light with such a movement, the speed of which is constant and equal to C relative to any object (and the coordinate system associated with it), uniformly moving in any direction with an arbitrary speed relative to other objects in “ completely empty" areas of space. Such relative motion of light and receiver, if it can exist, is fundamentally different from ordinary independent motion, which is any relative motion of unrelated material objects.

Having rightly rejected the existence of absolute rest in nature, but at the same time rejecting the very hypothesis of the existence of a luminous medium - “ether”, A. Einstein postulates the existence in nature of a completely new phenomenon for physics - absolute speed movement of light, which has the same value when measured in any set of coordinate systems moving relative to each other “in the void.” The advancement of such a postulate, in turn, should inevitably lead and indeed leads in SRT to the rejection of absolute time and absolute space, unconditionally recognized by classical physics, the dimensions of the units of time and length in which are the same for all coordinate systems. Can this new absolute exist in nature in principle?

Let's look at a simple example. Let us assume that several material objects, together with coordinate systems and observers, move at different speeds regardless apart from each other in the same ray of light. Let the ray of light be in no way connected with moving objects and move on its own "in the void." Nevertheless "we must count", that the measured value of the speed of waves in a beam of light according to the “principle of constancy of the speed of light” will be equal to C for each of the observers located on these material objects. How can this correspond to reality? To explain this “phenomenon” alone mathematical formulas, proposed by STR and connecting speed, space and time, are clearly not enough here. If these mathematical formulas are obtained as a result of an incorrect postulate, due to which the independent variable quantity- the speed of light is replaced in them by some hypothetical constant, then the phenomena predicted by the formulas cannot correspond to physical reality. If the postulate is correct, there must be some “mechanism” in nature that establishes cause-and-effect relationships between independent movements and supports a new absolute. How can this “mechanism” work?

Option one - the light beam “compares” its own speed with the speed of each of the observers and “adjusts” its speed to the speed of movement of each observer. In this embodiment, the light beam under consideration must, at a minimum, have a system of “automatic” adjustment of the speed of light waves to the same constant value C relative to any object moving in the beam. In this case, the speed of movement of light waves should be different in different parts of the same light beam. Obviously, this option is inherently absurd for any physicist.

The second option, recognized by the majority of followers of SRT (relativity physicists), is that the space and time in which objects move have the property of changing depending on the speed of movement of these objects. The speed of movement of objects relative to what? We have already said that in space there is not and cannot be a frame of reference “attached” to this space, therefore, determine the value of this speed relative to “ completely empty" regions of space are not even possible for a thinking being.

Then, perhaps, depending on the speed of movement of these objects relative to each other or relative to some auxiliary frame of reference, conventionally considered motionless? But how do inanimate space and time “compare” the speeds of movement of these objects that are spatially distant from each other? IN " completely empty" The region of space separating moving objects does not have an information carrier, so it is fundamentally impossible to “compare” the speeds of movement of objects located at a distance from each other.

Maybe space and time “compare” the speed of movement of each of the objects with the speed of the waves in a beam of light, and then “calculate” the speed of movement of these objects relative to each other? But A. Einstein postulated us the constancy of the speed of light C relative to any moving objects - "light receivers". From this postulate the opposite statement inevitably follows - constancy and equality C of the speed of movement of any objects relative to the waves of a common beam of light. Accordingly, since objects move with same speed With respect to the waves of a common beam of light, the result of “calculations” by space and time of the speed of movement of objects relative to each other should always be equal to zero (!), no matter with what relative speed these objects actually move - "light receivers". There is a contradiction in practice, since we are easily convinced that objects moving in a common beam of light catch up and overtake each other, that is, they move at different speeds. It can be stated that the second option in all its varieties is no better than the first and should also be absurd for any physicist.

In A. Einstein writes: “Indeed, if each ray of light in emptiness propagates at a speed C relative to the system K, then the light ether must be at rest everywhere relative to K. But If (emphasis added) the laws of the propagation of light in the K’ system (moving relative to K) are the same as in the K system, then we with the same right must assume that the ether is at rest in the K’ system. Since the assumption that the ether is at rest simultaneously in two systems is absurd, and since it would be no less absurd to give preference to one of two (or from an infinitely large number) of physically equivalent systems, we should refuse to introduce the concept of an ether, which has turned only as a useless addition to the theory, as soon as the mechanistic interpretation of light was rejected.”

Indeed, the recognition of a state of rest of some object relative to each of two systems that are in a state of relative motion is certainly absurd. But is it less absurd to assume that the speed of some object (light) is constant relative to each of the two "(or from an infinite number of) physically equivalent" systems in the same state of relative motion? Why is one absolute better than another?

A simple logical analysis of the phenomenon accepted as the main postulate in SRT leads to the conclusion that a “mechanism” supporting this new absolute cannot exist in nature. Special geometry, created at one time by G. Minkowski, “connected” speed, space and time together with the help of mathematical formulas, giving SRT only external elegance and self-sufficiency, but did not offer the main thing - a “mechanism” that establishes cause-and-effect relationships between independent movements .

Thus, the independent movements of light and observers turn out to be causally “connected” in SRT only thanks to the introduced human mind"postulate atu". Haven't we taken on too much, gentlemen, relativist physicists? In the name of the obligation to “fulfill” nature "special principle of relativity" we discarded all the experience accumulated by humanity and established a new absolute by a strong-willed decision, “connecting” independent natural phenomena with cause-and-effect relationships. And what do we really know about nature’s actual “fulfillment” "special principle of relativity" on other planets, stars and galaxies? How can we be sure that this principle applies everywhere? And why are we so sure that this is exactly what is being done on Earth?

The results of what physical experiments could have “inspired” this to A. Einstein? , which required the advancement of the absolute speed of light? After all, it did not arise by itself. Let's try to find out about this from A. Einstein himself.

A paragraph from the very first article, written in 1905, has already been quoted above: “... Examples of this kind, as well as failed attempts to detect the movement of the earth relative to the “luminiferous medium,” lead to the assumption...”. It is unlikely that anyone can doubt that here we are talking about the experiments of Michelson and Michelson - Morley, aimed at detecting the speed of the Earth’s movement through the luminiferous “ether”, because other failed attempts It was not yet possible to detect the movement of the Earth relative to the “luminiferous medium” at that time. The same point of view is shared by one of the famous specialists in the history of physics P. S. Kudryavtsev: “...In Einstein’s entire article there is not a single reference to literature. Einstein later claimed that he did not know about Michelson's experiment, when I wrote my work. But if he read the work of Lorentz in 1895, where the principle of first-order relativity was proven, which he mentions here, then He couldn't help but know about Michelson's experiment » (emphasis added).

1907: “Since the emergence of this theory(electrodynamics of moving bodies, developed by G. A. Lorenz. Author’s note) one would expect that it would be possible to experimentally detect the influence of the motion of the Earth relative to the ether on optical phenomena... However, the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley showed that, at least in this case, there is also no second-order effect (proportional v2 /C2), although according to the fundamentals of the Lorentz theory, it should have manifested itself experimentally... Therefore, the impression was created that from Lorentz's theory must be abandoned, replacing it with a theory that is based on the principle of relativity, because such a theory would allow one to immediately foresee the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment... What will the laws of nature look like if all phenomena are studied in a reference system that is now in a new state of motion? In answer to this question, we will do the logically simplest and suggested experience of Michelson and Morley assumption: the laws of nature do not depend on the state of motion of the reference system, at least if it is not accelerated"(Emphasis added).

Let us note for ourselves that, just two years after the publication of the first article, A. Einstein first stated that "special principle of relativity" on the ground « prompted experience of Michelson and Morley".

1910: “In the equations obtained above, it is not difficult to recognize the hypotheses of Lorenz and Fitzgerald. This hypothesis seemed strange to us, and it was necessary to introduce it in order to be able to explain the negative result of the experiment of Michelson and Morley. Here this hypothesis appears as a natural consequence of the principles we have adopted.”.

1915: “The successes of Lorentz’s theory were so great that physicists, without hesitation, would have abandoned the principle of relativity if one important experimental result had not been obtained, which we must now talk about, namely, the result of Michelson’s experiment. Yet most of these negative results did not say anything against Lorentz's theory. In a highly ingenious theoretical study, G. A. Lorenz showed that relative motion, to a first approximation, does not affect the path of rays in any optical experiments. There was only one optical experiment left, in which the method was so sensitive that the negative outcome of the experiment remained incomprehensible even from the point of view of the theoretical analysis of G. A. Lorenz. This was the already mentioned Michelson experiment...”

1922 “All experiments show that the translational motion of the Earth does not affect electromagnetic and optical phenomena in relation to the Earth as a body of reference. The most important of these experiments are those of Michelson and Morley, which I assume are known. Thus, the validity of the special principle of relativity can hardly be doubted.".

You can give other examples, but this is probably enough. So, " negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment" was the basis both for the rejection of the luminiferous medium - “ether”, and for the promotion by A. Einstein of “ the special principle of relativity" and the "principle of the constancy of the speed of light". Probably A. Einstein himself intuitively still doubted the inviolability of this basis, since later, as mentioned above, he began to deny the connection between the appearance "the principle of the constancy of the speed of light" With " negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment".

Intuition did not fail A. Einstein in in this case. Negative result Michelson–Morley experiment “on the experimental detection of the motion of the Earth relative to the ether” was quite predictable precisely from the standpoint of the existence of a luminiferous “ether” in the space surrounding us. In the Michelson-Morley experiment, light waves propagate in two mutually perpendicular directions with the same speed C relative to the “ether”, but during the measurement process, one of the interferometer arms alternately moves along the light waves, and the second - perpendicular to them. The movement of the interferometer arm along the light waves leads not only to the experimentally sought change in the time interval for the passage of a light beam along the arm “there” and “back”, but also to changes in the frequency of light vibrations on the mirrors located in this arm of the interferometer. These changes in oscillation frequency are clearly illustrated flash-model.

The experimenters who carried out the experiment considered the frequency of light vibrations on the mirrors of the Michelson interferometer to be constant, believing that they were dealing with a measurement transformation “the speed of the Earth’s movement relative to the “ether” - the difference in time intervals.” In reality, the experiment carried out a measurement transformation: “the speed of the Earth’s movement relative to the “ether” - the phase difference” of light oscillations summed up on the “screen” of the interferometer. The phase incursion of the light wave along the length of the interferometer arm is the product of the time interval of passage of the light wave along the interferometer arm by vibration frequency, measured on the interferometer mirror that perceives light waves. If in this product one of the factors, for example, the time interval, increases by some amount, then the other, the oscillation frequency, decreases by the same amount. The product itself—the phase shift—remains constant and does not depend on the speed of the Earth’s movement relative to the “ether.”

Thus, with a delay of 100 years, it should be recognized that, contrary to the statements of A. Einstein, the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment could not be used as an experimental basis for putting forward “ special principle of relativity" and "principle of constancy of the speed of light". Both "principle" were put forward simply on the basis of the next unsuccessful attempt explanation of the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which in fact indicates the insensitivity of the Michelson interferometer to the speed of its movement relative to light waves.

However, as modern “official” physics claims, the consequences of these "principles", are widely used in theory and are confirmed by numerous real practical results. It's a strange situation. If the underlying STO "the principle of the constancy of the speed of light" fundamentally cannot exist in nature and was put forward only on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, then how can the consequences of SRT be fulfilled? Perhaps these are consequences of some other reasons erroneously attributed to SRT? Let's separately analyze the reality of the physical phenomena predicted by STR and their correspondence to the phenomena that are observed in practice.

First, a quote from the work of A. Einstein: “Let us imagine a clock capable of showing the time of the reference systemk and are at rest relative tok. It can be shown that the same clock moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to the reference systemk, from the system's point of viewk will go slower: if the clock reading increases by one, then the system clockk will show that time has passed in this system

Thus, a moving clock runs slower than the same clock at rest relative to the systemk. In this case, it is necessary to imagine that the speed of a clock in a moving state is determined by constantly comparing the hands of these clocks with the position of the hands of those at rest relative to the systemk clocks that measure the time of the systemk and past which the moving clock in question passes.”

How achieve such a “slowdown” of the moving clock “ from point of view" A. Einstein clearly demonstrated the resting frame of reference in , mentally carrying out the methodically incorrect synchronization by light signals of clocks located in coordinate systems in a state of relative motion. With this “synchronization”, the obviously unequal time intervals of movement of light signals from a stationary coordinate system to a moving one and back again A. Einstein proposed to measure identical and synchronously running clocks located in these coordinate systems, but attributed the results of measurements of these unequal time intervals to the unequal running of the clocks, replacing cause and effect, which led to the “emergence” of relativistic “slowdown” of time. This is set out in more detail in the author’s article “On the methodological error in the method of synchronizing clocks with light signals, proposed by A. Einstein,” where, instead of Einstein’s “synchronization”, another method of synchronizing the same clocks with the same light signals is proposed, ensuring uniformity (within the limits of clock unevenness) time intervals of movement of light signals measured by clocks and excluding any grounds for the existence of relativistic “slowdown” of time.

It is appropriate to quote here a fair statement by L. Brillouin regarding Einstein’s “synchronization” of clocks: "This rule is(Einstein’s “technique” of synchronization. Author’s note) is arbitrary and even metaphysical. It cannot be proven or disproved experimentally...”. In contrast to Einstein’s “synchronization” of clocks, the synchronization proposed by the author in the article “On the methodological error in the method of synchronizing clocks with light signals proposed by A. Einstein” is physically realizable and can be used to experimentally prove the absoluteness of time and refute the “fact” of existence in nature relativistic “slowdown” of time. In this regard, it should be stated quite definitely: there is no real time dilation in observed material objects due to their uniform motion "in the void" relative to subject-observers, cannot occur. There is no reason for this other than the incorrect clock synchronization technique mentioned above.

So, the incorrect method of clock synchronization led to the incorrect conclusion about the existence of relativistic “slowdown” of time. In turn, the non-existent relativistic “slowdown” of time gave rise to the non-existent relativistic “contraction” of length. In particular, A. Einstein notes about this: "This result(presence of relativistic “contraction” of length. Author’s note) turns out to be not so strange, considering that this statement about the size of a moving body has a very complex meaning, because in accordance with the previous body size can only be determined by measuring time». Emphasis added by the author) .

Of particular interest are A. Einstein’s statements about the physical meaning of the relativistic “slowdown” of time and “contraction” of length:

– « To summarize , we can conclude: any process in a certain physical system slows down if this system is put into forward motion. However, this slowdown occurs only from the point of view of a non-co-ordinate system.";

– “The question of whether the Lorentz contraction is real or not does not make sense. The contraction is not real because it does not exist for an observer moving with the body; however, it is real, since it can in principle be proven by physical means for an observer who is not moving with the body.”

That is, the relativistic “slowdown” of time and “contraction” of length, according to A. Einstein, are absent for an observer moving with a body and at the same time occur for an observer not moving with the same body. This is the main and inevitable consequence of relativism - solipsism 1 ! It is not the object of observation itself—the moving material body, the parameters of which we observe—that is reality, but “reality” is only the “ideas” of each of the subjects—observers—about this body. Accordingly, according to A. Einstein, there are as many “realities” as there are observers.

1. Solipsism is a subjective idealistic theory, according to which only man and his consciousness exist, and objective world exists only in the mind of the individual.

In vain, however, A. Einstein identified the Lorentz contraction with the relativistic “contraction” of length. Although Lorentz contraction and relativistic “contraction” of length are written by the same formula, they have completely different meanings. Lorentz contraction of length was proposed as a hypothesis to explain the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment. This hypothesis, despite its “extraordinariness” (in the words of G. A. Lorenz), was based on unknown, but quite probable physical reasons for the interaction of a moving body with a motionless “ether”. It was assumed that the Lorentz contraction is a real reduction in the length of any moving through the “ether” material bodies, but not "result" observations, depending on the speed of relative movement of these bodies and observers. The basis of the relativistic “contraction” of length was the non-existent relativistic “slowdown” of time. We can only add the following: neither Lorentzian contraction nor relativistic “contraction” of length is observed in practice. Both “abbreviations” have nothing to do with explaining the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Louis de Broglie spoke most accurately about the “reality” of the existence of relativistic “effects”: « Apparent (here and below it is emphasized by the author) reduction in size is accompanied apparent slowing down the clock. Observers located, for example, in coordinate system A, studying the progress of clocks moving with frame B, will find that they lag behind their own clocks at rest in frame A. In other words, it can be argued that moving clocks are slower than stationary ones. As Einstein showed, this is also one of the consequences of the Lorentz transformation. So, apparent the reduction in lengths and the slowing down of the clock clearly follows from the new definitions of space and time, with which the Lorentz transformation is associated. And vice versa, by postulating a reduction in size and a slowdown in the speed of the clock, one can obtain formulas for the Lorentz transformation".

In our lives, we encounter apparent phenomena every day. Moving along the street, we see that the buildings in perspective do not represent rectangular parallelepipeds, which they actually are. The closer parts of the building seem taller and more voluminous to us. But we know from childhood that these are the laws of perspective and therefore do not consider this phenomenon to be reality. Experience has led us to this understanding. Reality for us is strict uniformity of height opposite sides rectangular parallelepipeds – building walls, supported by results precise measurements carried out during the construction of buildings. Let’s imagine that there would be a “scientist” who would tell us that the height of the walls of the buildings in which we live depends on their distance from any observer - a pedestrian walking down the street. I think that we would not applaud this “scientist” for such a “discovery”, even if he tried to assure us that his statement could be “ fundamentally proven by physical means" Then why have we, for 100 years, considered reality not to the objects of observation themselves - material bodies that exist independently and independently of us, but to replace them with individual “ideas” of observers about these material bodies, supposedly depending on the speed of relative motion? Even if it really turned out that the measured value of any of the parameters of a material body depends on the speed of movement of certain observers relative to this body, then why not introduce into the measurement result a correction calculated from the equation of the relationship of the measured parameter with the relative speed of movement , and obtain the same value for all observers real value parameter of the observed material body? This is exactly what metrologists usually do, introducing the necessary corrections into the measurement results to compensate for the influence of apparent phenomena that arose for one reason or another during the measurement process. This simple method allows them to correct the obtained measurement results and, with maximum accuracy, bring them into line with a single physical reality- material body.

What then does the mass indicate? famous experiments, in which the non-existent relativistic “slowdown” of time is “registered”? There can be only one answer. In reality, experimenters do not record an apparent slowdown in time, but a real slowdown in the rate of flow. physical processes, occurring in material objects moving relative to us at high speeds, comparable to the speed of light, or with high accelerations. Objective reason a real increase in the duration of some observable physical processes, such as, for example, an increase in the “lifetime” of fast moving unstable particles, should be associated with changes in the internal structure of these particles arising as a result of changes in the intensity of their interaction with the “ether” when moving relative to it at sublight speed or high acceleration. The conclusion suggests itself that today we are misled coincidence mathematical formulas obtained in SRT, with formulas that should describe objectively occurring processes, and to explain the slowdown in the rate of physical processes, a different theory is required.

Let's summarize. “Floundering” on the rapids of the 19th – 20th centuries, physics “swallowed” a beautiful bait in the form of “ principle of relativity" and was firmly caught on the “steel hook” of the absolute speed of light. It is still generally accepted that SRT promptly “brought” physics out of a deep crisis. Maybe it “brought it out”, but where did it “bring it” as a result? In the “swamp” of solipsism, “overgrown” to the top with apparent phenomena, from where there is no way out in sight.

Doctor technical sciences A. GOLUBEV.

In the middle of last year, a sensational message appeared in magazines. A group of American researchers has discovered that a very short laser pulse moves in a specially selected medium hundreds of times faster than in a vacuum. This phenomenon seemed completely incredible (the speed of light in a medium is always less than in a vacuum) and even raised doubts about the validity of the special theory of relativity. Meanwhile, a superluminal physical object - a laser pulse in an amplifying medium - was first discovered not in 2000, but 35 years earlier, in 1965, and the possibility of superluminal motion was widely discussed until the early 70s. Today, the discussion around this strange phenomenon has flared up with renewed vigor.

Examples of "superluminal" movement.

In the early 60s, short light pulses high power began to be obtained by passing a laser flash through a quantum amplifier (a medium with inverted population).

In an amplifying medium, the initial region of a light pulse causes stimulated emission of atoms in the amplifier medium, and its final region causes their absorption of energy. As a result, it will appear to the observer that the pulse is moving faster than light.

Lijun Wong's experiment.

A ray of light passing through a prism made of a transparent material (for example, glass) is refracted, that is, it experiences dispersion.

A light pulse is a set of oscillations of different frequencies.

Probably everyone - even people far from physics - knows that the maximum possible speed of movement of material objects or the propagation of any signals is the speed of light in a vacuum. It is denoted by the letter With and is almost 300 thousand kilometers per second; exact value With= 299,792,458 m/s. The speed of light in a vacuum is one of the fundamental physical constants. Inability to achieve speeds exceeding With, follows from Einstein’s special theory of relativity (STR). If it could be proven that transmission of signals at superluminal speeds is possible, the theory of relativity would fall. So far this has not happened, despite numerous attempts to refute the ban on the existence of speeds greater than With. However, recent experimental studies have revealed some very interesting phenomena, indicating that under specially created conditions superluminal speeds can be observed without violating the principles of relativity theory.

To begin with, let us recall the main aspects related to the problem of the speed of light. First of all: why is it impossible (if normal conditions) exceed the light limit? Because then the fundamental law of our world is violated - the law of causality, according to which the effect cannot precede the cause. No one has ever observed that, for example, a bear first fell dead and then the hunter shot. At speeds exceeding With, the sequence of events becomes reversed, the time tape rewinds back. This is easy to verify from the following simple reasoning.

Let's assume that we are on some kind of space miracle ship, moving faster than light. Then we would gradually catch up with the light emitted by the source at earlier and earlier times. First, we would catch up with photons emitted, say, yesterday, then those emitted the day before yesterday, then a week, a month, a year ago, and so on. If the light source were a mirror reflecting life, then we would first see the events of yesterday, then the day before yesterday, and so on. We could see, say, an old man who gradually turns into a middle-aged man, then into a young man, into a youth, into a child... That is, time would turn back, we would move from the present to the past. Causes and effects would then change places.

Although this discussion completely ignores the technical details of the process of observing light, from a fundamental point of view it clearly demonstrates that movement at superluminal speeds leads to a situation that is impossible in our world. However, nature has set even more stringent conditions: movement not only at superluminal speed is unattainable, but also at a speed equal to the speed of light - one can only approach it. From the theory of relativity it follows that when the speed of movement increases, three circumstances arise: the mass of a moving object increases, its size in the direction of movement decreases, and the flow of time on this object slows down (from the point of view of an external “resting” observer). At ordinary speeds these changes are negligible, but as they approach the speed of light they become more and more noticeable, and in the limit - at a speed equal to With, - the mass becomes infinitely large, the object completely loses size in the direction of movement and time stops on it. Therefore, no material body can reach the speed of light. Only light itself has such speed! (And also an “all-penetrating” particle - a neutrino, which, like a photon, cannot move at a speed less than With.)

Now about the signal transmission speed. Here it is appropriate to use the representation of light in the form of electromagnetic waves. What is a signal? This is some information that needs to be transmitted. Perfect electromagnetic wave- this is an infinite sinusoid of strictly one frequency, and it cannot carry any information, because each period of such a sinusoid exactly repeats the previous one. The speed of movement of the phase of a sine wave - the so-called phase speed - can in a medium under certain conditions exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. There are no restrictions here, since the phase speed is not the speed of the signal - it does not exist yet. To create a signal, you need to make some kind of “mark” on the wave. Such a mark can be, for example, a change in any of the wave parameters - amplitude, frequency or initial phase. But as soon as the mark is made, the wave loses its sinusoidality. It becomes modulated, consisting of a set of simple sine waves with different amplitudes, frequencies and initial phases - a group of waves. The speed at which the mark moves in the modulated wave is the speed of the signal. When propagating in a medium, this speed usually coincides with the group speed, which characterizes the propagation of the above-mentioned group of waves as a whole (see "Science and Life" No. 2, 2000). Under normal conditions, the group velocity, and therefore the signal speed, is less than the speed of light in vacuum. It is no coincidence that the expression “under normal conditions” was used here, because in some cases the group velocity can exceed With or even lose its meaning, but then it does not relate to signal propagation. The service station establishes that it is impossible to transmit a signal at a speed greater than With.

Why is this so? Because there is an obstacle to transmitting any signal at a speed greater than With The same law of causality serves. Let's imagine such a situation. At some point A, a light flash (event 1) turns on a device sending a certain radio signal, and at a remote point B, under the influence of this radio signal, an explosion occurs (event 2). It is clear that event 1 (flare) is the cause, and event 2 (explosion) is the consequence that occurs later reasons. But if the radio signal propagated at superluminal speed, an observer near point B would first see an explosion, and only then would it reach him at the speed With a flash of light, the cause of the explosion. In other words, for this observer, event 2 would have occurred earlier than event 1, that is, the effect would have preceded the cause.

It is appropriate to emphasize that the “superluminal prohibition” of the theory of relativity is imposed only on the movement of material bodies and the transmission of signals. In many situations, movement at any speed is possible, but this will not be the movement of material objects or signals. For example, imagine two fairly long rulers lying in the same plane, one of which is located horizontally, and the other intersects it at a small angle. If the first ruler is moved downwards (in the direction indicated by the arrow) at high speed, the point of intersection of the rulers can be made to run as fast as desired, but this point is not a material body. Another example: if you take a flashlight (or, say, a laser that produces a narrow beam) and quickly describe an arc in the air, then linear speed the light beam will increase with distance and sufficiently great distance will exceed With. The light spot will move between points A and B at superluminal speed, but this will not be a signal transmission from A to B, since such a spot of light does not carry any information about point A.

It would seem that the issue of superluminal speeds has been resolved. But in the 60s of the twentieth century, theoretical physicists put forward the hypothesis of the existence of superluminal particles called tachyons. These are very strange particles: theoretically they are possible, but in order to avoid contradictions with the theory of relativity, they had to be assigned an imaginary rest mass. Physically, imaginary mass does not exist; it is a purely mathematical abstraction. However, this did not cause much alarm, since tachyons cannot be at rest - they exist (if they exist!) only at speeds exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum, and in this case the tachyon mass turns out to be real. There is some analogy here with photons: a photon has zero rest mass, but this simply means that the photon cannot be at rest - light cannot be stopped.

The most difficult thing turned out to be, as one would expect, to reconcile the tachyon hypothesis with the law of causality. The attempts made in this direction, although quite ingenious, did not lead to obvious success. No one has been able to experimentally register tachyons either. As a result, interest in tachyons as superluminal elementary particles gradually faded away.

However, in the 60s, a phenomenon was experimentally discovered that initially confused physicists. This is described in detail in the article by A. N. Oraevsky “Superluminal waves in amplifying media” (UFN No. 12, 1998). Here we will briefly summarize the essence of the matter, referring the reader interested in details to the specified article.

Soon after the discovery of lasers - in the early 60s - the problem arose of obtaining short (duration about 1 ns = 10 -9 s) high-power light pulses. To do this, a short laser pulse was passed through an optical quantum amplifier. The pulse was split into two parts by a beam splitting mirror. One of them, more powerful, was sent to the amplifier, and the other propagated in the air and served as a reference pulse with which the pulse passing through the amplifier could be compared. Both pulses were fed to photodetectors, and their output signals could be visually observed on the oscilloscope screen. It was expected that the light pulse passing through the amplifier would experience some delay in it compared to the reference pulse, that is, the speed of light propagation in the amplifier would be less than in air. Imagine the amazement of the researchers when they discovered that the pulse propagated through the amplifier at a speed not only greater than in air, but also several times higher than the speed of light in vacuum!

Having recovered from the first shock, physicists began to look for the reason for such an unexpected result. No one had even the slightest doubt about the principles of the special theory of relativity, and this is what helped to find the correct explanation: if the principles of SRT are preserved, then the answer should be sought in the properties of the amplifying medium.

Without going into details here, we will only point out that detailed analysis the mechanism of action of the enhancing medium completely clarified the situation. The point was a change in the concentration of photons during pulse propagation - a change caused by a change in the gain of the medium up to negative value during the passage of the rear part of the pulse, when the medium is already absorbing energy, because its own reserve has already been used up due to its transfer light pulse. Absorption causes not an increase, but a weakening of the impulse, and thus the impulse is strengthened in the front part and weakened in the back part. Let's imagine that we are observing a pulse using a device moving at the speed of light in the amplifier medium. If the medium were transparent, we would see the impulse frozen in motionlessness. In the environment in which the above-mentioned process occurs, the strengthening of the leading edge and the weakening of the trailing edge of the pulse will appear to the observer in such a way that the medium seems to have moved the pulse forward. But since the device (observer) moves at the speed of light, and the impulse overtakes it, then the speed of the impulse exceeds the speed of light! It is this effect that was recorded by experimenters. And here there really is no contradiction with the theory of relativity: the amplification process is simply such that the concentration of photons that came out earlier turns out to be greater than those that came out later. It is not photons that move at superluminal speeds, but the pulse envelope, in particular its maximum, which is observed on an oscilloscope.

Thus, while in ordinary media there is always a weakening of light and a decrease in its speed, determined by the refractive index, in active laser media there is not only an amplification of light, but also propagation of a pulse at superluminal speed.

Some physicists tried to experimentally prove the presence of superluminal motion during the tunnel effect - one of the most amazing phenomena in quantum mechanics. This effect consists in the fact that a microparticle (more precisely, a microobject, in different conditions exhibiting both particle and wave properties) is capable of penetrating the so-called potential barrier - a phenomenon completely impossible in classical mechanics(in which the analogy would be the following situation: a ball thrown at a wall would end up on the other side of the wall, or the wave-like motion imparted to a rope tied to the wall would be transferred to a rope tied to the wall on the other side). The essence of the tunnel effect in quantum mechanics is as follows. If a microobject with a certain energy encounters an area with potential energy, exceeding the energy of the microobject, this region is a barrier for it, the height of which is determined by the energy difference. But the micro-object “leaks” through the barrier! This possibility is given to him by the well-known Heisenberg uncertainty relation, written for the energy and time of interaction. If the interaction of a microobject with a barrier occurs over a fairly certain time, then the energy of the microobject will, on the contrary, be characterized by uncertainty, and if this uncertainty is of the order of the height of the barrier, then the latter ceases to be an insurmountable obstacle for the microobject. The speed of penetration through a potential barrier has become the subject of research by a number of physicists, who believe that it can exceed With.

In June 1998, an international symposium on the problems of superluminal movements, where the results obtained in four laboratories were discussed - in Berkeley, Vienna, Cologne and Florence.

And finally, in 2000, reports appeared about two new experiments in which the effects of superluminal propagation appeared. One of them was performed by Lijun Wong and his colleagues in research institute in Princeton (USA). Its result is that a light pulse entering a chamber filled with cesium vapor increases its speed by 300 times. It turned out that the main part of the pulse exited the far wall of the chamber even earlier than the pulse entered the chamber through the front wall. This situation contradicts not only common sense, but, in essence, the theory of relativity.

L. Wong's message caused intense discussion among physicists, most of whom were not inclined to see a violation of the principles of relativity in the results obtained. The challenge, they believe, is to correctly explain this experiment.

In L. Wong's experiment, the light pulse entering the chamber with cesium vapor had a duration of about 3 μs. Cesium atoms can exist in sixteen possible quantum mechanical states, called "hyperfine magnetic sublevels of the ground state." Using optical laser pumping, almost all atoms were brought into only one of these sixteen states, corresponding to almost absolute zero temperature on the Kelvin scale (-273.15 o C). The length of the cesium chamber was 6 centimeters. In a vacuum, light travels 6 centimeters in 0.2 ns. As the measurements showed, the light pulse passed through the chamber with cesium in a time that was 62 ns less than in vacuum. In other words, the time it takes for a pulse to pass through a cesium medium has a minus sign! Indeed, if we subtract 62 ns from 0.2 ns, we get “negative” time. This "negative delay" in the medium - an incomprehensible time jump - is equal to the time during which the pulse would make 310 passes through the chamber in a vacuum. The consequence of this “temporal reversal” was that the pulse leaving the chamber managed to move 19 meters away from it before the incoming pulse reached the near wall of the chamber. How can such an incredible situation be explained (unless, of course, we doubt the purity of the experiment)?

Judging by the ongoing discussion, an exact explanation has not yet been found, but there is no doubt that the unusual dispersion properties of the medium play a role here: cesium vapor, consisting of atoms excited by laser light, is a medium with anomalous dispersion. Let us briefly recall what it is.

The dispersion of a substance is the dependence of the phase (ordinary) refractive index n on the light wavelength l. With normal dispersion, the refractive index increases with decreasing wavelength, and this is the case in glass, water, air and all other substances transparent to light. In substances that strongly absorb light, the course of the refractive index with a change in wavelength is reversed and becomes much steeper: with decreasing l (increasing frequency w), the refractive index sharply decreases and in a certain wavelength region it becomes less than unity (phase velocity V f > With). This is anomalous dispersion, in which the pattern of light propagation in a substance changes radically. Group speed V gr becomes greater than the phase speed of the waves and can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum (and also become negative). L. Wong points to this circumstance as the reason underlying the possibility of explaining the results of his experiment. It should be noted, however, that the condition V gr > With is purely formal, since the concept of group velocity was introduced for the case of small (normal) dispersion, for transparent media, when a group of waves almost does not change its shape during propagation. In regions of anomalous dispersion, the light pulse is quickly deformed and the concept of group velocity loses its meaning; in this case, the concepts of signal speed and energy propagation speed are introduced, which in transparent media coincide with the group speed, and in media with absorption remain less than the speed of light in vacuum. But here’s what’s interesting about Wong’s experiment: a light pulse, passing through a medium with anomalous dispersion, is not deformed - it exactly retains its shape! And this corresponds to the assumption that the impulse propagates with group velocity. But if so, then it turns out that there is no absorption in the medium, although the anomalous dispersion of the medium is due precisely to absorption! Wong himself, while acknowledging that much remains unclear, believes that what is happening in his experimental setup can, to a first approximation, be clearly explained as follows.

A light pulse consists of many components with different wavelengths (frequencies). The figure shows three of these components (waves 1-3). At some point, all three waves are in phase (their maxima coincide); here they, adding up, reinforce each other and form an impulse. As further dissemination In space, the waves are dephased and thereby “quench” each other.

In the region of anomalous dispersion (inside the cesium cell), the wave that was shorter (wave 1) becomes longer. Conversely, the wave that was the longest of the three (wave 3) becomes the shortest.

Consequently, the phases of the waves change accordingly. Once the waves have passed through the cesium cell, their wavefronts are restored. Having undergone an unusual phase modulation in a substance with anomalous dispersion, the three waves in question again find themselves in phase at some point. Here they add up again and form a pulse of exactly the same shape as that entering the cesium medium.

Typically in air, and in fact in any transparent medium with normal dispersion, a light pulse cannot accurately maintain its shape when propagating over a remote distance, that is, all its components cannot be phased at any distant point along the propagation path. And under normal conditions, a light pulse appears at such a distant point after some time. However, due to the anomalous properties of the medium used in the experiment, the pulse at a remote point turned out to be phased in the same way as when entering this medium. Thus, the light pulse behaves as if it had a negative time delay on its way to a distant point, that is, it would arrive at it not later, but earlier than it had passed through the medium!

Most physicists are inclined to associate this result with the appearance of a low-intensity precursor in the dispersive medium of the chamber. The fact is that during the spectral decomposition of a pulse, the spectrum contains components of arbitrarily high frequencies with negligibly small amplitude, the so-called precursor, going ahead of the “main part” of the pulse. The nature of establishment and the shape of the precursor depend on the law of dispersion in the medium. With this in mind, the sequence of events in Wong's experiment is proposed to be interpreted as follows. The incoming wave, “stretching” the harbinger ahead of itself, approaches the camera. Before the peak of the incoming wave hits the near wall of the chamber, the precursor initiates the appearance of a pulse in the chamber, which reaches the far wall and is reflected from it, forming a “reverse wave.” This wave, spreading 300 times faster With, reaches the near wall and meets the incoming wave. The peaks of one wave meet the troughs of another, so that they destroy each other and as a result there is nothing left. It turns out that the incoming wave “repays the debt” to the cesium atoms, which “lent” energy to it at the other end of the chamber. Anyone who watched only the beginning and end of the experiment would see only a pulse of light that "jumped" forward in time, moving faster With.

L. Wong believes that his experiment is not consistent with the theory of relativity. The statement about the unattainability of superluminal speed, he believes, applies only to objects with rest mass. Light can be represented either in the form of waves, to which the concept of mass is generally inapplicable, or in the form of photons with a rest mass, as is known equal to zero. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum, according to Wong, is not the limit. However, Wong admits that the effect he discovered does not make it possible to transmit information at a speed faster than With.

“The information here is already contained in the leading edge of the pulse,” says P. Milonni, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States. “And it can give the impression of sending information faster than light, even when you are not sending it.”

Most physicists believe that new job does not deal a crushing blow to fundamental principles. But not all physicists believe the problem is settled. Professor A. Ranfagni, from the Italian research group that carried out another interesting experiment in 2000, believes that the question is still open. This experiment, carried out by Daniel Mugnai, Anedio Ranfagni and Rocco Ruggeri, discovered that centimeter-wave radio waves in normal air travel at speeds exceeding With by 25%.

To summarize, we can say the following. Works recent years show that under certain conditions superluminal speed can actually occur. But what exactly is moving at superluminal speeds? The theory of relativity, as already mentioned, prohibits such speed for material bodies and for signals carrying information. Nevertheless, some researchers are very persistently trying to demonstrate overcoming the light barrier specifically for signals. The reason for this lies in the fact that the special theory of relativity does not have a strict mathematical justification (based, say, on Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic field) impossibility of transmitting signals at a speed greater than With. Such an impossibility in STR is established, one might say, purely arithmetically, based on Einstein’s formula for adding velocities, but this is fundamentally confirmed by the principle of causality. Einstein himself, considering the issue of superluminal signal transmission, wrote that in this case “... we are forced to consider possible a signal transmission mechanism, in which the achieved action precedes the cause. But, although this result from a purely logical point of view does not contain itself, in my opinion, there are no contradictions; it nevertheless so contradicts the nature of all our experience that the impossibility of supposing V > s seems to be sufficiently proven." The principle of causality is the cornerstone that underlies the impossibility of superluminal signal transmission. And, apparently, all searches for superluminal signals without exception will stumble over this stone, no matter how much experimenters would like to detect such signals , for such is the nature of our world.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that all of the above applies specifically to our world, to our Universe. This clause is made because Lately In astrophysics and cosmology, new hypotheses are emerging that allow the existence of many Universes hidden from us, connected by topological tunnels - jumpers. This point of view is shared, for example, by the famous astrophysicist N.S. Kardashev. For an external observer, the entrances to these tunnels are indicated by anomalous gravitational fields, like black holes. Movements in such tunnels, as the authors of the hypotheses suggest, will make it possible to bypass the speed limit imposed in ordinary space by the speed of light, and, therefore, to realize the idea of ​​​​creating a time machine... It is possible that in such Universes things that are unusual for us can actually happen things. And although for now such hypotheses are too reminiscent of stories from science fiction, one should hardly categorically reject the fundamental possibility of a multi-element device model material world. Another thing is that all these other Universes, most likely, will remain purely mathematical constructions of theoretical physicists living in our Universe and, with the power of their thoughts, trying to find worlds closed to us...

See the issue on the same topic