- Translation
Regardless of color, wavelength, or energy, the speed at which light travels in a vacuum remains constant. It does not depend on location or directions in space and time
Nothing in the Universe is capable of moving faster than light in a vacuum. 299,792,458 meters per second. If it is a massive particle, it can only approach this speed, but not reach it; if it is a massless particle, it should always move at exactly this speed if it happens in empty space. But how do we know this and what is the reason for this? This week our reader asks us three questions related to the speed of light:
Why is the speed of light finite? Why is she the way she is? Why not faster and not slower?
Until the 19th century, we did not even have confirmation of this data.
An illustration of light passing through a prism and being separated into distinct colors.
If light passes through water, a prism or any other medium, it is divided into different colors. The red color is refracted at a different angle than blue, which is why something like a rainbow appears. This can be observed outside visible spectrum; infrared and ultraviolet light behave the same way. This would only be possible if the speed of light in the medium is different for light different lengths waves/energies. But in a vacuum, outside any medium, all light moves with the same finite speed.
The division of light into colors occurs due to different speeds wavelength-dependent movement of light through a medium
This was only realized in the mid-19th century, when physicist James Clerk Maxwell showed what light actually is: an electromagnetic wave. Maxwell was the first to put the independent phenomena of electrostatics (static charges), electrodynamics (moving charges and currents), magnetostatics (constant magnetic fields) and magnetodynamics (induced currents and alternating magnetic fields) on a single, unified platform. The equations governing it - Maxwell's equations - make it possible to calculate the answer to a seemingly simple question: what types of electric and magnetic fields can exist in empty space outside the electric or magnetic sources? Without charges and without currents, one could decide that there are none - but Maxwell’s equations surprisingly prove the opposite.
Tablet with Maxwell's equations on the back of his monument
Nothing is one of possible solutions; but something else is also possible - mutually perpendicular electric and magnetic fields oscillating in one phase. They have certain amplitudes. Their energy is determined by the frequency of field oscillations. They move at a certain speed, determined by two constants: ε 0 and µ 0. These constants determine the magnitude of the electrical and magnetic interactions in our Universe. The resulting equation describes the wave. And, like any wave, it has a speed, 1/√ε 0 µ 0, which turns out to be equal to c, the speed of light in vacuum.
Mutually perpendicular electric and magnetic fields oscillating in one phase and propagating at the speed of light determine electromagnetic radiation
From a theoretical point of view, light is massless electromagnetic radiation. According to the laws of electromagnetism, it must move with a speed of 1/√ε 0 µ 0, equal to c - regardless of its other properties (energy, momentum, wavelength). ε 0 can be measured by making and measuring a capacitor; µ 0 is precisely determined from the ampere, a unit of electric current, which gives us c. The same fundamental constant, first derived by Maxwell in 1865, has appeared in many other places since then:
This is the speed of any massless particle or wave, including gravitational ones.
This is the fundamental constant that relates your movement in space to your movement in time in the theory of relativity.
And this is the fundamental constant relating energy to rest mass, E = mc 2
Roemer's observations provided us with the first measurements of the speed of light, obtained using geometry and measuring the time it takes light to travel a distance, equal to diameter Earth's orbits.
The first measurements of this quantity were made during astronomical observations. When Jupiter's moons enter and exit eclipse positions, they appear visible or invisible from Earth in a specific sequence depending on the speed of light. This led to the first quantitative measurement s in the 17th century, which was determined to be 2.2 × 10 8 m/s. Deviation starlight– due to the movement of the star and the Earth on which the telescope is installed – can also be estimated numerically. In 1729, this method of measuring c showed a value that differed from the modern one by only 1.4%. By the 1970s, c was determined to be 299,792,458 m/s, with an error of only 0.0000002%, much of which stemmed from the impossibility precise definition meters or seconds. By 1983, the second and meter were redefined as s and universal properties atom radiation. Now the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s.
Atomic transition from the 6S orbital, δf 1, determines the meter, second and speed of light
So why is the speed of light not faster or slower? The explanation is as simple as shown in Fig. Above is an atom. Atomic transitions occur the way they do because of fundamental quantum properties building blocks of nature. The interactions of the atomic nucleus with the electric and magnetic fields created by electrons and other parts of the atom cause different energy levels to be extremely close to each other, but still slightly different: this is called hyperfine splitting. In particular, the transition frequency ultrafine structure Cesium-133 emits light of a very specific frequency. The time it takes for 9,192,631,770 such cycles to pass determines the second; the distance that light travels during this time is 299,792,458 meters; The speed at which this light travels determines c.
A purple photon carries a million times more energy than a yellow photon. The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope shows no delays in any of the photons coming to us from the gamma-ray burst, which confirms the constancy of the speed of light for all energies
To change this definition, something fundamentally different from its current nature must happen to this atomic transition or to the light coming from it. This example also teaches us a valuable lesson: if atomic physics And atomic transitions would have worked differently in the past or over long distances, this would be evidence that the speed of light has changed over time. So far, all our measurements only impose additional restrictions on the constancy of the speed of light, and these restrictions are very strict: the change does not exceed 7% of the current value over the past 13.7 billion years. If, according to any of these metrics, the speed of light turned out to be not constant, or it would differ different types light, this would lead to the largest scientific revolution since the time of Einstein. Instead, all the evidence points to a Universe in which all the laws of physics remain the same at all times, everywhere, in all directions, at all times, including the physics of light itself. In a sense, this is also quite revolutionary information.
epigraph
The teacher asks: Children, what is the fastest thing in the world?
Tanechka says: The fastest word. I just said, you won’t come back.
Vanechka says: No, light is the fastest.
As soon as I pressed the switch, the room immediately became light.
And Vovochka objects: The fastest thing in the world is diarrhea.
I was once so impatient that I didn’t say a word
I didn’t have time to say anything or turn on the light.
Have you ever wondered why the speed of light is maximum, finite and constant in our Universe? This is very interest Ask, and immediately, as a spoiler, I’ll give it away terrible secret the answer to it is that no one knows exactly why. The speed of light is taken, i.e. mentally accepted for a constant, and on this postulate, as well as on the idea that all inertial frames of reference are equal, Albert Einstein built his special theory of relativity, which has been pissing scientists off for a hundred years, allowing Einstein to stick his tongue out at the world with impunity and grin in his grave over the dimensions the pig that he planted on all of humanity.
But why, in fact, is it so constant, so maximum and so final, there is no answer, this is just an axiom, i.e. a statement taken on faith, supported by observations and common sense, but in no way logically or mathematically deducible from anywhere. And it is quite likely that it is not so true, but no one has yet been able to refute it with any experience.
I have my own thoughts on this matter, more on them later, but for now, let’s keep it simple, on your fingers™ I’ll try to answer at least one part - what does the speed of light mean “constant”.
No I won't ship you thought experiments, what will happen if you turn on the headlights, etc., in a rocket flying at the speed of light, is a little off topic now.
If you look in a reference book or Wikipedia, the speed of light in a vacuum is defined as a fundamental physical constant that exactly equal to 299,792,458 m/s. Well, that is, roughly speaking, it will be about 300,000 km/s, but if exactly right- 299,792,458 meters per second.
It would seem, where does such accuracy come from? Any mathematical or physical constant, whatever, even Pi, even the base natural logarithm e, even the gravitational constant G, or Planck's constant h, always contain some numbers after the decimal point. In Pi, about 5 trillion of these decimal places are currently known (although any physical meaning, have only the first 39 digits), the gravitational constant is today defined as G ~ 6.67384(80)x10 -11, and Planck's constant h~ 6.62606957(29)x10 -34 .
The speed of light in vacuum is smooth 299,792,458 m/s, not a centimeter more, not a nanosecond less. Want to know where this accuracy comes from?
It all started as usual with the ancient Greeks. Science, as such, is modern understanding this word did not exist for them. Philosophers ancient Greece That’s why they were called philosophers, because first they invented some crap in their heads, and then, with the help of logical conclusions (and sometimes real physical experiments) tried to prove or disprove it. However, the use of actually existing physical measurements and phenomena was considered by them to be “second-class” evidence, which cannot be compared with first-class evidence. logical conclusions conclusions obtained directly from the head.
The first person to think about the existence of light's own speed is considered to be the philosopher Empidocles, who stated that light is movement, and movement must have speed. He was objected to by Aristotle, who argued that light is simply the presence of something in nature, and that’s all. And nothing is moving anywhere. But that's something else! Euclid and Ptolemy generally believed that light is emitted from our eyes, and then falls on objects, and therefore we see them. In short, the ancient Greeks were as stupid as they could until they were conquered by the same ancient Romans.
In the Middle Ages, most scientists continued to believe that the speed of propagation of light was infinite, among them were, say, Descartes, Kepler and Fermat.
But some, like Galileo, believed that light had speed and therefore could be measured. The experiment of Galileo, who lit a lamp and gave light to an assistant located several kilometers from Galileo, is widely known. Having seen the light, the assistant lit his lamp, and Galileo tried to measure the delay between these moments. Naturally, he didn’t succeed, and in the end he was forced to write in his writings that if light has a speed, then it is extremely high and cannot be measured by human effort, and therefore can be considered infinite.
The first documented measurement of the speed of light is attributed to the Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer in 1676. By this year, astronomers armed telescopes the same Galileo, they observed the satellites of Jupiter with all their might and even calculated the periods of their rotation. Scientists have determined that the closest moon to Jupiter, Io, has a rotation period of approximately 42 hours. However, Roemer noticed that sometimes Io appears from behind Jupiter 11 minutes earlier than expected, and sometimes 11 minutes later. As it turned out, Io appears earlier in those periods when the Earth, rotating around the Sun, approaches Jupiter at a minimum distance, and lags behind by 11 minutes when the Earth is in the opposite place of the orbit, and therefore is further from Jupiter.
Stupidly dividing the diameter earth's orbit(and he was already more or less famous in those days) for 22 minutes, Roemer received the speed of light 220,000 km/s, about a third short of the true value.
In 1729, the English astronomer James Bradley, observing parallax(by a slight deviation in location) the star Etamin (Gamma Draconis) discovered the effect aberrations of light, i.e. a change in the position of the stars closest to us in the sky due to the movement of the Earth around the Sun.
From the effect of light aberration discovered by Bradley, it can also be concluded that light has final speed spread, which Bradley seized on, calculating it to be approximately 301,000 km/s, which is already within 1% of the value known today.
This was followed by all the clarifying measurements by other scientists, but since it was believed that light is a wave, and a wave cannot propagate on its own, something needs to be “excited”, the idea of the existence of a “luminiferous ether” arose, the discovery of which failed miserably American physicist Albert Michelson. He did not discover any luminiferous ether, but in 1879 he clarified the speed of light to 299,910±50 km/s.
Around the same time, Maxwell published his theory of electromagnetism, which means that the speed of light became possible not only to directly measure, but also to derive from the values of electrical and magnetic permeability, which was done by clarifying the value of the speed of light to 299,788 km/s in 1907.
Finally, Einstein declared that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and does not depend on anything at all. On the contrary, everything else - adding velocities and finding the correct reference systems, the effects of time dilation and changes in distances when moving at high speeds and many other relativistic effects depend on the speed of light (because it is included in all formulas as a constant). In short, everything in the world is relative, and the speed of light is the quantity relative to which all other things in our world are relative. Here, perhaps, we should give the palm to Lorentz, but let’s not be mercantile, Einstein is Einstein.
The exact determination of the value of this constant continued throughout the 20th century, with each decade scientists found more and more numbers after decimal point at the speed of light, until vague suspicions began to arise in their heads.
Determining more and more accurately how many meters light travels in a vacuum per second, scientists began to wonder what it is we are measuring in meters? After all, in the end, a meter is just the length of some platinum-iridium stick that someone forgot in some museum near Paris!
And at first the idea of introducing a standard meter seemed great. In order not to suffer with yards, feet and other oblique fathoms, the French in 1791 decided to take as a standard measure of length one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the equator along the meridian passing through Paris. They measured this distance with the accuracy available at that time, cast a stick from a platinum-iridium (more precisely, first brass, then platinum, and then platinum-iridium) alloy and put it in this very Parisian Chamber of Weights and Measures as a sample. The further it goes, the more it turns out that earth's surface is changing, the continents are being deformed, the meridians are shifting, and by one ten-millionth part they have scored, and they began to count the length of the stick that lies in the crystal coffin of the Parisian “mausoleum” as a meter.
Such idolatry does not suit a real scientist, this is not Red Square (!), and in 1960 it was decided to simplify the concept of a meter to a completely obvious definition - a meter is exactly equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths emitted by the transition of electrons between energy levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the unexcited isotope of the element Krypton-86 in a vacuum. Well, how much more clear?
This went on for 23 years, while the speed of light in a vacuum was measured with increasing accuracy, until in 1983, finally, even the most stubborn retrogrades realized that the speed of light is the most accurate and ideal constant, and not some kind of isotope of krypton. And it was decided to turn everything upside down (more precisely, if you think about it, it was decided to turn everything back upside down), now the speed of light With is a true constant, and a meter is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in (1/299,792,458) seconds.
The real value of the speed of light continues to be clarified today, but what is interesting is that with each new experiment, scientists do not clarify the speed of light, but the true length of the meter. And the more accurately the speed of light is found in the coming decades, the more accurate the meter we will eventually get.
And not vice versa.
Well, now let's get back to our sheep. Why is the speed of light in the vacuum of our Universe maximum, finite and constant? This is how I understand it.
Everyone knows that the speed of sound in metal, and in almost any solid body, is much higher than the speed of sound in air. This is very easy to check; just put your ear to the rail, and you will be able to hear the sounds of an approaching train much earlier than through the air. Why is that? It is obvious that the sound is essentially the same, and the speed of its propagation depends on the medium, on the configuration of the molecules of which this medium consists, on its density, on its parameters crystal lattice- in short from current state the medium through which sound is transmitted.
And although the idea of luminiferous ether has long been abandoned, the vacuum through which propagation occurs electromagnetic waves, this is not exactly absolute nothing, no matter how empty it may seem to us.
I understand that the analogy is somewhat far-fetched, but that’s true on your fingers™ same! Precisely as an accessible analogy, and in no way as a direct transition from one set physical laws to others, I just ask you to imagine that the speed of propagation of electromagnetic (and generally any, including gluon and gravitational) oscillations is built into the four-dimensional metric of space-time, which we call vacuum out of the goodness of our hearts, just as the speed of sound in steel is “sewn into” a rail . From here we dance.
UPD: By the way, I invite “readers with an asterisk” to imagine whether the speed of light remains constant in a “difficult vacuum.” For example, it is believed that at energies of the order of temperature 10–30 K, the vacuum simply stops boiling virtual particles, but begins to “boil away”, i.e. the fabric of space falls to pieces, Planck quantities blur and lose their physical meaning, etc. Would the speed of light in such a vacuum still be equal to c, or will this mark the beginning of a new theory of “relativistic vacuum” with corrections like Lorentz coefficients at extreme speeds? I don't know, I don't know, time will tell...
Having received many thanks from the science-starved population of this country, we decided to continue the educational program for those who in childhood dreamed of becoming a scientist, but somehow it didn’t work out. To spite all specialists and candidates, violating every single methodology and rule of a good scientific text, we write accessible language about the discoveries of modern (and not so modern) science and add random pictures from the Internet.
Today we will talk about the speed of light, why it is constant, why everyone “runs” at this speed and is surprised by it, and what the hell is going on.
As a matter of fact, attempts to measure the speed of light began a very long time ago. All sorts of Keplers and others believed that the speed of light is infinite, and Galileo, for example, believed that it was possible to determine the speed, but it was difficult, since it was very large.
Galileo and others like him turned out to be right. In the 17th century, a certain Roemer inaccurately calculated the speed of light when observing the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter. Well, in the future scientific and technical progress I finally put everything in place, and it turned out that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second.
But what is so special about this meaning? Why is this speed so important? My speed lisapeda it can also be calculated, but no one thinks about it about eternity and the structure of the universe.
The catch is that the speed of light is ALWAYS 300,000 kilometers per second.
Based own experience travel to lysapeds, imagine a situation: you and a friend are riding bicycles: your friend is a little faster, and you are a little slower. Let's say at speeds of 20 and 15 km/h, respectively. And if you, moving at your own speed, decide to measure (somehow) the speed of a friend, then you will calculate that your friend is moving relative to you at a speed of 5 km/hour.
Well it simple rules addition of speeds. Here, we hope, everything is clear. If you increase your speed to 20 km/h and overtake your friend, then relative to you your friend will have a speed of zero.
This is logical and follows from life experience. Speed motor boat which, moving with the flow, also consists of the boat’s own speed and the speed of the river.
Now let's try to do the same trick with light. Your friend suddenly annihilated and turned into a beam of light. You decided to chase him and worked hard for it. You have accelerated to a speed quite close to the speed of light. And purely for fun, out of scientific, so to speak, curiosity, we also decided to measure the speed of your ex-friend. Of course you are confident that you will get a solution equal to speed light minus your own speed.
And here a surprise awaits you. By calculation and experiment you will find out that the relative speed of your beam friend is still 300,000 m/sec. No matter what speed you personally move, regardless of direction: parallel to the movement of light, towards the light, perpendicular, etc. - the speed of light will always be 300,000 m/sec.
This inconsistency was first noticed at the beginning of the 20th century by a pair of scientists, Michelson and Morley.
Many experiments subsequently confirmed: no matter how you measure the speed of light, under any conditions of relative motion it is equal to its constant value. Many people still refuse to believe this, and scientific charlatans are pushing theories to disprove the constancy of the speed of light. Until 1905, no one could explain why the speed of light did not want to be relative, until Einstein came along and figured out what was happening.
The speed of light, as it turned out, pleased us with several more sudden miracles. Einstein, without hesitation, told the world about other oddities of high-speed modes.
The fact is that the greater our speed, the slower our clocks go. Time slows down as speed increases. If you think these are theoretical and mathematical jokes with no real evidence to support them, then you are stuck in the Middle Ages.
Alas, real experiments were carried out in the last century. We took a very accurate pair of watches, showing the same time. One watch was taken on board jet plane, and the second watch remained on the ground. The first watch rolled around the planet at high speed a couple of times. And then they checked the time. The plane's clock was slow.
And the closer someone moves to the speed of light, the slower his clock goes (he himself does not notice this and believes that his clock is going correctly, but these are already paradoxes of the theory of relativity, we are not talking about them now).
Thus, if someone with a watch accelerated to the speed of light, time would stop for him. As physicists say: The clock on the photon doesn't work.
And if it were possible to exceed the speed of light, then mathematics tells us that in this case time will pass V reverse side. This is one of the reasons for the impossibility superluminal speeds- the cause-and-effect relationship will be broken, you know. You accelerated to a speed of 400,000 km/s and found yourself in the past….
But we are prevented from accelerating to the speed of light by more serious reasons than time dilation. Anything that has mass cannot fly at the speed of light, alas. As soon as we begin to accelerate, our mass increases and the closer we are to the speed of light, the greater our mass. And the more energy is required to accelerate us. At values very close to the speed of light, our mass becomes practically infinite and, accordingly, for our further acceleration we need infinite energy. In mathematics, this looks like division by zero.
Why does a photon fly at the speed of light? - an inquisitive and savvy reader will ask. Because it does not have its own mass (experts, keep quiet about the difference between rest mass, inert mass and other nuances - we simplify, not load).
Yes, yes, when an electron is accelerated in these colliders of yours, even its tiny mass cannot be shot at the speed of light.
We cannot help but quote some textbook: " If the speed of a particle is only 90 km/s less than the speed of light, then its mass increases 40 times. Powerful electron accelerators are capable of accelerating these particles to speeds that are only 35-50 m/s less than the speed of light. In this case, the mass of the electron increases approximately 2000 times. In order for such an electron to be kept in a circular orbit, magnetic field a force must act that is 2000 times greater than would be expected without taking into account the dependence of mass on speed."Think about this before you make plans to build a time machine.
So when you're in Once again If you read that someone has discovered something that exceeds the speed of light, and is now selling torsion drugs for indigestion based on this technology, remember our article.
The speed of light is amazing physical quantity. If, for example, time is multiplied by the speed of light (having received “metric” values), then we get that same fourth axis four-dimensional space, which the entire theory of relativity operates on: length, width, height, time. This is an extremely hair-raising theory, but the conclusions from it are amazing and still amaze the fragile minds of young physicists.
Let us note that modern physics does not deny the possibility of overcoming the speed of light. But all these assumptions do not concern overcoming speed head-on. We are talking about moving in space in less time than it takes light to overcome it. And this may be as a result of all sorts of undiscovered or unsolved interactions (such as quantum teleportation), or due to the curvature of space (such as hypothetical wormholes), or the existence of particles for which time is running in the opposite direction (such as theoretical tachyons).
That's all for us. Written at the request of organizations that break spiritual bonds and promote the spread of disgusting science against educational programs on your REN-TV and TNT. Thank you for your attention. To be continued.
NB: All images are taken from Google (image search) - authorship is determined there.
Illegal copying of text is prosecuted, suppressed, well, you know...
What is Landau's theory of relativity Lev Davidovich
Is it possible to change the speed of light?
By her own enormous speed the propagation of light is not particularly surprising. What is striking is that this speed is characterized by strict constancy.
The movement of any body can always be artificially slowed down or accelerated. Even bullets. Let's put a box of sand in the path of a speeding bullet. Having pierced the box, the bullet will lose some of its speed and fly slower.
The situation is completely different with light. While bullet speed depends on the design of the gun and the properties of the gunpowder, the speed of light is the same under all light sources.
Let's place a glass plate in the path of the beam. During the passage of the plate, the speed of light will decrease, since it is less in glass than in empty space. However, after leaving the plate, the light will again travel at a speed of 300,000 kilometers per second!
The propagation of light in emptiness, unlike all other movements, has the the most important property that it cannot be slowed down or accelerated. No matter what changes a ray of light undergoes in a substance, upon exiting into the void it propagates at the same speed.
From book Newest book facts. Volume 3 [Physics, chemistry and technology. History and archaeology. Miscellaneous] author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich From the book What is the theory of relativity author Landau Lev DavidovichAnd speed is relative! From the principle of relativity of motion it follows that talking about the rectilinear and uniform motion of a body with a certain speed, without indicating which of the resting laboratories the speed is measured against, makes as little sense as saying
From the book Universe. Instruction Manual [How to Survive Black Holes, Time Paradoxes and Quantum Uncertainty] by Goldberg DaveIV. 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 very good question- so good that Einstein himself asked himself. However, you probably think that we
From the book The Evolution of Physics author Einstein Albert From the book Physics at every step author Perelman Yakov IsidorovichVII. So what are my chances of changing the past? Listen, in the end, can I create a time machine or not?! You? Hardly. Is this physically possible for a Suler civilization? Probably, but it highly depends on the existence of all sorts of things like wormholes, cosmic strings
From the book Movement. Heat author Kitaygorodsky Alexander IsaakovichSpeed of light In Galileo's "Conversations on the Two New Sciences" we find a conversation between a teacher and his students about the speed of light: Sagredo: But what kind and what degree of speed should this movement of light be? Should we consider it instantaneous or taking place in time, as
From the book What the Light Tells About author Suvorov Sergei GeorgievichSpeed of sound Have you ever watched a woodcutter cutting down a tree from afar? Or perhaps you have watched a carpenter working in the distance, hammering in nails? You may have noticed very strange thing: The impact does not occur when the ax hits a tree or
From the book Who Invented modern physics? From Galileo's pendulum to quantum gravity author Gorelik Gennady EfimovichSpeed of sound There is no need to be afraid of thunder after lightning has flashed. You've probably heard about this. And why? The fact is that light travels incomparably faster than sound—almost instantly. Thunder and lightning occur at the same moment, but we see lightning in
From the book Tweets about the Universe by Chaun MarcusLight modulation. Transformation of light About man's active relationship to nature The power of the human mind lies in his active relationship to nature. Man not only contemplates, but also transforms nature. If he had only passively contemplated the light, as something found in
From the book Gravity [From crystal spheres to wormholes] author Petrov Alexander Nikolaevich From the book Universe! Survival course [Among black holes. time paradoxes, quantum uncertainty] by Goldberg DaveThe speed of light is the first fundamental constant Among Galileo’s failures, one is so instructive that the language hesitates to call it a failure. In its last book Galileo spoke about an attempt to measure the speed of light, and, apparently, the reason was the measurement of another
From the author's book132. 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
From the author's bookElectrodynamics. 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,
From the author's bookIV. 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
From the author's bookII. 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
From the author's bookVII. 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
Refers to "On the Theory of Relativity"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 electric field seems 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 do small retreat. 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 in a certain inertial coordinate system 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 unconditionally accepted classical physics absolute time and absolute space, 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 areas one and 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 system reference, conventionally considered stationary? 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 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(!), with whatever relative speed these objects did not 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 not at all better than the first and must also be absurd to 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 the two (or from infinitely large number) physically equivalent systems, then one should abandon the introduction of the concept of ether, which turned into only a useless appendage 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 mankind and established by volitional decision a new absolute, “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...”. Hardly anyone can doubt that here we're talking about about the experiments of Michelson and Michelson - Morley, aimed at detecting the speed of the Earth’s movement through the luminiferous “ether”, since there were no other failed attempts 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, about which we must now speak, namely, the result of Michelson's experiment. Yet most of these negative results did not say anything against Lorentz's theory. G. A. Lorenz in highest degree An ingenious theoretical study 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 forward motion 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 constant comparison the hands of this clock 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) .
Special interest presents 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 absolutely different meaning. 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 interaction of a moving body with a stationary “ether”. It was assumed that the Lorentz contraction is a real reduction in the length of any material bodies moving through the “ether”, and 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 clock progress moving with system B will find that they lag behind their own clocks at rest in system A. In other words, we can say 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 turns out that the measured value of any of the parameters material body depends on the speed of movement of certain observers relative to this body, then why don’t each of these observers introduce a correction into the measurement result, calculated from the equation of the relationship of the measured parameter with the relative speed of movement, and thereby 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 of well-known experiments in which a non-existent relativistic “slowdown” of time “records” testify to? There can be only one answer. In fact, experimenters do not record an apparent slowdown in time, but a real slowdown in the speed of 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, must be associated with changes internal structure these particles arising as a result of changes in the intensity of their interaction with the “ether” when moving relative to it at subluminal 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.