This paper shows that the phenomena usually attributed to relativity are a simple consequence of mass-energy conservation. When atoms are accelerated, the increase of kinetic energy increases the electron mass, which makes the Bohr radius larger. This increase of radius produces a shift in the atomic energy levels and also an increase of the physical size of matter. Consequently, a moving atomic clock now runs at a different rate. Quite naturally and without Einstein's relativity, we see how the increase of size of the Bohr radius and of macroscopic matter, are exactly equal to Einstein's prediction. Einstein's theory of relativity predicts length contraction, but does not explain how matter can be physically contracted or why this phenomenon is not reversible when the mass in the moving frame is accelerated back to the original frame. Einstein's length contraction implies that the Bohr atom gets smaller. However, quantum mechanics shows that such a contraction of the Bohr radius should increase the atomic energy levels. This consequence of Einstein's predictions is contrary to observational facts, which show that, at high velocity, the atomic energy levels become smaller and the atomic clocks get slower. The mechanism of dilation and contraction of matter is logically explained here, using Newton physics and the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. Using the de Broglie equation, we calculate the relationship between the Bohr radii in different frames, which is responsible for the physical change of length of matter, in agreement with all observational data. Furthermore, just as for mass and energy units, we show that the physical size of the Planck unit, needs to increase g times with velocity. Observations previously attributed to relativity can now be explained logically. These results are also compatible with a rational explanation of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury around the Sun. We must conclude that there exists no space-time distortion and the Einstein's relativity principle cannot be valid. Everything is naturally explained as a change of size of matter and a change of clock rate. A corresponding solution also exists in the case of gravitational energy as will be demonstrated in a future paper. These phenomena, taking place in atoms are also predictable in the nucleus of matter. For the same reason, the lifetimes of radioactive nuclear states also changes naturally with velocity and potential energy.
Mechanisms Inside Atoms.
Equations 1 and 2 are in a perfect agreement with experiments when the atom is stationary. It is also an experimental fact that when an atom is in motion, the same relationships are compatible within the moving atom, if we use the relevant moving reference units [v]. However, we have seen previously (2) that in fact, the moving atoms are unquestionably different, due to the absorbed kinetic energy, which gives an extra mass to the electron and to the nucleus. The resulting change of size of the reference units is due to the increase of electron mass. These previously ignored absolute physical modifications between frames are the origin of the non-realistic relativity principle hypothesized by Einstein. In order to take into account that both matter and the size of the reference units are changing simultaneously with velocity, we must note that a physical quantity cannot be defined as a simple "number of reference units" as generally used in papers. In contrast with a mathematical quantity, we must define a physical quantity. A physical quantity is an absolute quantity, defined as the product of the number of units, multiplied by the size of the corresponding reference unit.
Due to the increase of mass with velocity, the size of the reference unit is changing in different frames. This variation of size of reference units must be taken into account. We have seen previously (2), that we need a double index to get the relevant information on the physical quantity being measured. For example, we see that the number representing a mass m, can have four different values, depending on the frame where it is located and the reference unit used to measure it. We can have ms[s], ms[v], mv[s] and mv[v]. The subscript after the physical quantity refers to the frame where the particle is located. The subscript s means that the particle is located in the stationary frame, and the subscript v means that the particle is located in the moving frame. Furthermore, the physical quantity is also followed by a square parenthesis, which indicates the size of the fundamental reference unit used to express that physical quantity. The index [s] means that the corresponding reference unit used is in the stationary frame. The index [v] means that the reference unit used for that measurement is in the moving frame.
We will see that there exist naturally three different situations when matter moves to a moving frame. In most cases, an absolute physical quantity like a mass m, is the product of the number of units (ms or mv) times the size of the unit used to measure it, which is [s] or [v]. For example, an absolute physical length like rs[v] is the product of the number of units rs, times the size of the unit [v]. In the second situation, the absolute size of the Coulomb and the Planck constants must be considered when switching frames. In the Coulomb case, nothing changes neither physically nor mathematically. This is the case for the electric charges e- and protons p+. In that case, indexes are irrelevant here, since the number of units and the size of units are identical in all frames at any velocity. It is well known that the absolute electric charge of electrons and protons is constant when the particle is accelerated to high velocity. This is an experimental fact, since observational data have shown that, when an electron is accelerated to a high velocity and then deflected in a magnetic field, the electron "charge to mass ratio" (e/m) is changing in a way, which is exactly compatible with the expected increase of mass, assuming a constant electric charge and mass-energy conservation. Consequently, we have:
In physics, the parameters in equations generally represent the number of standard units, (independently of the size of the unit). It is arbitrarily assumed that the size of the reference unit is constant in different frames. However, it is not so when a moving observer is moving with the mass, because the reference units in the moving frame are different, due to their kinetic energy. Then, the number (alone) of units, to measure masses, lengths and clock rates is insufficient to represent a physical quantity.
An example would be useful. Let us consider a rod having a length of 2.4 meters when measured in a stationary frame with respect to a reference meter also in the same frame. This length is written 2.4 ms[s]. If furthermore, that rod is carried to a frame moving at velocity v and is measured with respect to the reference meter also in the local frame (the moving frame), the length of the same rod will be given as 2.4 mv[v]. We see that, in both cases, the length of the rod is mathematically the same (i.e. 2.4 local meters). However, the physical length of the rod is certainly different in the moving frame. Also, the physical length given by g times 2.4 ms[s] is equal to 2.4 mv[v]. Furthermore, the physical length 2.4 mv[s] equals 2.4 mv[v]. The reader must cautiously perceive the difference between the mathematical equality and the physical equality. Realistically, numbers are the only things mathematical equations are calculating.
The usual equations in physics completely rely on an assumption of a definition of a reference unit, which is assumed to be constant in any frame. This hypothesis is erroneous. That hypothesis is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation (2).
The parameters in a normal mathematical equation give nothing but the number of units rather than the size of the physical quantity. In previous papers (2, 4-7), the same number of units was instead represented by the notation N-r, N-m and N-E.
3 - The Coulomb Energy
Atom in Motion. - When an atom is in motion, due to the kinetic energy transferred from the external frame, (which is added to the particle), the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that the mass of all particles increases. Therefore, as given by equation 5, the electron mass increases inside the atom, due to the higher velocity of the atom, just as the proton mass. Let us calculate the change of the electron orbital velocity inside the atom, and around the nucleus, due to the increase of electron mass (from ms[s] to gms[s]). Substituting gms[s] in equation 7 gives:
5 - Quantum Conditions - De Broglie
We have seen that inside a stationary atom, as well as inside a moving atom, the Newton's centrifugal force on the orbiting electron is equal and in the opposite direction to the Coulomb force. We have shown above that this requirement is perfectly satisfied inside the atom when we use the stationary units when the atom is stationary, and when we use the moving units when the atom is moving. This is done logically without using the Einstein's relativity hypothesis.
However, there is another condition that needs to be verified to be compatible with quantum mechanics. We have seen in equation 2, that due to quantum mechanics, the atom must be compatible with the de Broglie equation. This condition is fundamental and corresponds to the quantization of electron energy in atoms. This quantum condition requires that the circumference of the electron orbit is equal to an integer n, times the de Broglie electron wavelength lB. In atomic physics, this integer is called the principal quantum number. Let us consider the lowest principal quantum number (when n equals unity). We can show also that all other quantum numbers (for n=2, 3, 4, etc.) satisfy the solution presented here. According to de Broglie, the circumference of the lowest electron orbit in an atom in a stationary frame must be:
Testing the de Broglie Equation.
Let us consider the de Broglie relationship. When we consider an atom at rest, we know that the electron wavelength in the ground state of the atom is equal to the de Broglie electron wavelength. Let us verify now, that the moving atom calculated above is compatible with de Broglie equation, even when we use the [v] reference units. Since this is an experimental fact that the same de Broglie equation is valid in all frames, we need to show that equation 19 must also be valid in a moving atom, when we use moving reference units. In the stationary frame equation 19 is:
7 - Observations and Discussions.
We must conclude that the moving observer gets the correct physical predictions when he uses the same equation as the stationary observer. The requirement is that the moving observer must use the moving units and the stationary observer must use the stationary units. This may appear equivalent to Einstein's principle, which claims that nothing is changed after the acceleration of the frame. However, Einstein's hypothesis is erroneous, because in fact, the electron velocity, the Bohr radius and the masses of particles are modified. Einstein did not realize that simple logic and the principle of mass-energy conservation leads to a modification of the reference units in the moving frame that compensates exactly for the real physical changes taking place when masses are accelerated. Space-time distortions are useless and non-realistic. Einstein's principle of invariance is an error, because we cannot claim a real invariance in physics when the atoms in different frames have a different Bohr radius, a different electron mass and also emit different frequencies. As explained in this paper, a numerical invariance is unsatisfactory in physics, because the size of the units inevitably changes between frames. The physical changes are just perfectly compensated by an equivalent change of the size of the moving reference units of mass, length and clock rate in different frames. Similarly in the Lorentz transformations, nothing takes into account that the size of the units are compelled to change. Lorentz did not realize that a constant number of units between all frames could simply be explained by the change of size of these units following the principle of mass-energy conservation. Nature has made the laws of physics so that they appear undistinguishable internally, but this difference can be measured from an external location.
The above results also imply that there is an absolute frame of reference for light so that the velocity of light is (c+v) and (c-v) as confirmed experimentally using the GPS(4). The GPS system (just as the Sagnac effect) provides a striking proof of an absolute frame of reference for light propagation, but conservatism and non-realism prevent scientists from accepting that evidence. We must also realize that the change of clock rate and the increase of length of matter is an observational fact. We can see that the slowing down of moving atomic clocks with velocity requires necessarily an increase of the Bohr radius and therefore an increase of size of matter as shown here. When we apply Newton mechanics with these classical transformations of length and clock rate to calculate the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, we have shown(5) that they lead naturally to the observed advance, without having to assume the magic of relativity. This result agrees even with the assumed deflection of light by the Sun(6). The present analysis also implies that a positive result is expected from the kind of measurements known as the Michelson-Morley experiment. A recent thorough study(7) of these data has shown that it is so. Munera's analysis(7) shows that an unbiased analysis reveals different kind of errors, which reveal that there is indeed a shift in optical fringes in the Michelson-Morley type of experiment that has been overlooked previously.
This velocity dependent variation of the internal electronic structure of atoms, does not only exist in the electron shells, but also exists in the nuclear structure. Since the Planck constant and masses and other fundamental constants are also involved in the nucleus of matter, we can calculate now, the change in the nuclear structure and nuclear forces as a function of the velocity of those nuclei. Therefore, the change of lifetimes of radioactive nuclei is predictable without Einstein's relativity principles, using the same principle of mass-energy conservation as above. In the same context, we see that this paper agree with Terrel(8) who found that length contractions and dilations are not measurable to the observer in the moving frame. This work has also some similarities with the work of Ives(9) who also used energy and momentum conservation. Also Munera(10) found an increase of mass in a gravitational and in an electric field.
Finally, it is important to realize that a similar modification of the structure of atoms can be calculated when the energy of the electron inside the atom is perturbed due to gravitational potential, instead of kinetic energy as calculated here. There has been a calculation of that effect previously(2), but the complete detailed explanation will be published in a coming paper. We will see that the change of gravitational energy can explain logically all the phenomena previously requiring the Einstein's hypotheses.
8 - References.
(1) A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeine Relativitatstheorie, Ann. Phys. 49, 769-822 (1916).
(2) P. Marmet, Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, Newton Physics Books, 2401 Ogilvie Road Gloucester On. Canada pp. 200, ISBN 0-921272-18-9 (1997).
(3) G. Herzberg, Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure Dover Publications, New York, pp. 258. 1944.
(4) P. Marmet Explaining the Illusion of the Constant Velocity of Light, Meeting "Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory VII" University of Sunderland, London U.K., 15-18, September 2000. Conference Proceedings "Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory VII" p. 250-260 (Ed. M. C. Duffy, University of Sunderland). Also in Acta Scientiarum (2000): The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light. Also presented at NPA Meeting University of Conn, Storrs in June 2000. Also submitted for publication in Galilean Electrodynamics in 2000. On the Web at:
(5) P. Marmet, Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury, Physics Essays, Volume 12, No: 3, 1999, P. 468-487. Also, P. Marmet, A Logical and Understandable Explanation to the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury, invited speaker Society for Scientific Exploration, Albuquerque, June 3-5, 1999. Also on the Web: A Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury. at the address:
(6) P. Marmet and C. Couture, Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light, Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, On. Canada, K1N 6N5 Physics Essays Vol: 12, No: 1 March 1999. P. 162-174. Also The Deficient Observations of Light Deflection Near the Sun NPA Meeting University of Conn, Storrs in June 2000. Also on the Web: Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light at:
(7) Héctor Múnera, Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Different Experiments, and Compatibility with Absolute Space, Apeiron, Vol. 5 Nr. 1-2, January-April 1998.
(8) L. Terrel, Phys. Rev. Vol. 116, 1041 (1959)
(9) H. E. Ives, Philos Mag. Series 7, Vol. 36, 392-403 (1945)
(10) H. A. Múnera, A Quantitative Formulation of Newton’s First Law, Physics Essays, Vol. 6, 173-180 (1993)
July 9, Nov, 2001