How detect the Ether and how explain Einstein simultaneity and Michelson Morley Results

Rafael J. Rodrguez Viudez

Ingeomin, Caracas, Venezuela. rodriguezr@ingeomin.gob.ve

Summary

It is possible to find the Ether? That is the question more important to advance in the physics.
Only the fact that the existence doesnt accepted had maintained a physics level of Nineteen
century. Why we cant see the Ether? Why our reality model can`t accept this hypothesis? But,
if we create one model what let probe and It doesnt imagine? Really the Ether is here all time
but we dont want to see it. The metaphysical concept about the world is very important to
development new concept in sciences. Lets try to probe the ether and the new way concept
about our world and the consequences in the Physics theory.

Introduction

The Ether concept isnt new. Since Aristotle the human kind was thinking about how is possible
the light could travel in space. The best book I ever seen about Ether Theories , wrote by
Whittaker beginning the twenty century, he talk us about all Ether theories. All theories was
based in the possibility to separate the Ether like an object to analyze in the lab. But, is this
possible?

We could see the Ether by two ways. One way how see the Ether like one medium where the
light propagate and this we could separate from the space, like a positivist scientific. The other
way is like a veil what can touch and move. Michelson and Morley though the Ether like this.
But I think, I believe that Ether has other concept very different and is associate with the way
what see the world.

Firstly, our way to connect with the world is by the electromagnetic wave. For us the world is
electromagnetic wave. The light, sound, tastes are electromagnetics wave, and this propagate
by the Ether. Is it possible separate the Ether of us? I dont think so. Then, we look with more
detail to accurate how interact with the world. When you see this paper what do you hand?
We can explain in this way. One object emit or reflect the light and we can see by the eyes,
easy. But what is the principal factor? The distance? The Ether? If we consider the Ether it has
one principal property, the electromagnetic wave velocity is the same whatever you go, and it
is constant. If we accept this how true then only count the time to late arrive to ours eyes to
see the object. Not the distance, if we take off the Ether we cant see anything. The principal
factor is the time to travel the light and not the distance. I think this from experiment concepts
about the process measure. At this moment you must think that what you measure the
distance between the monitor computer and your eyes, but it is not distance, it is time to
travel the light enter the monitor and you. If you accept my hypothesis about the Ether then
continue.

The consequences is the light dont go by other way , only travel by the ether. Then is
impossible measure different light velocity and the Michelson Morley Experiment was
rejected. Only we can measure the frequency variations, like the Doppler effect. How measure,
if the earth move, the Doppler bleeds? We could make two experiments to probe the Ether.
First:

Supose tha you measure Relativistc Doppler effect of the Space, we obtain one value and we
must wait 6 month and measure again. We must a little variation over two data. If the earth
velocity is about 30 km/s we must obtain a 1 % variation between both. The absolute value is
not important. Really important is relative data value.

Light

Two: We take one laser and one spectrometer to measure wave length. Let move on both. The
length of wave must change, if laser and spectrometer getting closer or walk away

The result of data must be like this next graph

Wave Length Variation

displacement
The Doppler radar machine take the same sense that write here. But, anything said that is
Ether effect.

We assume that the Ether exist (I hope one physicist try probe this hypothesis) , how know the
world? How connect with other things? Let see how work the Ether and travel information.

Lets go. We take two points separate by a distance l. How it knows the presence of him ?
Imagine one light pulse go to other point and reflect. The distance isnt l, its c/2t, t is the
time to light travel. Why 2t? Because one point doesnt know where is the other point. It
must wait until return the electromagnetic pulse to know where is it.

When the two points dont move not problem. The time to go and return is equal. What
happen when one of the point move on? The thing is different. The times arent same. Let see
the next figure

Suppose the blue point move with constant velocity v. For t = 0 shoot one pulse, the pulse
shock with the other point and reflect to blue point. When receive the pulse the blue point? It
receive the pulse in t > 0. We can make a scheme about what happening

The blue line is the path to other point and the red line the return path and the black line is vt.
Now the distance what see the blue point is more because l = c t+c t/2 , l > l. We need talk
about the simultaneity, concept presented by A. Einstein in 1905 On Electrodynamics on
Moving Bodies.

We see the simultaneity concept:

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.
In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of coordinates
verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the " stationary system".

He doesnt explain what stationary system is. We could say the stationary system is that the light from
one point in the space doesnt change. That is c t = c t.
Continue with Dr. Einstein:

If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as
functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this
kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by time.

I say: time is the variable associated with information transmission

We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always
judgments of simultaneity events. If, for instance, I say, That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I
mean something like this : " The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of
the train are simultaneous events

I say : They arent simultaneous event but they are simultaneous information. When I say: the train
arrives at moment that I see 7 oclock in the watch and I receive the information from the train
simultaneously. The 7 oclock event and the train arriving was in the near past. If we dont this fact we
talk about information velocity infinity. This is not possible see by dimensional orders, so little that it is
impossible appreciate for the humans. Simultaneous event dont exist, only simultaneous information.

We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed
together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates,a nd co-ordinating the corresponding
positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him
through empty space.

I say: Not empty, full of Ether

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of
events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are
simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of
events in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have
so far defined only an " A time " and a " B time." We have not defined at common " time " for A
and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the " time "
required by light to travel from A to B equals the " time " it requires to travel from B to A.

I say: the time is define by light velocity and not where can I measure. Could have events of
many kind but just I know when arrive the electromagnetic pulse or wave in t tiem or c t
distance. Supose, by example, we have two events in the universe. One near and the other
very far. May the information arrive together but this is not means that events was
simultaneous.
Let a ray of light start at the " A time " ta from A towards B, let it at the " B time " tb be reflected
at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the " A time " ta in accordance with definition
the two clocks synchronize if

tb- ta = t'a- tb

We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any
number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid :
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at
B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B
and C also synchronize with each other.

This was answer with the first approaches in this work, tb- ta t'a- tb . The synchronization is
impossible, only if the two watches is in the same point. Suppose was true, when separate the watches
the problem information has beginning and the mechanical watch phenomena will have many problems
to hour synchronizes the watches.

Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be
understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have
evidently obtained a definition of " simultaneous", or " synchronous" and of " time".

Really certain imaginary physical experiments dont help to understand simultaneous,

synchronous and time. It is a metaphysical point of view about how work the universe.
Return to fist part when expose the next diagram

And then

We see like
L= c t

d= v(t+t)
We have

(c t)2 = (c t)2 + (v(t +t))2 (1)

The answers are

t = t (2) =v/c

t = t (3)

The body that move must take the time T1 = t+ t. Then (we put T1 = T1)

T1= 2 t/(1- 2) (4)

The second solution will be see later. Look (2) and (4), this answers Eqs. (2) and (4) -
remember me the transmission and reflections wave equations respectively. We think like the
light to go change the medium when return (eqs. 2). For = 0 t= t. For 1 t= 0
(doesnt reflect). The other system T1 . That is, how goes to light velocity he never
receive the return pulse.

Measure Distance in the Same Movement Direction

Lets make how see when move in same direction. We take one body of length D

We fix one extreme of the body in x = 0. Star with measure process. For x = 0 send one pulse
to other extreme and we must wait until receive the pulse return.
The length D is ct, where t is the time to go and return pulse, if is repose the time to go is
the same to return time.
Suppose that the observer is separate a l distance like the drawing

D
L

Proceed to measure in a moving system

V2 D V3
l

V1

The observer is in vertice V1 and move with a velocity v. to measure the observer must send
one pulse to vertice V2 and V3

V2 D V3
l

V1
 V2 D V3
l

V1

The body was move a distance equal to vT1 when receive the pulse from V2. A T2 > T1 the
moving system receive the pulse from V3, and will move a distance equal to vT2

V2 D V3
l

V1

We resume this process in the next drawing

Incident ray
l

Reflected ray

P1 P2
 P1 and P2 are the place where the moving system will receive the reflected ray from the body
extreme V1 and V2 at T1 and T2 respectively. The length what see the move system is v (T2-T1)
The time T1 was calculated before. For T2 we are going to obtain the answer. Let see the next
figure

V1 A P2
We know D, l and h. We dont know only h and A length.

Define by A= v(th+ th) h= c th h=c th

Only unknown variable is th . We can find by the next equation

h2= h2 + A2 - 2 h cos () (cosine theorem) cos() = D/h

We get

If T 2 = th + th then

T2(6) = 2 th (1- D/h)/ (1- 2) (5)

where = v/c ; th = (D2 + l2)1/2 / c ; We can take T2 like T2

1 case

If D/h = 1 (l=0) then

T2 = 2 th / (1+ ) (6)

For = 0 (repose) We have

T2 = 2 th and th = tD the meaning is D = cth = c tD when the reference system

doesn`t move.

2 case

The length D that measure the moving system is v (T2-T1) and result

D= 2v(th (1- D/h))- tl)/ (1- 2) (7)

If D = h then tl = 0 and th = tD and

D = 2vtD /(1+ )

If v c then D= ctD = D (the movement system go with light pulse)

Commentaries and conclusions

1.- The equation (4) show me that it is not possible measure the length body moving
on. Only we can in repose both. In normal conditions , like we live now, we dont the
capacity for measure when moving system

2.- The fundamental variable in the universe is the time to wait the light arrive to us. It
is very difficult understand because we see the world by the eyes and ever think
correct. The common sense tell us that the distance is one variable, but if doesnt exist
the Ether how we can see the world.

3.- We dont have simultaneous event. Only simultaneous information we have.

4.- Because the light travel by the Ether it is impossible to see the light by other ways.
It is impossible to see one body with more velocity light. Ours sensors work with light,
no more. Only we can measure the wave shift to know if we live in the Ether.
If Michelson and Morley there use one wrong Ether model. Lets analyze the Michelson
Morley Experiment

M2

l2 v

l1 M1

v = Earth velocity in the Ether

Ether is fix to the sun. If the move about 30 km/s in the space with direction to left
Then the time t1 to cross l1 is

2 1
= + =
v + c
(1 )

Michelson and Morley are supposed that the velocity of light is not a constant because

v c = c . If c is a constant we could to find the transformation factor f this way

f (v+c) = c f = c/(v+c)

f (v-c) = c f = c/(v-c)

f= 1/(1v/c) if f*(-f)= f2 = f=
The Lorentz transformations is a consequence of a constancy of light velocity, the
Ether and not time space property. The right formula is the number (6)

t1 = 2 t1 / (1+ ) ; ct1 = l1

For l2 we have

c2t22= v2 t22+l22

t2=

l2

vt2

The right drawing is

l2

vt2
The right equation is

t2= 2 t2/(1- 2) ; c t2=l2

We must to size the optical path difference t2- t1. According to Michelson

t = t2- t1=
( )

According with this work

t = t2- t1=2 t2/(1- 2)- 2 t1 / (1+ )

The Michelson work say that we must turn 90 and the equation will be inverted. That is

t = t2- t1=
!

And for us

t = t2- t1=2 t2 / (1+ ) - 2 t1/(1- 2)

The difference of optical path according a Michelson is (after Taylor approximation), and

l1 = l2=l we get:

"#
t- t = $

For us the result is

t- t= 2 t / (1+ ) - 2 t/(1- 2)- 2 t/(1- 2)- 2 t / (1+ ) = 0 ; ct=l

Doesnt exist difference! We cant size the optical path difference because the velocity light is
constant ever and it is impossible get out from the Ether and see the optical path.

2.-When resolve the equation (1) we obtain two answer. The second answer (3) give us

t = t

The meaning may be that the return time is past time or time symmetry. Really I dont know
the really means.

But, if we put in T1 give that T1 = 0. In the moving system the time doesnt exist?
Now what happen with relativistic invariant?

The Einstein postulates for relativity Theory are :

The law of the physics are the same to all inertial observers
The speed of the light is the same to all inertial observers

When Galileo postulated the inertia principle he imagine the possibility in something place of
the universe where doesnt have force, but is it possible? Then how to find inertial observers?

The formulations of physics that explicitly incorporates these two postulates is said to be
covariant. Since the speed of light , c, is the same in all coordinate systems, it is reasonable to
consider the numerical value of c as a conversion factor between the units used in measuring
space and the units used to measure time. So, cdt is the time interval measured in the same
units used to measure space units*. I ask myself , how I know what is the real measure? Only
for my eyes? Isnt it electromagnetic wave? Is it real that I can see? Isnt it metaphysics?
Beyond the reality?

The separation is unique to each inertial frame. The square of the distance in that space time,
s2, between two points A and B given by

(s)2= c2 (space interval)2 (space interval)2*

How can I measure the position? Isnt it with electromagnetic wave? Really the problem is
more metaphysical problem than physics problem. We suppose we stay in an A point and we
see one body (we name A body). How we know the presence about the A body? By the light
what emit or reflect the body. We dont have way to measure the distance without light. This
paper you can read thank to electromagnetic wave.
Whats going on? When born the new physics with the photoelectric effect may the wave
become particle. But when the particle become a wave with prince de Broglie the physics
Community dont like so much. Becoming particle yes but becoming wave not so good. I think
that positivism school influenced for this visions of the world. They preferred talk about
probabilistic wave than Ether wave. The particle world succeeded against wave world. The
physics need equilibrate the visions of the world with more wave, I mean Ether wave. How we
do it?

One of the consequences of Equation number 4 is never we can measure the real distance
unless we stay in repose. When one object move parallel to us only see one hyperbolic line

When de Body away the distance l is, apparently, more and more large. Always the bodies
away one to another. This equation is symmetrical to both systems. Other interesting thing is
the distance l change all time, when getting closer or away. When the real movement is
parallel lines we could see like a hyperbolic line by the transmission of information between
two bodies

Real

T=t1
l

T=t2
l

t2 > t1
Apparent

Getting closer Away

l
We have an apparent space curvature we could say about forces only by we can see and
not for real it is.

I hope that one Astrophysicist could detect the Doppler variation to corroborate my hypothesis
about the Ether

Bibliography:

Edmund T Whittaker - A History Of The Theories Of Aether And Electricity-From The Age Of
Descartes To The Close Of The Nineteenth Century-(1910). Dublin University press.

Einstein, A . On Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. 1905

Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski, Weyl, The Principle Of Relativity -Dover, 1952.