Summary
Version of:
Minkowski
and Special Relativity:
Does His
Spacetime Geometry Explain Space Contraction?
Paul A.
Klevgard, Ph.D.
Full Essay HERE
Introduction: For over a century Minkowski’s
spacetime has dominated discussions of space contraction and time dilation
within special relativity. Brown and Pooley have called into question both
Minkowski’s assumptions and the effects his presumed spacetime has upon objects
in motion. But while they reject Minkowski, Brown and Pooley do not fill in the
missing causal connection between velocity and space contraction and time
dilation. To supply this causal connection between object and observer in
relative motion we should be focusing on energy difference rather than velocity
difference. Doing this permits a new understanding of relativistic space
contraction and time dilation.
Summary
Kinetic
energy in its pure form as electromagnetic radiation has the waveform. When you
have kinetic energy accompanying rest mass to constitute a projectile then you
also have a waveform (de Broglie waves). It is argued then that kinetic energy
and de Broglie waves are closely connected; that in fact the former produces
the latter. If that is the case, then projectiles of any size are a combination
(union) of rest mass and waveform kinetic energy.[1]
While
kinetic energy for matter in motion has a waveform, rest mass has a field form.
The term ‘field’ here is used simply as a space-volume descriptor whose
characteristics (having a shape, not occurring) are derived from the existing
object. A field may have a regular shape (e.g., a bocce ball) or an irregular
shape (e.g., a chain of carbon atoms).
·
The
projectile is a union of rest mass and kinetic energy. It is also a union of field
form due to its rest mass and waveform due to its kinetic energy.
Fields
and waves differ in their utilization of space and time. Material entities with
the field form extend in (occupy) space and they progress in time. Thus as living
beings we extend over a space volume and we progress in time (we age). But
radiation entities with the waveform (e.g., the photon) do not extend over
space nor do they progress in time. Photons are stationary in time and extend
there over an interval since kinetic energy always requires some time to occur.
And photons obviously progress over space rather than over time.
·
The field
form mass of a projectile must extend in space and progress in time.
·
The
waveform kinetic energy of a projectile must extend in time and progress in
space.
As a union of wave
and field, matter in motion is tugged in opposite directions for both
progression and extension. When velocity is low then matter and its field form
dominate the union and their version of extension (namely in space) also
dominates. This means that a rod moving well below the velocity of light has
essentially the same length as it does at rest.
But when energy and its waveform dominate the union (any matter at very
high speed) the normal space extension of matter-as-field is moderated by the
zero space extension of energy-as-wave. The result is space contraction. A rod
whose identity is mostly waveform (i.e., kinetic energy dominating rest mass)
will necessarily have a diminished space extension (length). This is because
the largely waveform rod now has space more as its progression dimension and
less as its extension dimension. Similar arguments apply for time dilation but
involving progression rather than extension.[2]
This view requires
that one take the equality of mass and energy seriously. Kinetic energy is not
passive in projectile motion although its dimensional warpage effects (space
contraction, time dilation) are only evident when projectile kinetic energy
dominates projectile rest mass (very high velocity). A projectile has a single,
blended form: part wave, part field. This form determines how a projectile
presents itself in space and time to an observer: mostly waveform yields
dimensional warpage; mostly field form yields no warpage.
The essay offers a
brief comparison of this explanation of space contraction and time dilation
with other explanations (Lorentz, Minkowski). There is also some appreciation
given to the Brown and Pooley viewpoint and countervailing arguments of Janssen
and Dorato are considered.
Minkowski
viewpoint: Observers at different
relative velocities can measure the same rod and arrive at different length
measurements. Minkowski concluded that everyone was indeed measuring the same
rod, hence our 3-dimensional, Euclidean space was at fault; space by itself
lacked reality. But the correct conclusion is that different observers at
different velocities are measuring different rods, i.e., different unions of
rest mass and kinetic energy, of field form and waveform.
Regarding projectiles as
mixed (mass/energy) entities with a blended (wave/field) form that explains
dimensional warpage has several advantages. First, it does not depend upon any
inferred entity functioning either as a container (spacetime) or as an agent of
change (the aether). Space and time as intangibles do not warp; material rods
and clocks possessing very high kinetic energy for some
observer warp for that observer. Second, it is a constructive theory and not a
principle theory; that is, explanation begins at a foundational level. And
finally, as a constructive theory it bypasses the messy issues of molecular
binding (or fictitious forces) when considering a rod’s space contraction and
the internal strain that contraction implies.
To each unique observer a unique rod (and clock) is given.
________________________________
Tradition: Newtonian
physics – and thermodynamics – regarded kinetic energy as a mere quantity whose
addition to, or subtraction from, mass had no effect on that mass. Of course E
= mc2 in 1905 required physicists to concede that kinetic energy did
increase effective mass. Later it became apparent that high-energy electrons
had the waveform and they too exhibited space contraction.[3] But
this was viewed (without justification) as a result peculiar to sub-atomic
particles with no relevance to high energy (high velocity) meter sticks or
space ships (since the latter can’t diffract they can’t have the waveform, can
they?). Kinetic energy had NOTHING to do with space contraction. The conservation
of energy “proved” that kinetic energy was merely a quantity. The fact that
space contraction coincided with enormous kinetic energy (relative to rest
mass) was mere coincidence. Other explanations, however strained or dubious,
had to be found for space contraction at high velocities…
[1] Wave
character is often associated with diffraction but in fact is independent of
it. An electron and a meter stick at the same velocity have equivalent wave
character (kinetic energy in proportion to their mass). But only the electron
can diffract due to its “large” wavelength.
[2]
Consider a clock at very high velocity relative to an inertial observer. The rapid time
progression of the clock as field form mass is greatly reduced by the zero time
progression of the clock as waveform kinetic energy.
[3]
Grouped electrons in a cyclotron “pack” closer together than expected; the
group has space-contracted.
