Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1109.3936

How to Move an Electromagnetic Field?

Márton Gömöri, László E. Szabó

Published Sep 19, 2011• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The special relativity principle presupposes that the states of the physical system concerned can be meaningfully characterized, at least locally, as such in which the system is at rest or in motion with some velocity relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. In the first part of the paper we show that electrodynamic systems, in general, do not satisfy this condition. In the second part of the paper we argue that exatly the same condition serves as a necessary condition for the persistence of an extended physical object. As a consequence, we argue, electromagnetic field strengths cannot be the individuating properties of electromagnetic field---contrary to the standard realistic interpretation of CED. In other words, CED is ontologically incomplete.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1109.3936

Related papers

Non-locality and special relativity

W. Michael Dickson

Thus far I have been primarily concerned with how an interpretation of quantum mechanics might, or might not, be local. This question is traditionally not sharply distinguished from the question of whether quantum mechanics is consistent with the theory of relativity. However, the two questions are indeed quite distinct, and should be recognized as such explicitly. The theory of relativity What does relativity require? As a first approximation, we may make the distinction by noting that the requirements of the theory of relativity are themselves unclear. Minimally, relativity seems to require that there be no way to distinguish one reference frame from another – i.e., that there be no experimental procedure that can determine which of two inertial observers is ‘really’ moving, or more generally that there be no way to discover an observer's absolute velocity. Most authors are willing to find in (special) relativity a stronger requirement: namely, Lorentz-invariance. They say that relativity requires that in fact there is no such thing as absolute velocity. This requirement goes beyond the minimum – it might be that there is an absolute rest frame (so that absolute velocities are given by motion relative to this frame) while there is no way to find it. (As I will discuss in chapter 9, exactly this situation occurs in Bohm's theory.)

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 2, 1998•0 citations

TE-TM Electromagnetic modes and states in quantum physics

Tremblay, Réal, Nicolas Doyon, Julien Beaudoin-Bertrand

We propose, as another pedagogical approach, a quantification of the e.m. field better adapted in isolated systems, a quantification of e.m. fields in finite-spacetime which does not rely explicitly on the notion of photon, nor on the general application of gauge. Being based on the development of e.m. field in TE-TM modes and states, it obeys the limit conditions of a finite-spacetime which follows from the solution of an eigenvalue equation and allows to interpret more profoundly some phenomenons, notably: the equivalence of a Pauli principle in stationary TE-TM states, the notion of non-locality in a radiation field, a modified form of the De Broglie analysis and the notion of wave-paquets in finite-spacetime.

arXiv:1611.01472•Nov 4, 2016•0 citations

PRINCIPLES OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Mircea S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

Ψ∂ (4.1) The harmonic trial solution of this equation with respect to a fixed inertial frame ( is given by )tx, ( ) ( ) ( )ctxikectxktx −Ψ=Ψ−Ψ=Ψ 00 orcos, In another inertial frame( ),, tx ′′ considered to be in uniform translational motion with velocity as described by the Galilean transformation (2.13), with respect to the fixed frame, the wave is represented by a wave function ,v ( ) ( ), related to ,x t x′ ′Ψ Ψ t as 2 2i.e., x t x x x t x x x x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = =′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ and 2 2i.e., 2 x t v v v t x t t t x t x tt x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = − + = − +′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2t∂ ∂ ∂ where use has been made of known properties of partial derivatives. It follows that obeys the following wave equation, with respect to the moving inertial frame ( tx ′′Ψ , ) ( ) tx v tx vc ′∂′∂ Ψ∂−′∂ Ψ∂=′∂ Ψ∂− 2 22 2 (4.2) which is obviously different from the wave equation (4.1) that holds in the fixed inertial frame. In other words the electromagnetic wave equation is not invariant with respect to a uniform translation of the inertial frame, using a Galilean transformation. Inserting into Eq.(4.2) harmonic solution written as we obtain 2 2 2 2 2 2( ) ( ) 2 ( ) i.e., orc v k k w v k w w v c w c− − = − − = − ± = ± v (4.3) Hence Galileo's transformation predicts that the velocity of light should be different from c, if measured with respect to a moving inertial frame. We therefore have a choice to make before we can fully understand the electromagnetic phenomena. We can either accept Galileo's principle of relativity which states that all inertial frames are equivalent or the Galilean transformation (2.13). We can sacrifice Galileo's principle of relativity by saying that there is a privileged inertial frame, called the ether, in which it is supposed that the electromagnetic wave velocity is c as given by Maxwell's equations, although they made no essential reference to the ether. A long series of investigations has been carried out, in order to detect some effect of the motion of the earth through the ether, always with negative results. All of the experiments (the best known being that of Michelson-Morley) have indicated that the speed of light is always the same in all directions and is independent of the relative motion of observer, source and transmitting medium. Einstein has reaffirmed Galileo's principle of relativity on the equivalence of all the inertial frames and, in addition, has assumed as a basic postulate the experimental fact that the speed of light is always constant. As a consequence, the Galilean transformation had to be replaced by another, in order to preserve the same speed of light in all systems. Einstein's basic assumptions are known as the postulates of special relativity: 1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems 2. The speed of light in empty space is a universal constant c and is the same for all observers. It is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Special relativity is only concerned with transformations between inertial frames, as indicated by the restriction contained in the first postulate. General relativity covers reference frames in arbitrary relative motion, and is based on the principle of equivalence, confirmed experimentally, which unifies gravitational and inertial forces. The first of Einstein's postulates implies that it is only possible, by means of physical measurements, to demonstrate that two gravity-free reference frames are moving relative to each other. There is no physical basis to infer that any such frame is intrinsically at rest or in uniform motion. The notion of absolute rest is not consistent with the first postulate. The second postulate is in contradiction with the Galilean transformation which would preserve the form of Newton's laws of motion, as illustrated by Eq.(4.3). Therefore, we must find a transformation between two frames moving with uniform relative motion, which is consistent with the second postulate. We must then generalize the laws of Newtonian mechanics in a form which is invariant under that transformation, as required by the first postulate. A fundamental requirement of special relativity is that the laws of Newtonian mechanics are valid in the low speed limit and must be obtained as limiting cases of relativistic formulae for .cv << This assumption plays, for special relativity, a role analogous to that of Bohr's correspondence principle in quantum mechanics (see Chapter 28). 4.2. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION Einstein's procedure is to locate an event in a reference frame by its spatial Cartesian coordinates x, y and z and a temporal coordinate t. Consider two frames S and S' moving with uniform relative motion, such that the Cartesian axis system in coincides with that in S, Oxyz, at time ,S ′ zyxO ′′′′ .0==′ tt As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the x and axes are parallel to the direction of relative motion: in moves in the x direction with velocity v, and in x′ , the frameS ′S S, the frameS ′ moves with velocity in the direction. A pulse of light emitted from O at time v− x′ 0=t spreads as a spherical wave travelling with speed c, so that the equation of the wave front in S, at a time t will be (4.4) 22222 tczyx =++ 0 0' z' y' x,x' z y Figure 4.1. Cartesian axes of two inertial frames in uniform relative motion The second postulate requires that the wave front in S ′ can be represented by (4.5) 22222 tczyx ′=′+′+′ In other words an observer in also sees a spherical wave travelling from its origin if not, any change of the wave front could be used to infer that the system is moving uniformly instead of being at rest. The invariance of the expression S ′ ,O′ S ′ (4.6) 2222222222 tczyxtczyx ′−′+′+′=−++ is a basic requirement that the transformation between the two systems must satisfy. The Galilean transformation (2.13), which in our case reads ttzzyyvtxx =′=′=′−=′ ,,, is not consistent with the invariance property (4.6), as it gives xvttvtczyxtczyx 2222222222222 −+−++=′−′+′+′ The first postulate brings some simplification to the possible form of the desired transformation. Since a uniform rectilinear motion in S must go over into a uniform rectilinear motion in S', the transformation must be linear. A nonlinear transformation would predict acceleration in S' even if the velocity were constant in S. The choice of the origins in space and time has avoided constant terms, and the transformation will be homogenous. The directions perpendicular to the relative motion, which are effectively at rest, must be left unchanged by the transformation. We then take the general form BtAxx +=′ yy =′ (4.7) zz =′ FtDxt +=′ Further simplification comes from the argument that the origin O', which has the coordinate moves along the x axis with velocity ,0=′x ,/ vdtdx = that is ABvBtAx /or0 −=+= while the origin O, with coordinate ,0=x moves along x-axis with velocity Recalling that when , we can write .'/' vdtdx −= 0=x 0=t 00 ort D B Bx A B t v F F F ′ − ⋅′ ′= ⋅ + = − = so that Inserting now Eqs.(4.7) into Eq.(4.5), we obtain the equation .FA = ( ) ( ) 02 22222222222222222 =−+⎟⎟⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ ⎛ −−++−=′−′+′+′ DcBAxt c BAtczyxDcAtczyx The identity (4.6) requires that 2222 =−=−=− DcB c BADcA Since ,B vA= we obtain 2222 /1 /, /1 , /1 cv cvD cv vB cv A − −= − −= − = (4.8) so that Eqs.(4.7) now read 22 /1 cv vtxx − −=′ yy =′ (4.9) zz =′ /1 / cv cvxtt − −=′ The four equations (4.9) are known as the Lorentz transformation, which in this case applies to the relative motion of inertial frames along the x-axis. It is a straightforward matter to show that Eqs.(4.9) are consistent with the invariance relation (4.6), which is thus a sufficient as well as a necessary condition for the Lorentz transformation. With the usual abbreviations ( )1 /1 1, 222 ≥ − = − == γ β γβ cvc v (4.10) the Lorentz transformation simplifies to ( ) ( )x x ct x x ctγ β γ β′ ′= − = + ′ a) yyyy ′==′ or b) (4.11) zzzz ′==′ c) ⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ ′+′=⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ −=′ x c ttx c tt βγβγ d) The right hand side shows the inverse transformations where the primed and unprimed quantities are interchanged and the sign of the relative velocity is reversed, because its direction is the only difference between the systems S and S'. In the low velocity limit the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation since the only difference consists in the presence of the factor γ and the term ,1< that, in Eq.(4.11a), γ indicates a change of measuring stick length and in Eq.(4.11d) a change in the clock rate in the Lorentz transformation. The term ( )xc/β− in Eq.(4.11d) shows that the time is dependent on the position of a given event. Therefore, the immediate consequences of the Lorentz transformation require the revision of the usual concepts of simultaneity, time and length. Simultaneity Consider two events occuring at the same time ttt == 21 at two different positions and in the unprimed system S. According to Eqs.(4.11) the events are recorded in the primed system S' at different times 1x 2x / /, 1 1 t x c t xt t cβ ββ β − −′ ′= = − − so that the apparent time interval in S' is given by ( ) 0 1 / 2 21 12 ≠− −=′−′=′∆ β β cxx ttt (4.12) and hence, it is a function of the relative velocity v. The events will not appear as simultaneous to observers in S'. We are then forced to abandon the intuitive idea of absolute simultaneity, which is based on our experience with objects of low velocity, and accept the relativity of simultaneity, which depends on the coordinate system and applies in the domain of high velocities. Length contraction Consider a rod at rest in the primed system S' lying along the x-axis and having the length 12 xx ′−′=λ given by the distance between its ends 21 and xx ′′ measured at the same instant of time t'. The length in an inertial frame in which the rod is at rest is called its proper length. To define length in a frame S in which the rod is moving, an observer must locate the position of both end points, 21 and xx ′′ , at the same time From the inverse equations (4.11) we obtain 1 2 .t t t= = 1 1 2 1 x ct x ct x xx x x xβ ββ β β − −′ ′ ′ ′= = − = − − − − so that the apparent length 12 xxl −= is 21 βλ −=l (4.13) This equation is known as the Lorentz contraction and states that a rod parallel to the direction of its motion is shortened by the factor .1 2β− It results from the fact that simultaneous events in the rest frame of one rod are not simultaneous in the rest frame of the other. A rod transverse to its direction of motion is unchanged in length. The proper length λ is independent of the orientation of the rod, as a manifestation of the isotropy of inertial rest frame S'. If the orientation of a rod is neither longitudinal nor transverse to the direction of relative motion, both the length and the inclination are changed in the laboratory frame S, as an effect of a contraction in the direction of the relative motion with no change of transverse dimensions.

CRC Press eBooks•Jan 8, 2014•0 citations

DIRECT SAMPLING OF ELECTRIC-FIELD VACUUM FLUCTUATIONS

Vidamor Cabannas

This article develops an expanded critical–propositional analysis of Claudius Riek et al.’s 2015 experiment, “Direct Sampling of Electric-Field Vacuum Fluctuations,” published in Science, in systematic dialogue with the Theory of Objectivity (TO) developed by Vidamor Cabannas and Denivaldo Silva. The experiment is scientifically significant because it provided time-domain electro-optic access to the variance of the electromagnetic ground state in free space, using few-femtosecond optical pulses and nonlinear electro-optic coupling. Riek et al. showed that the measurable contribution attributed to quantum-vacuum fluctuations depends on the four-dimensional space-time volume sampled by the probe and can be distinguished from probe shot noise by changing the temporal and transverse dimensions of the sampling region. The present study does not interpret this experiment as a direct proof of the modal axioms of the Theory of Objectivity. Instead, it investigates whether specific empirical structures identified by Riek et al.—field persistence in the ground state, dependence on physical boundaries and sampling domains, relational measurement, transformation of field configurations into physically recoverable information, and the absence of any necessary role for human consciousness—can function as operational bridges to selected propositions of the TO. Special attention is given to the First Absolute Truth, according to which primordial Nothing is not absolute nonbeing but an eternal logical and mathematical essence; the Second Absolute Truth, according to which every element possesses its own exclusive magnetic field that individualizes it; and the Fifth Absolute Truth, according to which logical existence requires observation by, or frequency inclusion within, at least two other elements, where observation is an objective physical relation rather than human perception. The analysis also considers the Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Absolute Truths, the TO concept of the transcendent element as knowledge or information produced in atomic relations and equivalent to atomic radiation, the phenomenic elements, Inductive Effects, the Cosmogonic Theorem, and the cosmological Eras. The article argues that Riek et al. offer particularly strong operational dialogue with TO propositions concerning boundary, relational observation, physical mediation, and information-producing interactions. However, the experiment does not establish the TO’s primordial logical Nothing, does not demonstrate a unique individualizing magnetic field for every existing element, and does not prove that relational observation is a necessary ontological condition of existence rather than a necessary condition of measurement. The strongest scientific use of the experiment within the TO is therefore as an empirical bridge for the development of falsifiable operational consequences, rather than as an independent demonstration of modal necessity. Keywords: Theory of Objectivity; quantum vacuum; vacuum fluctuations; electro- optic sampling; zero-point field; modal ontology; relational observation; information; radiation; quantum electrodynamics; cosmology; Riek.

•Oct 3, 2026•0 citations

Physical Quantities in Different Reference Systems According to Relativity

A. Gamba

The relativistic transformation of measurements from one observer S to another observer S′ is valid, of course, only when both observers are measuring the same physical quantity. What is the same quantity is, however, not a trivial problem in relativity. As a matter of fact, two different definitions have already been used in the literature, without realizing that they were not equivalent. Some of the pitfalls of such a confusion are discussed.

American Journal of Physics•Feb 1, 1967•69 citations

A New Paradox Using Electrodynamics and Relativity

Laxman Bist

The laws of physics including the laws of electrodynamics and relativity have worked very well so far when applied within their proper domain. But the history of physics hasn’t always been smooth. Various philosophical, mathematical and physical consequences have sometimes led scientists to face arguments leading to paradoxes. Here, using the laws of electrodynamics and relativity, I propose a thought experiment which leads to a paradox challenging the common conception of reality. In this thought experiment, the two inertial observers will end up with paradoxical consequences while analyzing the measurement, taken from their own frame, from a force measuring device.

•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations
The special relativity principle presupposes that the states of the physical system concerned can be meaningfully characterized, at least locally, as such in which the system is at rest or in motion with some velocity relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. In the first part of the paper we show that electrodynamic systems, in general, do not satisfy this condition. In the second part of the paper we argue that exatly the same condition serves as a necessary condition for the persistence of an extended physical object. As a consequence, we argue, electromagnetic field strengths cannot be the individuating properties of electromagnetic field---contrary to the standard realistic interpretation of CED. In other words, CED is ontologically incomplete.
Thus far I have been primarily concerned with how an interpretation of quantum mechanics might, or might not, be local. This question is traditionally not sharply distinguished from the question of whether quantum mechanics is consistent with the theory of relativity. However, the two questions are indeed quite distinct, and should be recognized as such explicitly. The theory of relativity What does relativity require? As a first approximation, we may make the distinction by noting that the requirements of the theory of relativity are themselves unclear. Minimally, relativity seems to require that there be no way to distinguish one reference frame from another – i.e., that there be no experimental procedure that can determine which of two inertial observers is ‘really’ moving, or more generally that there be no way to discover an observer's absolute velocity. Most authors are willing to find in (special) relativity a stronger requirement: namely, Lorentz-invariance. They say that relativity requires that in fact there is no such thing as absolute velocity. This requirement goes beyond the minimum – it might be that there is an absolute rest frame (so that absolute velocities are given by motion relative to this frame) while there is no way to find it. (As I will discuss in chapter 9, exactly this situation occurs in Bohm's theory.)
We propose, as another pedagogical approach, a quantification of the e.m. field better adapted in isolated systems, a quantification of e.m. fields in finite-spacetime which does not rely explicitly on the notion of photon, nor on the general application of gauge. Being based on the development of e.m. field in TE-TM modes and states, it obeys the limit conditions of a finite-spacetime which follows from the solution of an eigenvalue equation and allows to interpret more profoundly some phenomenons, notably: the equivalence of a Pauli principle in stationary TE-TM states, the notion of non-locality in a radiation field, a modified form of the De Broglie analysis and the notion of wave-paquets in finite-spacetime.
Ψ∂ (4.1) The harmonic trial solution of this equation with respect to a fixed inertial frame ( is given by )tx, ( ) ( ) ( )ctxikectxktx −Ψ=Ψ−Ψ=Ψ 00 orcos, In another inertial frame( ),, tx ′′ considered to be in uniform translational motion with velocity as described by the Galilean transformation (2.13), with respect to the fixed frame, the wave is represented by a wave function ,v ( ) ( ), related to ,x t x′ ′Ψ Ψ t as 2 2i.e., x t x x x t x x x x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = =′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ and 2 2i.e., 2 x t v v v t x t t t x t x tt x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = − + = − +′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2t∂ ∂ ∂ where use has been made of known properties of partial derivatives. It follows that obeys the following wave equation, with respect to the moving inertial frame ( tx ′′Ψ , ) ( ) tx v tx vc ′∂′∂ Ψ∂−′∂ Ψ∂=′∂ Ψ∂− 2 22 2 (4.2) which is obviously different from the wave equation (4.1) that holds in the fixed inertial frame. In other words the electromagnetic wave equation is not invariant with respect to a uniform translation of the inertial frame, using a Galilean transformation. Inserting into Eq.(4.2) harmonic solution written as we obtain 2 2 2 2 2 2( ) ( ) 2 ( ) i.e., orc v k k w v k w w v c w c− − = − − = − ± = ± v (4.3) Hence Galileo's transformation predicts that the velocity of light should be different from c, if measured with respect to a moving inertial frame. We therefore have a choice to make before we can fully understand the electromagnetic phenomena. We can either accept Galileo's principle of relativity which states that all inertial frames are equivalent or the Galilean transformation (2.13). We can sacrifice Galileo's principle of relativity by saying that there is a privileged inertial frame, called the ether, in which it is supposed that the electromagnetic wave velocity is c as given by Maxwell's equations, although they made no essential reference to the ether. A long series of investigations has been carried out, in order to detect some effect of the motion of the earth through the ether, always with negative results. All of the experiments (the best known being that of Michelson-Morley) have indicated that the speed of light is always the same in all directions and is independent of the relative motion of observer, source and transmitting medium. Einstein has reaffirmed Galileo's principle of relativity on the equivalence of all the inertial frames and, in addition, has assumed as a basic postulate the experimental fact that the speed of light is always constant. As a consequence, the Galilean transformation had to be replaced by another, in order to preserve the same speed of light in all systems. Einstein's basic assumptions are known as the postulates of special relativity: 1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems 2. The speed of light in empty space is a universal constant c and is the same for all observers. It is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Special relativity is only concerned with transformations between inertial frames, as indicated by the restriction contained in the first postulate. General relativity covers reference frames in arbitrary relative motion, and is based on the principle of equivalence, confirmed experimentally, which unifies gravitational and inertial forces. The first of Einstein's postulates implies that it is only possible, by means of physical measurements, to demonstrate that two gravity-free reference frames are moving relative to each other. There is no physical basis to infer that any such frame is intrinsically at rest or in uniform motion. The notion of absolute rest is not consistent with the first postulate. The second postulate is in contradiction with the Galilean transformation which would preserve the form of Newton's laws of motion, as illustrated by Eq.(4.3). Therefore, we must find a transformation between two frames moving with uniform relative motion, which is consistent with the second postulate. We must then generalize the laws of Newtonian mechanics in a form which is invariant under that transformation, as required by the first postulate. A fundamental requirement of special relativity is that the laws of Newtonian mechanics are valid in the low speed limit and must be obtained as limiting cases of relativistic formulae for .cv << This assumption plays, for special relativity, a role analogous to that of Bohr's correspondence principle in quantum mechanics (see Chapter 28). 4.2. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION Einstein's procedure is to locate an event in a reference frame by its spatial Cartesian coordinates x, y and z and a temporal coordinate t. Consider two frames S and S' moving with uniform relative motion, such that the Cartesian axis system in coincides with that in S, Oxyz, at time ,S ′ zyxO ′′′′ .0==′ tt As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the x and axes are parallel to the direction of relative motion: in moves in the x direction with velocity v, and in x′ , the frameS ′S S, the frameS ′ moves with velocity in the direction. A pulse of light emitted from O at time v− x′ 0=t spreads as a spherical wave travelling with speed c, so that the equation of the wave front in S, at a time t will be (4.4) 22222 tczyx =++ 0 0' z' y' x,x' z y Figure 4.1. Cartesian axes of two inertial frames in uniform relative motion The second postulate requires that the wave front in S ′ can be represented by (4.5) 22222 tczyx ′=′+′+′ In other words an observer in also sees a spherical wave travelling from its origin if not, any change of the wave front could be used to infer that the system is moving uniformly instead of being at rest. The invariance of the expression S ′ ,O′ S ′ (4.6) 2222222222 tczyxtczyx ′−′+′+′=−++ is a basic requirement that the transformation between the two systems must satisfy. The Galilean transformation (2.13), which in our case reads ttzzyyvtxx =′=′=′−=′ ,,, is not consistent with the invariance property (4.6), as it gives xvttvtczyxtczyx 2222222222222 −+−++=′−′+′+′ The first postulate brings some simplification to the possible form of the desired transformation. Since a uniform rectilinear motion in S must go over into a uniform rectilinear motion in S', the transformation must be linear. A nonlinear transformation would predict acceleration in S' even if the velocity were constant in S. The choice of the origins in space and time has avoided constant terms, and the transformation will be homogenous. The directions perpendicular to the relative motion, which are effectively at rest, must be left unchanged by the transformation. We then take the general form BtAxx +=′ yy =′ (4.7) zz =′ FtDxt +=′ Further simplification comes from the argument that the origin O', which has the coordinate moves along the x axis with velocity ,0=′x ,/ vdtdx = that is ABvBtAx /or0 −=+= while the origin O, with coordinate ,0=x moves along x-axis with velocity Recalling that when , we can write .'/' vdtdx −= 0=x 0=t 00 ort D B Bx A B t v F F F ′ − ⋅′ ′= ⋅ + = − = so that Inserting now Eqs.(4.7) into Eq.(4.5), we obtain the equation .FA = ( ) ( ) 02 22222222222222222 =−+⎟⎟⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ ⎛ −−++−=′−′+′+′ DcBAxt c BAtczyxDcAtczyx The identity (4.6) requires that 2222 =−=−=− DcB c BADcA Since ,B vA= we obtain 2222 /1 /, /1 , /1 cv cvD cv vB cv A − −= − −= − = (4.8) so that Eqs.(4.7) now read 22 /1 cv vtxx − −=′ yy =′ (4.9) zz =′ /1 / cv cvxtt − −=′ The four equations (4.9) are known as the Lorentz transformation, which in this case applies to the relative motion of inertial frames along the x-axis. It is a straightforward matter to show that Eqs.(4.9) are consistent with the invariance relation (4.6), which is thus a sufficient as well as a necessary condition for the Lorentz transformation. With the usual abbreviations ( )1 /1 1, 222 ≥ − = − == γ β γβ cvc v (4.10) the Lorentz transformation simplifies to ( ) ( )x x ct x x ctγ β γ β′ ′= − = + ′ a) yyyy ′==′ or b) (4.11) zzzz ′==′ c) ⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ ′+′=⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ −=′ x c ttx c tt βγβγ d) The right hand side shows the inverse transformations where the primed and unprimed quantities are interchanged and the sign of the relative velocity is reversed, because its direction is the only difference between the systems S and S'. In the low velocity limit the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation since the only difference consists in the presence of the factor γ and the term ,1< that, in Eq.(4.11a), γ indicates a change of measuring stick length and in Eq.(4.11d) a change in the clock rate in the Lorentz transformation. The term ( )xc/β− in Eq.(4.11d) shows that the time is dependent on the position of a given event. Therefore, the immediate consequences of the Lorentz transformation require the revision of the usual concepts of simultaneity, time and length. Simultaneity Consider two events occuring at the same time ttt == 21 at two different positions and in the unprimed system S. According to Eqs.(4.11) the events are recorded in the primed system S' at different times 1x 2x / /, 1 1 t x c t xt t cβ ββ β − −′ ′= = − − so that the apparent time interval in S' is given by ( ) 0 1 / 2 21 12 ≠− −=′−′=′∆ β β cxx ttt (4.12) and hence, it is a function of the relative velocity v. The events will not appear as simultaneous to observers in S'. We are then forced to abandon the intuitive idea of absolute simultaneity, which is based on our experience with objects of low velocity, and accept the relativity of simultaneity, which depends on the coordinate system and applies in the domain of high velocities. Length contraction Consider a rod at rest in the primed system S' lying along the x-axis and having the length 12 xx ′−′=λ given by the distance between its ends 21 and xx ′′ measured at the same instant of time t'. The length in an inertial frame in which the rod is at rest is called its proper length. To define length in a frame S in which the rod is moving, an observer must locate the position of both end points, 21 and xx ′′ , at the same time From the inverse equations (4.11) we obtain 1 2 .t t t= = 1 1 2 1 x ct x ct x xx x x xβ ββ β β − −′ ′ ′ ′= = − = − − − − so that the apparent length 12 xxl −= is 21 βλ −=l (4.13) This equation is known as the Lorentz contraction and states that a rod parallel to the direction of its motion is shortened by the factor .1 2β− It results from the fact that simultaneous events in the rest frame of one rod are not simultaneous in the rest frame of the other. A rod transverse to its direction of motion is unchanged in length. The proper length λ is independent of the orientation of the rod, as a manifestation of the isotropy of inertial rest frame S'. If the orientation of a rod is neither longitudinal nor transverse to the direction of relative motion, both the length and the inclination are changed in the laboratory frame S, as an effect of a contraction in the direction of the relative motion with no change of transverse dimensions.
This article develops an expanded critical–propositional analysis of Claudius Riek et al.’s 2015 experiment, “Direct Sampling of Electric-Field Vacuum Fluctuations,” published in Science, in systematic dialogue with the Theory of Objectivity (TO) developed by Vidamor Cabannas and Denivaldo Silva. The experiment is scientifically significant because it provided time-domain electro-optic access to the variance of the electromagnetic ground state in free space, using few-femtosecond optical pulses and nonlinear electro-optic coupling. Riek et al. showed that the measurable contribution attributed to quantum-vacuum fluctuations depends on the four-dimensional space-time volume sampled by the probe and can be distinguished from probe shot noise by changing the temporal and transverse dimensions of the sampling region. The present study does not interpret this experiment as a direct proof of the modal axioms of the Theory of Objectivity. Instead, it investigates whether specific empirical structures identified by Riek et al.—field persistence in the ground state, dependence on physical boundaries and sampling domains, relational measurement, transformation of field configurations into physically recoverable information, and the absence of any necessary role for human consciousness—can function as operational bridges to selected propositions of the TO. Special attention is given to the First Absolute Truth, according to which primordial Nothing is not absolute nonbeing but an eternal logical and mathematical essence; the Second Absolute Truth, according to which every element possesses its own exclusive magnetic field that individualizes it; and the Fifth Absolute Truth, according to which logical existence requires observation by, or frequency inclusion within, at least two other elements, where observation is an objective physical relation rather than human perception. The analysis also considers the Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Absolute Truths, the TO concept of the transcendent element as knowledge or information produced in atomic relations and equivalent to atomic radiation, the phenomenic elements, Inductive Effects, the Cosmogonic Theorem, and the cosmological Eras. The article argues that Riek et al. offer particularly strong operational dialogue with TO propositions concerning boundary, relational observation, physical mediation, and information-producing interactions. However, the experiment does not establish the TO’s primordial logical Nothing, does not demonstrate a unique individualizing magnetic field for every existing element, and does not prove that relational observation is a necessary ontological condition of existence rather than a necessary condition of measurement. The strongest scientific use of the experiment within the TO is therefore as an empirical bridge for the development of falsifiable operational consequences, rather than as an independent demonstration of modal necessity. Keywords: Theory of Objectivity; quantum vacuum; vacuum fluctuations; electro- optic sampling; zero-point field; modal ontology; relational observation; information; radiation; quantum electrodynamics; cosmology; Riek.
The laws of physics including the laws of electrodynamics and relativity have worked very well so far when applied within their proper domain. But the history of physics hasn’t always been smooth. Various philosophical, mathematical and physical consequences have sometimes led scientists to face arguments leading to paradoxes. Here, using the laws of electrodynamics and relativity, I propose a thought experiment which leads to a paradox challenging the common conception of reality. In this thought experiment, the two inertial observers will end up with paradoxical consequences while analyzing the measurement, taken from their own frame, from a force measuring device.