This theory proposes that the contraction of the length of a spinning object is due to the change in the tangential velocity of its surface, as opposed to the traditional explanation of the contraction occurring solely in the direction of rotation.

The Ehrenfest paradox, which highlights a discrepancy between classical and relativistic mechanics, arises from the fact that as an object spins faster, the circumference of its rotating frame contracts, while its radius remains static. This results in an apparent contradiction of the conservation of energy and momentum, as well as the geometry of space-time.

My theory suggests that the contraction occurs along the radial direction, as the radius of the object decreases with the decrease in tangential velocity, while the circumference contracts according to the Ehrenfest Paradox. This new perspective allows for a more intuitive explanation of the paradox, without violating any laws of physics.

The mathematical derivation of the spin length contraction formula is straightforward, involving only the Lorentz factor and the original dimensions of the object.

One possible solution to the Ehrenfest paradox was proposed by Richard Muller in 1991, in which he suggested that the rotating disk should be considered as a collection of rotating rods, rather than a single object. This perspective leads to the conclusion that the circumference of the disk contracts by the same factor as its radius, as the rods change shape due to the centrifugal forces.

However, my proposed solution, based on the contraction of the radius due to the change in tangential velocity, is a more intuitive and straightforward explanation of the paradox. It is consistent with the predictions of special relativity, which have been extensively verified by experiments and observations.

To fully understand the mathematical framework of this theory, we can consider a disk with radius $R_0$ at rest in the laboratory frame. In the frame of reference of the disk, its circumference is given by $2\pi R_0$, and its radius is $R_0$. Now, let us assume that the disk is set into rotation with angular velocity $\omega$. According to the theory of special relativity, the circumference of the disk in the laboratory frame is given by:

$$C = 2\pi R_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

where $v = \omega R_0$. From this, we can see that the circumference of the disk has decreased due to its rotation.

Now, let us assume that the radius of the disk has also decreased by the same factor. In other words, the radius in the laboratory frame is given by:

$$R = R_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

where $v$ is as defined above. With this assumption, we can calculate the circumference of the disk in its own frame of reference:

$$C' = 2\pi R \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = 2\pi R_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = C$$

Thus, we can conclude that the proposed contraction of the radius of the disk is consistent with the contraction of the circumference.

The proposed solution is just one of several possible explanations for the Ehrenfest paradox. Another solution involves the use of the concept of a rigid body and a modification of the laws of mechanics to account for the rotation of the body. However, this solution has been shown to be inconsistent with special relativity and the observation of high-energy particles. The proposed solution using spin length contraction does not require any modification of the laws of physics and is consistent with special relativity.

The implications of this theory extend beyond the resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox. It may help us better understand the behavior of high-energy particles and their interactions with electromagnetic fields. Furthermore, it could have applications in the design of high-speed rotating machinery, such as turbines and centrifuges.

It is important to note that this theory is not the only proposed solution to the Ehrenfest paradox. Other solutions include the use of non-linear transformations of spacetime and modifications to the laws of physics, such as those proposed by Richard Muller in 1991.

However, the beauty of the spin length contraction theory is its simplicity and its adherence to the fundamental principles of special relativity. The theory provides a clear and intuitive explanation for the paradox, without requiring any modifications to the laws of physics or the geometry of spacetime.

In conclusion, the spin length contraction theory proposes a new perspective on the behavior of spinning objects and provides a possible solution to the Ehrenfest paradox. While more research is needed to fully understand the implications of this theory, it has the potential to deepen our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature and may have practical applications in engineering and physics.

Where I am now, is trying to incorporate this concept with General Relativity, how would this affect Minkowski space?

References:

Ehrenfest, P. (1909). “In what way does it become manifest in the fundamental laws of physics that space has three dimensions?” Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy, 11, 584-592.

Einstein, A. (1905). “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.” Annalen der Physik, 17, 891–921.

Muller, R. A. (1991). “The gyroscope and the equivalence principle.” American Journal of Physics, 59(7), 619-628.

Gron, O. (2009). “The Ehrenfest paradox.” American Journal of Physics, 77(4), 296-297.

Rindler, W. (1969). “Visual horizons in world models.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 138, 393-404.

The Ehrenfest paradox, which highlights a discrepancy between classical and relativistic mechanics, arises from the fact that as an object spins faster, the circumference of its rotating frame contracts, while its radius remains static. This results in an apparent contradiction of the conservation of energy and momentum, as well as the geometry of space-time.

My theory suggests that the contraction occurs along the radial direction, as the radius of the object decreases with the decrease in tangential velocity, while the circumference contracts according to the Ehrenfest Paradox. This new perspective allows for a more intuitive explanation of the paradox, without violating any laws of physics.

The mathematical derivation of the spin length contraction formula is straightforward, involving only the Lorentz factor and the original dimensions of the object.

One possible solution to the Ehrenfest paradox was proposed by Richard Muller in 1991, in which he suggested that the rotating disk should be considered as a collection of rotating rods, rather than a single object. This perspective leads to the conclusion that the circumference of the disk contracts by the same factor as its radius, as the rods change shape due to the centrifugal forces.

However, my proposed solution, based on the contraction of the radius due to the change in tangential velocity, is a more intuitive and straightforward explanation of the paradox. It is consistent with the predictions of special relativity, which have been extensively verified by experiments and observations.

To fully understand the mathematical framework of this theory, we can consider a disk with radius $R_0$ at rest in the laboratory frame. In the frame of reference of the disk, its circumference is given by $2\pi R_0$, and its radius is $R_0$. Now, let us assume that the disk is set into rotation with angular velocity $\omega$. According to the theory of special relativity, the circumference of the disk in the laboratory frame is given by:

$$C = 2\pi R_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

where $v = \omega R_0$. From this, we can see that the circumference of the disk has decreased due to its rotation.

Now, let us assume that the radius of the disk has also decreased by the same factor. In other words, the radius in the laboratory frame is given by:

$$R = R_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

where $v$ is as defined above. With this assumption, we can calculate the circumference of the disk in its own frame of reference:

$$C' = 2\pi R \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = 2\pi R_0 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} = C$$

Thus, we can conclude that the proposed contraction of the radius of the disk is consistent with the contraction of the circumference.

The proposed solution is just one of several possible explanations for the Ehrenfest paradox. Another solution involves the use of the concept of a rigid body and a modification of the laws of mechanics to account for the rotation of the body. However, this solution has been shown to be inconsistent with special relativity and the observation of high-energy particles. The proposed solution using spin length contraction does not require any modification of the laws of physics and is consistent with special relativity.

The implications of this theory extend beyond the resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox. It may help us better understand the behavior of high-energy particles and their interactions with electromagnetic fields. Furthermore, it could have applications in the design of high-speed rotating machinery, such as turbines and centrifuges.

It is important to note that this theory is not the only proposed solution to the Ehrenfest paradox. Other solutions include the use of non-linear transformations of spacetime and modifications to the laws of physics, such as those proposed by Richard Muller in 1991.

However, the beauty of the spin length contraction theory is its simplicity and its adherence to the fundamental principles of special relativity. The theory provides a clear and intuitive explanation for the paradox, without requiring any modifications to the laws of physics or the geometry of spacetime.

In conclusion, the spin length contraction theory proposes a new perspective on the behavior of spinning objects and provides a possible solution to the Ehrenfest paradox. While more research is needed to fully understand the implications of this theory, it has the potential to deepen our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature and may have practical applications in engineering and physics.

Where I am now, is trying to incorporate this concept with General Relativity, how would this affect Minkowski space?

References:

Ehrenfest, P. (1909). “In what way does it become manifest in the fundamental laws of physics that space has three dimensions?” Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy, 11, 584-592.

Einstein, A. (1905). “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.” Annalen der Physik, 17, 891–921.

Muller, R. A. (1991). “The gyroscope and the equivalence principle.” American Journal of Physics, 59(7), 619-628.

Gron, O. (2009). “The Ehrenfest paradox.” American Journal of Physics, 77(4), 296-297.

Rindler, W. (1969). “Visual horizons in world models.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 138, 393-404.

Last edited: