Are the Voigt transformations consistent with

experiments?
Andreas Ernst
July 28, 2009
1 Introduction: The Voigt transformations
The German physicist Woldemar Voigt was very close to suggesting a conceptual
framework for special relativity, when he discussed Dopplers eect on the basis
of the universal speed of light and the invariance of the wave equation in 1887.
He derived in his 1887 paper Ueber das Dopplersche Princip (see ref. [1])
the following transformations
1
from the invariance of the wave equation and
the additional assumption, that the transformation law for x

has the Galilean

form:
ct

= ct
V x
c
x

= x V t (1)
y

= y/
z

= z/,
where = 1/
_
1 V
2
/c
2
and V is the absolute velocity of the moving frame
F

with respect to the ether frame F, which is considered to be at absolute rest.

The inverse transformations have the form
1
They can also be expressed in matrix form x

= V

, where
V

=
_
_
1 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 1/ 0
0 0 0 1/
_
_
The inverse matrix has the form
(V
1
)

=
_
_

2
0 0

2
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
_
_
It is easy to verify that V

(V
1
)

.
1
ct =
2
(ct

+
V x

c
)
x =
2
(x

+ V t

) (2)
y = y

z = z

The transformations (1) also hold for the coordinate dierentials dx

. The
line element ds turns out not to be invariant under Voigts transformations, i.e.
it diers from the line element in the absolute rest frame by a conformal factor
1/
2
:
ds
2
= c
2
dt
2
dx
2
dy
2
dz
2
=
1

2
(c
2
dt
2
dx
2
dy
2
dz
2
) =
1

2
ds
2
. (3)
One can base Voigts theory with the transformations (1) on the following
postulates:
1. Laws of physics are conformal 4-dimensional invariant with the metric
tensor,
g

(V ) = diag(
2
,
2
,
2
,
2
),
2. The speed of light is a universal constant.
Here = 1/
_
1 V
2
/c
2
and V is the absolute velocity of the frame under
consideration. The interpretation of the above metric tensor g

(V ) is as follows:
t

of a clock or x

of a rod at rest in F

(V ) and measured by the F

(V )
observer is inherently contracted by a factor
_
1 V
2
/c
2
with respect to the
corresponding t of a clock or x of a rod at rest in F and measured by the F
observer,
x

at rest in F
=
1
_
1 V
2
/c
2
x

at rest in F

(V)
, (4)
t

at rest in F
=
1
_
1 V
2
/c
2
t

at rest in F

(V)
.
The changes of x

and t

in (4) are absolute changes, not changes relative to

some observers. Note that these relations refer to situations, in which two dif-
ferent observers measure two dierent quantities, whereas the Lorentz or Voigt
transformations refer to physical situations, in which two dierent observers
measure the same physical quantity. To say it in a dierent way: Suppose an
observer is at rest in the absolute rest frame F and has a rod of length L and
a clock with the period T. If he now jumps into the F

frame, which is moving

with the absolute velocity V and carries the rod and the clock with him, the
rod will now have the lenght L/ and the clock will have the period T/. This
2
follows from our rst postulate. One must note though, that the observer, who
goes from the frame F to the frame F

can not directly measure the change

in the length of the rod or the period of the clock, since his length and time
standards, too, have changed, as he went from the frame F to the frame F

.
We want to compare this result with special relativity. In special relativity
we have
x

at rest in F
= x

at rest in F

(v)
, (5)
t

at rest in F
= t

at rest in F

(v)
.
If one thinks about it, one notes that these statements do not follow directly
from the rst postulate of special relativity as Einstein stated it in his 1905
paper on special relativity, namely that The laws by which the states of phys-
ical systems undergo change are not aected, whether these changes of state
be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform
translatory motion relative to each other (see ref. [3]). It follows though from
another formulation of this postulate, namely the statement, that all inertial
frames are equivalent. In the same 1905 paper, Einstein formulated it in this
way: The introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be supleruous
inasmuch the view here to be developed will not require an absolutely stationary
space provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity vector to a point of
the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. With his refusal
of a preferred frame, he conrms directly the relations (5).
2 The Doppler shift experiment
We start with deriving a property of frequency and wave vektor k in dierent
frames in Voigts theory. From quantum mechanics we know that
k p (6)
E
We will now derive E and p from the action function of a particle in both
the F frame which is considered to be at absolute rest, and the F

frame which
is moving with a velocity V with respect to F. In the F frame we have, as in
special relativity,
S =
_
(mc)ds =
_
(mc)
_
c
2
dt
2
dl
2
=
_
(mc
2
)
_
1
v
2
c
2
dt =
_
Ldt
(7)
3
where l =
_
x
2
+ y
2
+ z
2
and v = dl/dt is the velocity of the particle in the
frame F. This leads to the Lagrange function for a free particle
L = (mc
2
)
_
1
v
2
c
2
(8)
We have
p =
v
L = m
v
v (9)
E = p v L = m
v
v
2
+ mc
2
_
1
v
2
c
2
=
1
_
1
v
2
c
2
(mv
2
+ mc
2
(1
v
2
c
2
))
=
1
_
1
v
2
c
2
(mv
2
+ mc
2
mv
2
) = m
v
c
2
In the F

frame we have, according to (3),

ds
2
=
1
1
V
2
c
2
(c
2
dt
2
dl
2
) (10)
S

=
_
(mc)ds

=
_
(mc)
1
_
1
V
2
c
2
_
c
2
dt
2
dl
2
=
_
(mc
2
)
1
_
1
V
2
c
2
_
1
v
2
c
2
dt =
_
L

dt
L

= (mc
2
)

1
v
2
c
2
1
V
2
c
2
= m
v
c
2
_
1
v
2
c
2
p

=
v
L

= m
v
v
E

= p v L

= m
v
c
2
where = 1/
_
1 V
2
/c
2
,
v
= 1/
_
1 v
2
/c
2
and v is the velocity of the
particle in the F

frame.
We obtain now a relation between the energies and the momenta in the two
frames:
1

at rest in F

= p

at rest in F
(11)
1

at rest in F

= E

at rest in F
The subscript

at rest in ...
refers to an observer, who is at rest in the specied
frame and measures the specied quantity, which belongs to a physical object or
4
device, which is located in the same frame. Note again that these relations refer
to situations, in which two dierent observers measure two dierent quantities,
whereas the Lorentz or Voigt transformations refer to physical situations, in
which two dierent observers measure the same physical quantity.
2
One can
clearly see, that the Poincare-Einstein principle of relativity is violated here,
since the two frames F and F

are no longer equivalent. The relations (10)

show, that the measurement standards of energy and momentum are dierent
in the two frames, i.e. they are larger in the F

frame than in the F frame.

From (4) follows
1

at rest in F

= k

at rest in F
(12)
1

at rest in F

at rest in F
The crucial point about these quantities is the following: Suppose we place
a laser in the F frame, which is absolutely at rest. The observer in F will then
measure its frequency

at rest in F
. If we now place the laser in the frame F

,
which is moving with the absolute velocity V through the ether, it will no longer
have the same frequency

at rest in F
. Rather, it will have a dierent frequency

at rest in F

. These two frequencies are related by equation (12). In particular,

the frames F and F

are no longer equivalent. It is though important to note,

that the observer, who goes from the frame F to the frame F

and carries the

laser with him, can not directly measure the change in the frequency of the
laser, since his frequency standards, too, change, as he goes from the frame F
to the frame F

.
Voigt derives in his 1887 paper (see ref. [1]) from his transformations the
following formula for the Doppler shift:
=

_
1
V
c
_
. (13)
In this case the light, for instance of a laser, is emitted in the F frame, which
is at rest, with the frequency =

at rest in F
.
3
The observer, which is in the
laboratory frame F

, moving with the absolute velocity V in the ether, measures

the frequency

. If we adjust the Doppler shift formula (13) according to the

above (by using relation (12)), we obtain
_
1 V
2
/c
2

at rest in F

(1 V/c) (14)
2
The reason for the dierence between (4) and (11) is the dierence between co- and
contravariant vectors. The space-time coordinates x

form a contravariant vector. As we

know from quantum mechanics, p , where transforms like a covariant vector.
3
Note that in Voigts original paper the primed and the unprimed variables are exchanged.
The light is emitted in the moving frame and the observer is not moving.
5
or

at rest in F

1 + V/c
1 V/c
, (15)
which is exactly the same as the Doppler shift in special relativity.
3 The muon lifetime dilation
The time dilation of special relativity implies that the mean lifetime of an un-
stable particle, like a muon, moving with a velocity v, increases by a factor
= 1/
_
1 v
2
/c
2
compared to that of a particle at rest. It is important to
note, that the lifetimes of two dierent particles are compared. Both measure-
ments, that of the lifetime of the moving particle and that of the lifetime of the
particle at rest are done by the same observer, who is at rest. Therefore the time
dilation of special relativity explains, why so many muons reach the sea-level.
The same result can be explained by the length contraction of special relativity:
Suppose the observer is co-moving with the muons. Then the distance to the sea
level is contracted by a factor
_
1 v
2
/c
2
. If we want to explain these eects
with Voigts theory, we have to investigate, what happens to time dilation and
length contraction in this theory.
3.1 Time dilation in Voigts theory
Suppose a clock is at rest in the F(0) frame at position x. A group of identical
particles is produced at time t
1
at the same position. This will be the rst
event. We assume that their average time of decay is t
2
. Therefore the second
event happens at time t
2
. Then the lifetime of that type of particle or the time
interval between these two events, measured by an observer in that frame is
t

at rest in F(0)
= t
2
t
1
. (16)
What is the time, which elapses for an observer in the moving frame F

(V )
between these events? We have, according to the Voigt transformation (1),
t

2
= t
2

V x
c
2
, t

1
= t
1

V x
c
2
, (17)
t

= t

2
t

1
= t
2
t
1
= t

at rest in F(0)
Now we use the relation t

at rest in F(0)
= t

at rest in F

(V)
. This leads to
t

= t

at rest in F

(V)
, (18)
which shows, that a time dilation occurs, i.e. the lifetime of the particles in
the absolute rest frame F, measured by observers in the moving frame F

, is
6
larger than the lifetime of the same type of particles at rest in F

, measured by
observers in F

.
Now we look at it from another point of view. Suppose the clock is at rest
in the F

(V ) frame at position x

. The particles are produced at time t

1
at
position x

and decay at time t

2
. Then the time interval between these two
events, measured by an observer in that frame is
t

at rest in F

(V)
= t

2
t

1
. (19)
What is the time, which elapses for an observer in the absolute rest frame F(0)?
Here we use the inverse Voigt transformation (2),
t
2
=
2
(t

2
+
V x

c
2
), t
1
=
2
(t

1
+
V x

c
2
), (20)
t = t
2
t
1
=
2
(t

2
t

1
) =
2
t

at rest in F

(V)
Now we use again the relation t

at rest in F(0)
= t

at rest in F

(V)
. This leads
to
t = t

at rest in F(0)
, (21)
which again shows, that a time dilation occurs.
3.2 Length contraction in Voigts theory
Suppose a rod is at rest in the F(0) frame, parallel to the x-axis. Its length,
measured by an observer in the F(0) frame is
x

at rest in F(0)
= x
2
x
1
. (22)
What is its length measured by an observer in the moving frame F

(V )? We
have to nd the coordinates x

2
and x

1
at the same time t
2
= t
1
= t in F(0).
According to the Voigt transformation (1), we have
x

2
= x
2
V t, x

1
= x
1
V t, (23)
x

= x

2
x

1
= x
2
x
1
= x

at rest in F(0)
Now we use the relation x

at rest in F(0)
= x

at rest in F

(V)
. This leads to
x

at rest in F

(V)
= x

/, (24)
which shows, that lengths are contracted by a factor 1/.
7
Now we want to see this again from the other viewpoint. Suppose the rod
is at rest in the F

(V ) frame, parallel to the x

-axis. Its length measured by an

observer in the F

(V ) frame is
x

at rest in F

(V)
= x

2
x

1
. (25)
What is its length, measured by an observer in the F(0) frame? We have to
nd the coordinates x
2
and x
1
at the same time t

2
= t

1
= t

in F

(V ). We use
the inverse Voigt transformation (2),
x
2
=
2
(x

2
+ V t

), x
1
=
2
(x

1
+ V t

), (26)
x = x
2
x
1
=
2
(x

2
x

1
) =
2
x

at rest in F

(V)
Now we use again the relation x

at rest in F(0)
= x

at rest in F

(V)
. This
leads to
x

at rest in F(0)
= x/, (27)
which again shows, that a length contraction occurs.
4 The Fizeau experiment
The transmission of light through a medium is characterized by a refractive
index n, and the velocity of light relative to the medium is c/n. Suppose that
such a medium is moving with speed v parallel to the direction of propagation
of the light. What light velocity c

does a stationary observer nd?

First of all, we derive the well known addition theorem for velocities from
special relativity (using the inverse Lorentz transformations):
u
x
=
dx
dt
=
(dx

+ vdt

)
(dt

+
vdx

c
2
)
=
dx

dt

+ v
1 +
v
c
2
dx

dt

=
u

x
+ v
1 +
u

x
+v
c
2
(28)
Using this relation we get
c

=
c/n + v
1 +
v
nc
=
c
n
(1 +
vn
c
)(1 +
v
nc
)
1
(29)
If we use the inverse Voigt transformations, the addition theorem for veloc-
ities turns out to have the same form as the one from special relativity,
u
x
=
dx
dt
=

2
(dx

+ vdt

2
(dt

+
vdx

c
2
)
=
dx

dt

+ v
1 +
v
c
2
dx

dt

=
u

x
+ v
1 +
u

x
v
c
2
. (30)
Obviously Lorentz and Voigts transformations both lead to
8
c

=
c/n + v
1 +
v
nc
=
c
n
(1 +
vn
c
)(1 +
v
nc
)
1
(31)

c
n
(1 +
vn
c
)(1
v
nc
+ . . .)
c
n
(1 +
vn
c

v
nc
)
=
c
n
+ (1
1
n
2
)v,
even though in the rst case the velocity is a relative one and in the second case
it is an absolute velocity with respect to the preferred ether frame. This is the
result that Fresnel (1818) had to explain in terms of a partial dragging of the
light by the medium with the Fresnel drag coecient f = (1 1/n
2
).
5 The Michelson Morley experiment
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the Michelson interferometer
Suppose the earth is moving through the ether in the direction of l
1
(see
gure 1). A laser beam falls onto a half-silvered mirror P, is divided into two
parts which are reected by the two mirrors M
1
and M
2
. The reected beams
recombine at P and form an interference pattern at the telescope T. If the
9
whole instrument is rotated through 90
o
, the interference pattern at T does not
change, even though the earth is moving with a velocity v through the ether.
In the ether theory, the traveling time of ray 1 from the half-silvered mirror
P to the mirror M
1
and back is given by
t
1
=
l
1
c v
+
l
1
c + v
=
2l
1
c
c
2
v
2
=
2l
1
c
_
1 +
v
2
c
2
+
_
, (32)
where the velocities of ray 1 are c v and c + v, respectively. Let now t
2
/2
represent the traveling time of the ray 2 from P to M
2
. Due to the motion of
the apparatus through the ether in the direction of l
1
, the actual path is
l

2
=
_
l
2
2
+ (vt
2
/2)
2
, (33)
where vt
2
/2 represents the path length passed through by the apparatus mov-
ing with respect to the absolute ether frame at the time t
2
/2. We obtain the
equation
t
2
=
2l

2
c
=
2
c
_
l
2
2
+ (vt
2
/2)
2
, (34)
which yields
t
2
=
2l
2

c
2
v
2
=
2l
2
c
_
1 +
v
2
2c
2
+
_
(35)
Note that the speed of light c is in this case decomposed into the two components
v in the direction of motion of the apparatus through the ether and

c
2
v
2
perpendicular to that direction.
The travel-time dierence of the two rays when they enter the telescope T
is then
t = t
1
t
2
=
2
c
_
l
1
1 v
2
/c
2

l
2
_
1 v
2
/c
2
_
. (36)
Now one rotates the whole apparatus through 90
o
. After the rotation, the
travel-time dierence of the two rays is given by
t

=
2
c
_
l
2
1 v
2
/c
2

l
1
_
1 v
2
/c
2
_
. (37)
One should therefore observe a change of the travel-time dierence, which is
given by
t = t t

=
2(l
1
+ l
2
)
c
_
1
1 v
2
/c
2

1
_
1 v
2
/c
2
_

l
1
+ l
2
c
v
2
c
2
(38)
The question, why this change is not observed, is in the ether theory usu-
ally explained by the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction of the moving frame with
10
respect to the ether frame in the direction of motion, i.e. one replaces l
1

l
1
_
1 v
2
/c
2
in equation (36) and l
2
l
2
_
1 v
2
/c
2
in equation (37).
In special relativity, the eect is explained simply by the universal speed of
light. In Voigts theory, the eect can be explained in the same way, since the
speed of light is still a universal constant in this theory, even though there is a
preferred ether frame. We obtain for the travel-time of the ray 1
t
1
=
l
1
c
+
l
1
c
=
2l
1
c
(39)
and for the travel-time of the ray 2
t
2
=
2l
2
c
, (40)
since the speed of light is no longer decomposed in the two components v and

c
2
v
2
but is constant and isotropic. If we rotate the apparatus by an angle
of 90
o
, we obtain the same travel-times. This leads to
t = 0. (41)
References
[1] W. Voigt, Ueber das Dopplersche Princip, Nachrichten von der koniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universitat zu
Gottingen, No. 2 (10. Marz 1887), online available at: http://gdz.sub.uni-
goettingen.de.
[2] A. Ernst and J. P. Hsu, First Proposal of the Universal Speed of Light by
Voigt in 1887, Chin. J. Phys. 39 (3), 211 (2001), appeared in: J. P. Hsu
and Yuan-Zhong Zhang, Lorentz and Poincare Invariance - 100 Years of
Relativity, World Scientic, Singapore (2001), pp. 4-24.
[3] A. Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, English translation,
appeared in: J. P. Hsu and Yuan-Zhong Zhang, Lorentz and Poincare In-
variance - 100 Years of Relativity, World Scientic, Singapore (2001), pp.
116-141. Reprinted from: C. W. Kilmister, Special Theory of Relativity,
Pergamon Press (1970), pp. 187-218.
11