Content uploaded by J. M. C. Montanus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by J. M. C. Montanus on Sep 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Special Relativity in an Absolute Euclidean Space-Time
... Our 83 third postulate makes relativity compatible with quantum mechanics. 84 We aren't the first physicists to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 85 described ES [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ES [9]. ...
... In the projection to the 3D space of 301 R, this ruler contracts to zero: The axis 4 "is suppressed" (disappears) for R. In a second 302 step, we project the blue rocket in Fig There is no Euclidean time dilation because is absolute ( R = B ). 316 Despite the Euclidean metric in ES, the Lorentz factor is recovered in Eqs. (8) and 317 (11). This is no surprise because Weyl showed that the Lorentz group is generated by 4D 318 rotations [17]. ...
... 399 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the cue ball col-400 lides with the red ball; the light pulse is reflected back to the observer. Other ER models 401 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes as they don't project ES to an observer's proper 3D space. In SR, where forces are absent, the total energy of an object is given by where kin,3D is an object's kinetic energy in 3D space and 2 is its "energy at rest". ...
Today’s concept of time is based on Einstein’s theories of special (SR) and general relativity (GR). Many physicists anticipate that GR has an issue since it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Here we show: SR and GR work well for each observer describing his unique reality, but “Einstein time” (Einstein’s concept of time) has an issue. It arranges all events in the universe in a 1D line on my watch, yet neither cosmology nor quantum mechanics care about my watch. Einstein time hides the big picture! In Euclidean relativity (ER), we replace egocentric Einstein time (proper time of one observer) with universal Euclidean time (proper time of all objects/observers). It originates from an absolute point O (Big Bang). In Euclidean spacetime (ES), all energy is moving radially away from O at the speed c. For each object, time flows in a unique 4D direction related to its position. Einstein time makes us believe that time would flow in one direction for all objects in the universe. Unlike other ER models, we claim that an observer’s reality is only created by projecting ES orthogonally to his proper 3D space and to his proper flow of time. ER gives us the same Lorentz factor as in SR and the same gravitational time dilation as in GR, but now we learn that they stem from a projection. ER outperforms SR in explaining time’s arrow and mc2. ER outperforms a GR-based cosmology in solving competing Hubble constants and declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy redundant. Most important, ER is compatible with quantum mechanics: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant.
... Our 83 third postulate makes relativity compatible with quantum mechanics. 84 We aren't the first physicists to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 85 described ES [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ES [9]. ...
... In the projection to the 3D space of 301 R, this ruler contracts to zero: The axis 4 "is suppressed" (disappears) for R. In a second 302 step, we project the blue rocket in Fig There is no Euclidean time dilation because is absolute ( R = B ). 316 Despite the Euclidean metric in ES, the Lorentz factor is recovered in Eqs. (8) and 317 (11). This is no surprise because Weyl showed that the Lorentz group is generated by 4D 318 rotations [17]. ...
... 399 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the cue ball col-400 lides with the red ball; the light pulse is reflected back to the observer. Other ER models 401 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes as they don't project ES to an observer's proper 3D space. In SR, where forces are absent, the total energy of an object is given by where kin,3D is an object's kinetic energy in 3D space and 2 is its "energy at rest". ...
Today’s concept of time is based on Einstein’s theories of special (SR) and general relativity (GR). Many physicists anticipate that GR has an issue since it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Here we show: SR and GR work well for each observer describing his unique reality, but “Einstein time” (Einstein’s concept of time) has an issue. It arranges all events in the universe in a 1D line on my watch, yet neither cosmology nor quantum mechanics care about my watch. Einstein time hides the big picture! In Euclidean relativity (ER), we replace egocentric Einstein time (proper time of one observer) with universal Euclidean time (proper time of all objects/observers). It originates from an absolute point O (Big Bang). In Euclidean spacetime (ES), all energy is moving radially away from O at the speed c. For each object, time flows in a unique 4D direction related to its position. Unlike other ER models, we claim that an observer’s reality is only created by projecting ES orthogonally to his proper 3D space and to his proper flow of time. ER gives us the same Lorentz factor as in SR and the same gravitational time dilation as in GR, but now we learn that they stem from a projection. ER outperforms SR in explaining time’s arrow and mc2. ER outperforms a GR-based cosmology in solving competing Hubble constants and declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy redundant. Most important, ER is compatible with quantum mechanics: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant.
... My second postulate isn't limited to inertial frames, but to an observer's reality. 70 My third postulate, a new concept of energy, makes ER compatible with QM. 71 I am not the first physicist to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 72 described ER [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ER [9]. ...
... 342 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the light pulse is 343 reflected back to the observer; the sun remains in the orbital plane of Earth. Other models 344 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes because they don't project ES to an observer's reality. Time's arrow is a synonym for "time moving only forward". ...
The primary concept of time in special and general relativity (SR, GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) is coordinate time t. Here I show: SR and GR are mathematically correct, but physically t has an issue. It takes an observer as the center of time, just as the geocentric model takes Earth as the center of space. In Euclidean relativity (ER), the roles of t and proper time τ have switched. Time dilation is interpreted differently: In ER, an observed clock is slow with respect to an observer in his proper flow of time (not in its proper flow of time as in SR/GR). All energy is moving through 4D Euclidean space (ES) at the speed c. All four dimensions are distance, and “cosmic time” t is the total distance covered in ES divided by c. Unlike in previous ER models, an observer’s reality is only created by projecting ES orthogonally to his proper 3D space and to his proper flow of time. The Lorentz factor and gravitational time dilation are recovered in ER. So, ER predicts the same relativistic effects as SR and GR. Yet ER outperforms SR in solving time’s arrow and the c2 in mc2. ER also outperforms a GR-based cosmology in explaining the data from high-redshift supernovae while declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, dark energy, and quantum gravity redundant. ER even improves our understanding of QM: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant. I conclude: The true pillars of physics are ER and QM.
... Our third postulate makes relativity compatible with quantum mechanics. 91 We aren't the first physicists to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 92 described ES [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ES [9]. ...
... 397 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the light pulse is 398 reflected back to the observer; the sun remains in the orbital plane of Earth. Other models 399 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes because they don't project ES to an observer's reality. In SR, where forces are absent, the total energy of an object is given by where kin,3D is its kinetic energy in 3D space and 2 is its "energy at rest". ...
Today’s concept of time is based on Einstein’s theories of special (SR) and general relativity (GR). Many physicists anticipate that GR has an issue since it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Here we show: SR and GR work well for each observer describing his unique reality, but “Einstein time” (Einstein’s concept of time) has an issue. It arranges all events in the universe in a 1D line on my watch, yet neither cosmology nor quantum mechanics care about my watch. In Euclidean relativity (ER), we replace Einstein time (coordinate time of an observer) with Euclidean time (proper time of each object). In Euclidean spacetime (ES), all energy is moving at the speed of light. For each observed object, Euclidean time flows in a 4D direction equal to its direction of motion. The projection of the object’s 4D vector “flow of time” to an observer’s direction of motion yields its motion in his Einstein time. Because of the projection, Einstein time provides less information than Euclidean time. ER gives us the same Lorentz factor as in SR and the same gravitational time dilation as in GR. Yet ER outperforms SR in explaining time’s arrow and mc2. ER outperforms a GR-based cosmology in solving competing Hubble constants and declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy redundant. Most important, ER is compatible with quantum mechanics: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant. We conclude: Physics based on Euclidean time penetrates to a deeper level and makes less assumptions.
... 397 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the light pulse is 398 reflected back to the observer; the sun remains in the orbital plane of Earth. Other models 399 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes because they don't project ES to an observer's reality. In SR, where forces are absent, the total energy of an object is given by where kin,3D is its kinetic energy in 3D space and 2 is its "energy at rest". ...
... We aren't the first physicists to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 92 described ES [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ES [9]. ...
Today’s concept of time is based on Einstein’s theories of special (SR) and general relativity (GR). Many physicists anticipate that GR has an issue since it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Here we show: SR and GR work well for each observer describing his unique reality, but “Einstein time” (Einstein’s concept of time) has an issue. It arranges all events in the universe in a 1D line on my watch, yet neither cosmology nor quantum mechanics care about my watch. Einstein time hides the big picture! In Euclidean relativity (ER), we replace egocentric Einstein time (coordinate time of an observer) with universal Euclidean time (proper time of each object). In Euclidean spacetime (ES), all energy is moving at the speed of light c. Euclidean time is distance covered in ES, divided by c. For each object, Euclidean time flows in a unique 4D direction. Clocks project this 4D flow to a 1D flow of time. Unlike other ER models, we claim that an observer’s reality is only a projection from ES. ER gives us the same Lorentz factor as in SR and the same gravitational time dilation as in GR. ER outperforms SR in explaining time’s arrow and mc2. ER outperforms a GR-based cosmology in solving competing Hubble constants and declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy redundant. Most important, ER is compatible with quantum mechanics: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant. We conclude: Physics based on Euclidean time penetrates to a deeper level and makes less assumptions.
... We aren't the first physicists to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 91 described ES [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ES [9]. ...
... 397 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the light pulse is 398 reflected back to the observer; the sun remains in the orbital plane of Earth. Other models 399 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes because they don't project ES to an observer's reality. In SR, where forces are absent, the total energy of an object is given by where kin,3D is its kinetic energy in 3D space and 2 is its "energy at rest". ...
Today’s concept of time is based on Einstein’s theories of special (SR) and general relativity (GR). Many physicists anticipate that GR has an issue since it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Here we show: SR and GR work well for each observer describing his unique reality, but “Einstein time” (Einstein’s concept of time) has an issue. It arranges all events in the universe in a 1D line on my watch, yet neither cosmology nor quantum mechanics care about my watch. Einstein time hides the big picture! In Euclidean relativity (ER), we replace egocentric Einstein time (coordinate time of an observer) with universal Euclidean time (proper time of each object). In Euclidean spacetime (ES), all energy is moving at the speed of light c. Euclidean time is distance covered in ES, divided by c. For each object, Euclidean time flows in a unique 4D direction equal to its current direction of motion. Clocks project this 4D flow to a 1D flow of time. So, each clock displays Einstein time. Unlike other ER models, we claim that an observer’s reality is only created by projecting ES orthogonally to his proper 3D space and to his proper flow of time. ER gives us the same Lorentz factor as in SR and the same gravitational time dilation as in GR, but now we learn that they stem from a projection. ER outperforms SR in explaining time’s arrow and mc2. ER outperforms a GR-based cosmology in solving competing Hubble constants and declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy redundant. Most important, ER is compatible with quantum mechanics: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant.
... We aren't the first physicists to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 91 described ES [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ES [9]. ...
... 397 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the light pulse is 398 reflected back to the observer; the sun remains in the orbital plane of Earth. Other models 399 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes because they don't project ES to an observer's reality. In SR, where forces are absent, the total energy of an object is given by where kin,3D is an object's kinetic energy in 3D space and 2 is its "energy at rest". ...
Today’s concept of time is based on Einstein’s theories of special (SR) and general relativity (GR). Many physicists anticipate that GR has an issue since it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Here we show: SR and GR work well for each observer describing his unique reality, but “Einstein time” (Einstein’s concept of time) has an issue. It arranges all events in the universe in a 1D line on my watch, yet neither cosmology nor quantum mechanics care about my watch. Einstein time hides the big picture! In Euclidean relativity (ER), we replace egocentric Einstein time (coordinate time of an observer) with universal Euclidean time (proper time of each object). In Euclidean spacetime (ES), all energy is moving at the speed of light c. Euclidean time is distance covered in ES, divided by c. For each object, Euclidean time flows in a unique 4D direction equal to its current direction of motion. Clocks project this 4D flow to a 1D flow of time. So, each clock displays Einstein time. Unlike other ER models, we claim that an observer’s reality is only created by projecting ES orthogonally to his proper 3D space and to his proper flow of time. ER gives us the same Lorentz factor as in SR and the same gravitational time dilation as in GR, but now we learn that they stem from a projection. ER outperforms SR in explaining time’s arrow and mc2. ER outperforms a GR-based cosmology in solving competing Hubble constants and declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy redundant. Most important, ER is compatible with quantum mechanics: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant.
... We aren't the first physicists to investigate ER: In the early 1990s, Montanus already 91 described ES [8]. He also formulated electrodynamics and gravitational lensing in ES [9]. ...
... 397 We easily verify in 3D space: The guide wire remains within the rocket; the light pulse is 398 reflected back to the observer; the sun remains in the orbital plane of Earth. Other models 399 [8][9][10][11][12][13] run into paradoxes because they don't project ES to an observer's reality. In SR, where forces are absent, the total energy of an object is given by where kin,3D is an object's kinetic energy in 3D space and 2 is its "energy at rest". ...
Today’s concept of time is based on Einstein’s theories of special (SR) and general relativity (GR). Many physicists anticipate that GR has an issue since it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Here we show: SR and GR work well for each observer describing his unique reality, but “Einstein time” (Einstein’s concept of time) has an issue. It arranges all events in the universe in a 1D line on my watch, yet neither cosmology nor quantum mechanics care about my watch. Einstein time hides the big picture! In Euclidean relativity (ER), we replace egocentric Einstein time (coordinate time of an observer) with universal Euclidean time (proper time of each object). In Euclidean spacetime (ES), all energy is moving at the speed of light c. Euclidean time is distance covered in ES, divided by c. For each object, Euclidean time flows in a unique 4D direction equal to its current direction of motion. Clocks project this 4D flow to a 1D flow of time. So, each clock displays Einstein time. Unlike other ER models, we claim that an observer’s reality is only created by projecting ES orthogonally to his proper 3D space and to his proper flow of time. ER gives us the same Lorentz factor as in SR and the same gravitational time dilation as in GR, but now we learn that they stem from a projection. ER outperforms SR in explaining time’s arrow and mc2. ER outperforms a GR-based cosmology in solving competing Hubble constants and declaring cosmic inflation, expansion of space, and dark energy redundant. Most important, ER is compatible with quantum mechanics: It solves the wave–particle duality and quantum entanglement while declaring non-locality redundant.
... This was the first sentence in the Introduction of Alexander Gersten's article published in 2003 [1]. He et others [2][3][4][5][6][7] tried to solve this problem by describing relativistic phenomena with the help of alternative Euclidean coordinate systems, which are much simpler than those in Minkowski space-time. However, these studies did not produce a complete model better than the current TR shape. ...
INTRODUCTION: In this paper, we discuss the fundamental problem of the relationship between the true and observed shapes of reality. OBJECTIIVES: Considered is the problem if, is the Minkowksi space-time the model of the “true” reality or is the Minkowski model of the reality a result of existence certain mysterious structure of the reality which is simpler than the Minkowski space-time but for some reason it is observed as the Minkowski space-time. METHODS: As a solution to this problem, a novel approach is proposed, where the time and space dimensions are not the “true” dimensions creating reality, but are merely certain directions in a four-dimensional Euclidean reality, and these directions are not stable but depend on the observation of a pair – an observer and an observed body. In other words, an observer for observing various bodies needs to choose each time a different set of directions interpreted by him as the dimensions of time and space. According to the new model of reality, relativistic effects are the result of a change in the angle of mutual inclination between directions (in four-dimensional Euclidean reality) interpreted by an observer as the dimensions of space and time of his coordinate system in four-dimensional Euclidean reality, instead of deformation of dimensions of space time, as is currently assumed in the Minkowski model. RESULTS: Such a model provides a much simpler description of reality at the cost of a more complicated manner of observation. It also allows the connection of the relative motion with the absolute space, allows the description of a particle directly as a wave in E4 (not as a mysterious wave function), and explains the Hubble law and Mach principle. Almost all the results of the new approach are identical to those obtained from the Minkowski model; however, a few of them allow us to draw conclusions different from those predicted by the Theory of Relativity, which can be a reliable test for the correctness of the new approach. CONCLUSIONS: The new idea of reality deeply changes our understanding of reality not only in the range of the Theory of Relativity but also because of the description of particles directly as waves of E4 - also of Quantum Mechanics.
The special theory of relativity (STR) is based on two apparently contradictory postulates: The equality of all physical laws in all inertial reference systems and the invariance of the speed of light ( c ). This results in counterintuitive conclusions, including time dilation, object length contraction (i.e., Lorentz contraction), and mass increase at relativistic speeds as well as the unification of mass and energy. Although the STR has been empirically confirmed, the ultimate cause of special relativity as well as the reason for the invariance of c and its actual value (2.99 × 10 ⁸ m/s) remain unknown. We have recently postulated that a hypothetical displacement of the three-dimensional (3D) space where we live throughout a fourth spatial dimension, which would be the basis for time, is a requirement for the gravitational effects contemplated by the general theory of relativity. This tetra-dimensional model of the universe explains that the actual value of c equals the speed at which our 3D space displaces along the fourth dimension. It also explains time dilation, Lorentz contraction, Lorentz transformation, and mass increase at relativistic speeds, as well as the unification of mass and energy, as epiphenomena derived from the projection of the fourth dimension to our 3D space. We conclude that our universe model can intuitively explain special relativity as well as the reason for the invariance of c and its actual value.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.