Search Questions | ResearchGate

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Question

Apr 2024

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.

To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

"Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum."

Richard Feynman's idea is perfect, and there is no reason to reject it. The existence of vacuum energy, or better dark energy is consistent with Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant.

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

"How do we understand special relativity?"

- the answer to this question, which is really fundamental one, since is about what is some physical theory as a whole; what really means – why and how the postulates of a theory, in this case of the SR, really are formulated, and why and how the postulates

- which in any theory fundamentally – as that happens in mathematics, where axioms fundamentally cannot be proven – aren’t proven; while are formulated only basing on some experimental data, which fundamentally prove nothing, though one experiment that is outside a theory prediction proves that this theory is either wrong, or at least its application is limited.

Returning to the SR, which is based on really first of all four postulates – the SR-1905/1908 versions relativity principle, SR-1905 also on the postulate that light propagates in 3D XYZ space with constant speed of light independently on light source/ an observer’s speeds; and, additionally,

- in both theories it is postulated (i) that fundamentally there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) - [so] that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

In the standard now in mainstream physics SR-1908 additionally to the SR-1905 it is postulated also that observed contraction of moving bodies’ lengths, and slowing down of moving clocks tick rates, comparing with the length and tick rates when bodies and clocks are at rest in “stationary” frames, is caused by the “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc..

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so some “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space can exist, while applications, i.e. measurements of distances and time intervals, of moving in the space inertial frames aren’t completely adequate to the objective reality; and

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- according to SR-1905 relativity principle there is some extremely potent entity “light”, the constancy of which for/by some mystic reasons/ways forces moving bodies to contract and moving clocks to slow down tick rates; and

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

All that above in the SR really is/are only postulated illusions of the authors, nonetheless, again, the Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle is really . extremely mighty, and the SR indeed in most cases at everyday physical practice is applied in completely accordance with the objective reality. The fundamental flaws of the SR reveal themselves only on fundamental level.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

In the SS post above it is pointed that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, however to say more it is necessary to clarify - what are “space” and “time”, just because of the authors of the SR – and whole mainstream physics till now - fundamentally didn’t/don/t understand what these fundamental phenomena/notions are, the really mystic and simply fundamentally wrong things in the SR were/are introduced in this theory.

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., which is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics,

- can be, and is, clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

More see the link above, here now only note, that, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model, Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system of informational patterns/systems – particles, fields, stars, etc., which, as that is shown in the model, is based on a simple binary reversible logics.

So everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space, momentum P[boldmeans 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation and motion c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].

Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by a practically infinitesimal P impact; but if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation of the “FLE-flipping point” in the 4D space above along some 4D helix,

- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above, mis inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS posts above it is pointed that everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of FLEs, which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, spacetime,

- and that happens always in utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and corresponding spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z ct), where ct is the real time dimension.

At that particles, most of which compose real bodies, at every time moment exist as “FLE –flipping point” that move along some4D helixes that have frequencies ω, having 4D momentums P=mc, m are inertial masses, a helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

So in Matter there exist two main types of particles – “T-particles”, which are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis [more generally – by 4D momentums cτ-components, but here that isn’t too essential], and so, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along cτ-axis with the speed of light, and at that a T- particle’s algorithm ticks with maximal “own frequency”, the particle’s momentum is P0=m0c, where, correspondingly, m0 is the “rest mass”.

If a such T-particle, after some 3D space impact with a 3D space momentum p, moves also in 3D space with a velocity V, having 4D momentum P=P0+p, its speed along the cτ-axis decreases by the Pythagoras theorem in (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. in reverse Lorentz factor,

- and, at that, despite that the helix’s frequency increases, the algorithm is “diluted by “blank” 3D space FLEs flips. So the “own frequency above” decreases in Lorentz factor, so the algorithm ticks slower; and so, say, moving clocks that are some algorithms as well, tick slower in Lorentz factor as well; if a particle algorithm has some defect, and so at every its tick it can break with some probability, so the particle is unstable and decay, such moving in 3D space particles live longer.

Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS post above it is explained why and how internal “own” processes rates in moving having rest mass [and it is explained what is “rest mass”] particles, bodies, etc., are slowed down comparing with the case when the bodies are at rest; and to derive that it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem; Matter is rather simple logical system,

- but that isn’t a unique physical effect that differ “rest and motion”. As that is pointed in 2-nd SS post, particles are some “4D gyroscopes”, the 4D “rotation axis” of which is always directed along particles 4D momentums P.

So if a T-particle is at rest in 3D space, the axis is directed along the cτ-axis, if the particle moves in the space, say, along X-axis, it rotates in the (X, cτ) plane so that the Cosine of the angle between P and X-axis is, again by Pythagoras theorem, equal to (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. reverse Lorentz factor, while Cosine of the angle between P and cτ –axis is V/c.

If particles constitute some moving rigid body that has, if is at rest in 3D space, length L, they rotate the body as a whole in the (X, cτ) plane on the angle above, and so:

(i) - the body’s length 3D space observable projection is contracted comparing with when it is at rest in inverse Lorentz factor, what is observed experimentally, say, that was yet at M&M experiments, at that, of course , nothing happens with the 3D space; any postulated in the SR “space contraction” fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist; and

(ii) - the body’s front end has lesser coordinate value on the cτ –axis than the back end, the difference is correspondingly –VL/c.

Since the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed extremely mighty, motion of everything in real time ct-dimension in mainstream physics, and, of course, in everyday humans practice, till now isn’t observed, so in the mainstream the rather specific really space cτ- dimension is used as the time dimension in both – classical 4D Euclidian with [usual, when t-coordinate isn’t multiplied by the c constant ] metrics (t,X,Y,Z) , and the SR Minkowski with metrics (it,X,Y,Z) [“i” is imaginary unit], spacetimes.

So in this metrics a moving body’s front end is “younger” than the back end on –VL/c2,

- what is the Voigt-Lorentz decrement in the Lorentz transformations.

Correspondingly, if we remember that moving body’s [including moving reference frames] clocks showings are slowed comparing with the rest case, and that

Lorentz transformations – quite equally as that Galileo transformations are also, really are equation of motion of points of the moving body’s [including systems of the bodies that are inertial reference frames systems of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks] in a stationary “K” frame with using data of measurements that are made in the moving “K’ ” frame,

- we above, by using Pythagoras theorem, derived these transformations.

At that, again – these equations/transformations relate only to points of rigid bodies /rigid systems of bodies that they occupy in the 4D space /mainstream spacetime at a current time moment. If in a system the bodies are free, that above, including the Lorentz transformations, is applicable only limitedly, so, say, the Bell paradox exists,

- but what is much more important in this case, by using a system of free bodies it is possible to observe motion of the bodies in the absolute 3D space and to measure the absolute velocity of a system, while, say, Poincaré stated that that is impossible. Corresponding experiments were proposed yet in 2013-16 , more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Cheers

Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

Sergey V. Shevchenko1 and Vladimir V. Tokarevsky2

1Institute of Physics of NAS of Ukraine, Pr. Nauki, 46, Kiev-28, Ukraine

2 Professor ret., Pr. Nauki, 46, Kiev-28, Ukraine

Abstract

One of popular problems, which are experimentally studied in physics in a long time, is the testing of the special relativity theory, first of all – measurements of isotropy and constancy of light speed; as well as attempts to determine so called “absolute speed”, i.e. the Earth speed in the absolute spacetime (absolute reference frame), if this spacetime (ARF) exists. Corresponding experiments aimed at the measuring of proper speed of some reference frame in other one, including [the absolute speed] in the ARF, are considered in the paper.

Key words: informational physics, special relativity theory, spacetime, experimental testing

PACS numbers: 01.70.+w, 03.30.+p, 04.80.Cc

1 Introduction

In [1 - 3] it was rigorously shown that Matter in our Universe – and Universe as a whole - are some informational systems (structures), which exist as uninterruptedly transforming [practically] infinitesimal sub-sets in the absolutely infinite and absolutely fundamental “Information” Set. This informational conception allows to propose the physical model (more see [4], [5]), which, when basing practically only on Uncertainty principle, adequately depicts the motion and interactions of particles in the spacetime. In the model [subatomic] particles are some closed-loop algorithms that run on a “Matter’s computer [6] hardware”, which [hardware] consists, in turn, of a closed chains of elementary logical gates – fundamental logical elements (FLE) that are some (distinct, though) analogues of C. F. von Weizsäcker’s “Urs” [7 – 9]. The FLE’s sizes in both – in the space and in the “coordinate” time (see below) – directions are equal to Planck length, lP, lP = (hcG3 )1/2 (his reduced Planck constant - the elementary physical action, G - gravitational constant, c- speed of light in the vacuum); the time of the FLE’s “flip” is equal to Planck time, ττP P, = lcP . Relating to the mechanics of fast particles/ bodies motion and interactions, the model allows to obtain basic kinematical and dynamical equation that were obtained in the Lorentz theory and the special relativity, but, at that, in the model these equations are obtained basing on other [then in the Lorentz theory and in the SRT] principal suggestions, thus from the model a number of new inferences follow, including – that the real Matter’s spacetime is absolute 4D Euclidian manifold and all/every material objects move in the 3D spacetime with absolute 3D speeds; what is principally prohibited in the special relativity. In this paper a couple of experimental methods aimed at the testing this suggestion (as well, of course, the testing by this way the SRT) is presented.

Spacetime. The introducing of the Space and the Time notions in the model [3], [5], [10] is quite natural – they are fundamental and universal, i.e. which act on whole Set, logical rules/ possibilities that allow (and define or “implicitly govern” how to single out) to single out specific informational patterns / structures, for example, particles, in the main informational structure (i.e., Matter); at that taking into account both - fixed and dynamical – characteristics of the structures[1].

As possibilities Space and Time are different in that Space in the Set has infinite number of “dimensions”, when for Time now only two “dimensions” – “true time” and “coordinate time” (see below); the number of the dimensions that are “used” in a concrete informational system is determined practically completely just by properties of this concrete system. In the system “Matter” Space and Time realize themselves as some 4D-Emptiness (5D-?) where a dense 4D FLE lattice (“4D Aether”) is placed – some analogue of “spin-network” [11], “causal set” [12], “Space-time points in causal space” [13], etc. The Space and Time possibilities are universal and “absolute”, they exist “forever”, since they exist also (“virtually”) before a beginning and after an end of any specific informational structure, including, in this case, of Matter in our Universe. As the rules Space and Time establish that between informational fixed patterns (including material objects – particles, bodies, etc.) must be non-zero “space interval”, between different states of a changing pattern must be a non-zero “time interval” (a “non-zero duration”). The time intervals always accompany every change of every changing pattern, so the constant increase of the time interval at the Matter’s evolution sometimes is called as some self-independent “time flow”; tough this flow only accompanies changes of material objects and Matter’s evolution as a whole. On the other hand since “Matter as computer”, and every “automaton” in this computer, i.e. every material object and every system of objects, “operate” with a stable “operation

rate”, measured concrete space and time intervals are useful at a description of processes that go in material systems as “the time” and “ the space” variables that indicate changes of the objects in the 4D Euclidian spacetime, when any element of Matter – a particle, a molecule,

a star, etc. – has its own space and time coordinates.

The space is 3D Euclidian manifold, when the time is “two-faced” – in Matter simultaneously two rules/possibilities “Time” act - “absolute (or “true”) time” and “coordinate time”. Absolute/ true time defines that for any change in Matter (e.g., for a FLE’s flip in any - “space” or “coordinate time” – direction) is necessary to spend same “true time interval”. Since all material objects always move in the 4D spacetime with identical by the absolute value 4D speeds (which are equal to the speed of light), the true time interval, which always accompanies these processes, changes (“true time flows”) for all Matter only in one (“positive”, as that is accepted in physics now) direction by definition. The “coordinate time” is necessary because of to do reversible operations, which are logically incorrect, if only the true time acts, it is necessary to have corresponding rule that allows and defines such operations. This rule/possibility exists/acts in Matter as the “coordinate time” and material objects can move in the possibility “coordinate time” in both (direct and reversal, ±) directions – like along of a spatial direction. This time constitute, with the space, Matter’s 4D “space-[coordinate]time”, or further in the text - the “spacetime” (as well as below “time” as a rule is “coordinate time”).

The time axis in the spacetime is orthogonal to any spatial line, including, naturally, to 3 [e.g., Cartesian] spatial axes (so the 4D spacetime is in reality “Cartesian”); what follows from the model’s premise that FLEs have 4 independent degrees of freedom and, for example, from the experimentally measured the “rest mass” and “relativistic mass” relation, from the equality of “transverse” and “relativistic” masses – insofar as in macrophysics usually all interactions happen as an exchange by 3D spatial momentums, when a body at rest moves in the temporal direction, thus, because of the orthogonality of the t-axis, the “relativistic mass” turns out to be the “transverse mass”, etc.

The absolute time isn’t a coordinate in the model, though it can be fifth coordinate in a 5D spacetime, where all Matter’s objects, since they are uninterruptedly changing and so - are moving [after Matter obtained at Beginning a portion of something, what in the physics is called “the energy”] with 4D speeds having identical absolute values in the 4D spacetime, move also simultaneously with the speed of light along “true time coordinate” in positive direction, remaining always simultaneously in one true time moment (one elementary true time interval).

2 Comparing of the SRT and the model

In this informational model the Lorentz transformations can be obtained quite naturally, [4] if it is [rather reasonably] postulated that:

(1) The Matter exists and evolves in a [at least] 4D lattice of FLEs, at that every particle and every system of particles (material body) moves – as some disturbance of the lattice through the lattice, and, because of the FLEs’ sizes are identical, through 4D spacetime also, with identical (by absolute value = the light speed in the vacuum, c) 4D speeds. At that in Matter there exist two main types of particles (and bodies that are systems of particles) – “Tparticles” that were/ are created after an impacts [on the lattice] with the 4D momentums, which were/are directed along the t-axis (electrons, protons, etc.); and “S-particles”, when the impacts’ momentums were/are spatially directed (e.g. photons); thus T-particles can move in the 1D [coordinate] time and in the 3D space simultaneously, when S-particles move in the 3D space only;

(2) The lattice – and the spacetime as well – don’t depend on any Matter’s bodies motion, they are absolute and constitute by this way for Matter absolute coordinate system(s) (4ACS). Insofar as the lattice is highly standardized for steps in any – time or space – direction (there is an “equal footing”), there can be established “absolute reference frame” (4ARF) which is at rest relating to an 4ACS and so it is inertial reference frame. There can be infinite number of equivalent 4ARFs and 4ACSs, as results of translations and/ or (spatial only) rotations of some 4ARF (4ACS).

However such [“4D”] 4ARF cannot be realized in practice since every material object, including clocks, rules, observers [in certain sense, since the observers are partially nonmaterial objects], etc., that are necessary constituents of any reference frame, are some “Tobjects” that always move in the spacetime/the lattice (excluding some exotic cases when some T-particles can be, in certain sense, at rest in the 4ACS if they are built from particles and antiparticles, e.g. – the mesons). Thus there is a sense to say only about “absolute” reference frames that are at rest only relating to one of the two main dimensions of the Matter’s spacetime – at rest in the 1D time and at rest in the 3D space. The first version can be realized only if all constituents of the reference frame – clocks, rules, observer – are made, for example, from photons; what is evidently cannot be realized on the practice; thus there is a sense to seek for the ARFs that are at 3D spatial rest only. Just these 3ARFs, which are at rest in the 3D Aether, were sought for in last decades of 19 century, including the Michelson and Morley experiment [14], and were claimed as principally non-existent in the special relativity theory – as well in this theory the absolute “Newtonian” spacetime is postulated as being non-existent, though.

Correspondingly in this paper below only the absolute reference frames that are at 3D spatial rest are considered. The existence of such frames in the informational model is evident – that are the frames, where the frames’ clocks, rules and observers (not only, of course) move in the [coordinate] time only, what is evidently possible.

(3) Since all/ every particles/ bodies always move in the 4D spacetime with the sped of light, the particle’s/ body’s motion is characterized by the 4D momentum, which is an r = mVr , Pr = mckr , where mis some coefficient (the analogue of the classical momentum, P

r r inertial mass), k is 4D unit vector, at that every particle is always oriented relating to the k . Thus if a number of particles constitute a rigid body, this body becomes be oriented relating to its movement direction also. An example – moving rigid rod having the length L - is shown in the Fig.1.

Fig.1. A rod having the length L moves in the spacetime: (a) – the rod is at 3D spatial rest (moves in the time only) in the ARF, (b) the rod moves also along X-axis with a speed V. The spatial length of the accelerated rod, LX = L(1−β2 1) /2

At rest (Fig. 1 (a)) the rod moves along [coordinate] temporal axis [with the speed of light] having the momentum pr0 = m0cirt that is perpendicular to the rod. If the rod was impacted with transmission to the rod a spatial momentum prX = mVr , it moves in the space also, having in the spacetime the total momentum Pr = pr0 + prX , Pr is again perpendicular to the rod.

From the Fig. 1 immediately follow the main equations of the special relativity theory (as well as of the Lorentz theory, though). Lorentz transformations: - the first equation [β≡V c/ ]

x = vt + x′(1−β2 1) /2 , (1) - and the second one:

t′ = (1−β2 1) /2t −Vxc2′ , (2)

but with essential difference from the SRT – these equations aren’t valid in whole [in the SRT – pseudoEuclidian Minkowski] Matter’s spacetime, but are true for points of rigid mechanical systems (e.g., a system Earth + a satellite is rigid system also because of the gravity force) only, nothing happens at a motion of a body with the spacetime. Besides that the variables x′,t′correctly relate to relative positions of the rod’s points in the spacetime, they are also can be measured lengths (here - from the back of the rod) to some (here – the rod’s) matter points, and clocks’ readings in these points; thus for some rigid system of bodies it is possible to set some local inertial reference frame.

As well as from the postulates above follow main equations of the SRT dynamics.

Since P = mc and since t-axis is normal to any spatial direction (so the momentum of a particle at 3D rest remains be constant as the temporal component of the 4D momentum at any spatial motion) it can be easily obtained for T-particles that pX = mV = (1−m Vβ0 2 1) /2 ≡γm V0 , (3)

and, for example, calculating the work of some force F at the spatial (an temporal impact results in the creation of new particles) acceleration of a body with rest mass m0 on a way

S (in the Eq. (4) below p ≡ pX for convenience),we obtain:

A = F S dS = m pp0 (p2 +pdpm c022 )dp = c∆P . (4)

Since at motion of a body the work of the force results in the change of the body’s kinetic energy, from (4) we obtain

∆E = E − E0 = cP −cp0 , (5a) or

E = cP = m c2 , (5b)

and for a body at rest in an 3D ARF

E0 = cp0 = m c0 2 . (5c)

3 Kinematical relations in moving mechanical systems

The Voigt-Lorentz t- decrement [in Eq.(2)] for the rod’s matter (including clocks) along the rod’s length (the maximum is − VLc2 ), appears at the acceleration of the rod up to the speed V and further remains be constant for any fragment of the rod at the uniform motion. So if (i) - one synchronizes a number of clocks along the rod before the acceleration; and, (ii) - after the acceleration up to some speed, e.g., the back end clock is transported slowly along the rod to the front end, so, that this clock constituted with the rod rigid system, - then the moving clock’s and stationary clocks’ [along the rod] readings will be identical, including for the [moved] back end and front end clocks eventually. But if one accelerates also a pair of synchronized clocks, which were placed initially on the distance L(Fig.2 (a)) also, let to the same speed V (Fig.2 (b), independently (freely), then the front clock reading will be identical to the both back ones, but will show later time then front end rod’s clock; though all clocks are in both cases evidently in the same inertial reference frame.

Fig. 2. Two pairs of synchronized clocks in the same reference frames. (a) at rest in an ARF, and (b) all clocks move with the same speed in the ARF, one pair constitutes the rigid body with accelerated rod; other pair moves independently on the rod.

This “de-synchronization” of clocks, which were equally impacted at the acceleration, dependently on are the clocks free or they constitute a rigid system, occurs not only in the case above.

Besides consider a simple kinematical problem.

Let in the middle point of moving rod a short light flash occurs. The rod’s clocks readings, when the flush photons hit the clocks, are, if corresponding clock readings in an ARF is t and at the flush all clocks where set in the zero: on back end clock: tA = t(1−β2 1) /2 ; on the middle point clock; tM = tA − 2VLc2 ; on front end clock:

tB = tA −VLc2 .

Since photons move only in the space, the flash will be registered with some time increment, for example on back end clock, it is ∆tA = L2((1V−+βc2)) . So observed in the rod’s reference frame elapsed time is ∆tMA = 2Lc (1−β)+ 2Lcβ= 2Lc , so measured by this way speed of light in the rod’s IRF is equal to c , though the real speed at photons’ motion to the rod’s back end is evidently equal to V +c .

Analogously the same result (measured speed of light is equal to c ) can be easily obtained for the pair “middle point – front end” clocks; for the case, when the light moves from back end to front end (a mirror) and back, etc.

And on the contrary – if on the rod’s ends there are two clocks and the time moments, when flashes hit the clocks, are set in the clocks as equal clocks showings, the clocks become be synchronized in accordance with the Lorentz transformations – that is “Einstein synchronization” in the SRT.

However from the Lorenz transformations for rigid systems evidently follows another synchronization method – the “slow clocks transport”, when clocks are set in equal showings at some spatial point an further clocks are slowly (γ≈1) moved to the points where it is necessary to measure time intervals.

But if the clocks are free, the Lorentz transformations aren’t valid completely and both synchronization methods above become be incorrect also, besides – the results of the “synchronizations” are different. Just this fact allows to observe the absolute motion of a system of clocks and to measure the absolute 3D speed of this system – what is principally impossible in the SRT.

4 Measurement of proper speed of an IRF

4.1. The use of the rigid and free systems of two clocks

From above follows the possibility of measurement at least of the proper speed of concrete reference frame [15], if in this frame an observer uses simultaneously a set of rigidly connected and independent (free) clocks, see Fig.3.

Fig. 3. A plot of clocks movements at measurement of the proper speed of a reference frame.

So, if there is a pair of synchronized clocks, and further one clock, here – the clock-2 is moved slowly back and forth in any direction, the clocks’ readings at the clocks rendezvous will be identical, independently on – the moved clock-2 was rigidly mechanically connected by some rod with the fixed one (with clock-1) or the clock-2 moves independently.

But the moved clocks’ readings at the motion are different. When the independently moved clock-2 readings are always identical to the fixed clock-1’s ones, the connected [to the rod] clock-2 obtains additional decrement (if the clock is moved along a speed Vr of the reference frame), − Vxc2 , where xis the distance between the clocks, measured by the observer’s (on the rod) rule.

Thus, if on some moving object, for example – on an Earth satellite, an observer can implement the scheme that is shown on the Fig. 3, then it can measure his proper speed. To do that, the observer should use two clocks and some rigid rod, let – with the length L.

Let one clock (clock-1) is fixed in the satellite and other clock (clock-2) is rigidly fixed on the rod’s end, both clocks are synchronized. Then, if the rod is pushed along the satellite speed forward and back, after returning both clocks will have identical readings. However, if the clock-2 is pushed forward being rigidly coupled with the rod, but returns back independently, for example, by using own engine, the time decrement, which this clock obtained at pushing forward conserves and so the clocks’ readings are different at their rendezvous on the decrement −VLc2 (at pushing back - +VLc2 correspondingly). For example, if the experiment would be made at the International Space Station (V ∼7600 m/s) and for the rod’s length L=30 m, the decrement is ~ 2.5.10-12s.

Correspondingly from measured in this case the clock readings difference ∆t12 and known rod’s length the observer can determine the proper speed of his RF; in the case above

– the orbital speed of the satellite, V ≈ ∆t12c2 .

It is evident that such a procedure can be repeated any times with the accumulation of the decrements, so the requirements to the clocks’ precision aren’t too rigorous provided that

they have adequate stability. If there were Nrepetitions, then V ≈ ∆t cS 2 ; where

tS t12i .

The measurement error for a single measurement in first approximation depends practically on the internal clocks’ readings long-term and short-term uncertainties. Let the sum of the clocks’ uncertainties is ∆ ≈ ∆h h1,2 21/2 ,where ∆h1,2 are the [equal here]

individual clocks’ error. Then for relative error for measured the β= V value in first c

approximation obtain

, (6)

and so

δ∆( )hβc . (7) β≈

For δ( )β , for example be equal to 10%, L = 30m , ∆ ≈h 10−13 s, it is possible to measure the value β ∼10-5(and more, of course), i.e. the proper speed of the clocks’ system ∼ 3000 m/s; the proper speed of the ISS above can be measured with 5% precision.

Note, again, that on Earth orbit it is impossible to measure the “proper absolute” speed, since all clocks, because of Earth gravity, always constitute a rigid systems relating to the absolute Mater’s spacetime.

4.2. The use of free two clocks system

Another way to measure the absolute [or proper speeds for near Earth systems] speed is using of two synchronized in one point clocks 1 and 2 after the clocks are slowly transported apart on a distance L and measuring one-way time intervals of light flushes hits in opposite clocks at light motion between the clocks.

In this case real (in an ARF) one-way time intervals [in contrast to the case of a rigid system in the sec. 3 above], are t1 = c V−L and t2 = c V+L , here t1 and t2 are possible clocks-1, 2 readings in an absolute reference frame. Though these values are unknown, we can obtain the actual (measured) clocks’ readings - t1′ = L(1c(1−−ββ2 1)) /2 and t2′ = L(1c(1−+ββ2 1)) /2 , where values L and β are unknown and the β value must be measured. Nonetheless we can use the equations t1′ −t2′ = 2cL (1−ββ2 1) /2 and t1′ +t2′ = 2cL (1−β12 1) /2 to obtain the equation that doesn’t contain unknown [non-measurable] value of the distance between the clocks:

β= t1′′+−tt22′′ (8) t1

To estimate possible proper /absolute speed measurements errors in first approximation obtain (∆h - see the sec. 4.1 above):

dββ≈ d t(t1′1′−−tt′2′) + d t(t1′1′++tt′2′) ≈ t1′∆−ht′ + t1′∆+ht′ ≈ t1′∆−ht′ ,

and the relative uncertainty occurs twice lesser then in the case when the system of free and rigidly connected clocks is used that is considered in the sec.4.1. But the rest is the same:

δβ= dββ≈[t1′−t2′ ≈ 2Lcβ] ≈ 2∆Lhβc (9)

and

(10)

- i.e. this method allow to obtain twice better precision or twice lower measured speed at equal errors comparing with the sec. 4.1 method.

However that is true only if the distance between the clocks is stable at the measurement (this problem is practically inessential in the experiment in the sec. 4.1 above), and the main contribution to the error is determined by the clocks precision limits. If that isn’t so, then the rough analysis above isn’t correct.

To estimate a possible contribution of the distance fluctuation consider an optimal but easily executed variant when the light flashes happen practically simultaneously, for example – by a program that make flashes at both clocks in given times in the cocks, for example – every exact second (or in any known times/ periods); after an measurement’s cycle, the data about t1i and t2i are analyzed to make the βi values by using the Eq.(8).

In this case fluctuations, dL , impact on the measurement results if they occur practically inside the intervals (t1 ±t2 ) ≈ 2L / c (or L c/ ). For the corresponding error being near clocks errors, dLc ≈ ∆h , and suggesting that the fluctuations happen with constant acceleration, a , for the a obtain: a ≈ cL32 ∆h and for the distance L ≈ (c3a∆h )1/2 .

It seems as rather reasonable that there cannot be impacts on, for example, a space probe with forces when corresponding acceleration would be greater then, say, 100 m/s2. Thus an acceptable distance, when the errors because of the fluctuations are comparable with the errors that depend on the clocks’ inaccuracy, for, for example, ∆ ≈h 10−12 , is L ≈ 500km ; returning to the Eq.(9) obtain that at such distance it is possible to measure the proper/ absolute speed lesser then 1 m/s.

I.e. in the case when the time intervals above are measured practically simultaneously, there is no the problem of the distance stability; including, besides the considered case above, the case when the distance between clocks changes constantly because of a difference of the clocks’ spatial speeds up to a few m/s; at that this distance change can be rather simply determined, measured and decreased if necessary.

5 Conclusion

From the consideration above follow a number of implications.

First of all from the informational model’s approach, which is used here, follows that if a system of measurement devices, i.e., rules and clocks, constitute a rigid system (because of the Earth gravity it is possible to create rigid systems even between / with satellites, well known example is the GPS system), then outcomes of any experiment aimed at the measurement of the speed of light value or observation of some proper speed of this system will be in accordance with the special relativity; as well with the Lorentz theory, though, because of in this case the theories are experimentally indistinguishable. Measured values will be the [standard] speed of light and zero object’s proper speed correspondingly. This inference is true independently of what experiment was executed – “tests of Lorentz invariance” at using interferometers, “round trip” or “one or two way” methods at measurements of the light speed value or its isotropy (see, e.g., [16]-[22] and refs therein); as well as of what clock synchronization is applied – “Einstein synchronization” or slow transport of synchronized clocks. If some deviations from the theories would be observed, than there will be, with a great probability, an artifact.

But if one creates at least partially free system, some possibilities appear. The described above experiments on Earth satellite seem as rather promising, since on stationary orbits Earth gravity gradient (at least on a circular orbit) is small, and so rather possibly in this cases is inessential, so the measurement of a satellite orbital (proper in the Earth’ reference frame) speed, rather probably, would be successful.

Nonetheless the Earth gravity makes impossible the measurement of the absolute speed, since the gravity always “has time” to correct the positions of clocks and rules in the 4D spacetime at the satellite orbital motion, so the instruments always constitute rigid systems relating to the ARF[2].

However principally the measurement of the absolute speed is possible. To do that is necessary to send corresponding cosmic probe in a point in space where resulting gravity force (not the gravity potential), for example – in some “global libration points” in deep space, is weak enough. Further an automaton could execute the set of measurements of the probe speed values in at least 2π directions by using the retractable rod and the pair of clocks, or a pair of distant clocks, as that is described in the section 4 above. The direction of the rod or spatial direction between free clocks, when the measured speed value will be maximal, will be the direction of the absolute speed and the absolute speed value. At that the experiment with a pair free clocks (sec. 4.2) seems as more promising, however the chouse depends on concrete technological possibilities.

There are no principal technical constraints for such experiments yet now. The mass of the probe would be, rather probably, not bigger then those that were launched already at other space missions. As well as seems that there aren’t problems with the clocks – the measurement of time intervals with accuracy ∼10-16(see, e.g., [23], [24]) isn’t now something exotic.

H. Poincaré wrote about the absolute motion in “Science and hypothesis” [25]:

“… Again, it would be necessary to have an ether in order that so-called absolute movements should not be their displacements with respect to empty space , but with respect to something concrete. Will this ever be accomplished? I don’t think so and I shall explain why; and yet, it is not absurd, for others have entertained this view…I think that such a hope is illusory; it was none the less interesting to show that a success of this kind would, in certain sense, open to us a new world…”

Acknowledgements

Authors are very grateful to Professor M. S. Brodin, Institute of Physics of NAS of Ukraine, for support and useful discussions of the problems that were considered in this paper

[1]We don’t consider here the main problem of the Time notion definition, which follows from the logical inconsistence of any change in any, including material, system, including, for example, its spatial motion – that is discussed in a first approximation in [3]; and adopt here the existence of dynamical systems and of motions of objects at least as the experimental fact.

[2] Note, though, that that is true only if forces that act on the clocks and the rules are small enough, what is true in the existent now experimental situations. Besides in this case it is important that the Earth’s absolute speed is rather small – possibly near 500-700 km/s. If the forces are large, the Earth gravity becomes be inessential and, for example, if the Earth’s absolute speed would be large also – with γ essentially >1 - and be directed, say, in the ecliptic plain, then in such case it would occur, that unstable particles, which are created in accelerators, whose tubes are parallel to this plane, would live long, say, at day and short at night in summer and on the contrary at winter.

…

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Question

Apr 2024

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Reply to this discussion

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Roggers Waibi added a reply

As proposed by Albert Einstein, Special relativity fundamentally transforms our understanding of space, time, and the nature of reality. At its core, special relativity postulates two key principles: the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of simultaneity. The former states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. This principle defies common intuition but has been rigorously confirmed by experiments. The latter principle, the relativity of simultaneity, suggests that events that appear simultaneous to one observer may not be simultaneous to another observer in relative motion. Special relativity introduces the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined, and observers in relative motion will experience time dilation and length contraction effects. These phenomena have been validated through numerous experiments, such as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and subsequent tests involving particle accelerators and high-speed particles. Special relativity forms the basis for modern physics, influencing fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology, and challenging our intuitive notions of space and time.

Christian Baumgarten added a reply

Article The Simplest Form of the Lorentz Transformations

Waibi's answer is correct. However, the postulates of SR do not generate understanding. The referenced paper provides evidence that the math underlying SR can mostly be obtained from Hamiltonian notions. Since Hamiltonian concepts are universal in dynamical systems, the mathematical relations of SR are universal as well.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

Rather detailed consideration of what the SR is see in series of SS posts in this thread sister https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_understand_special_relativity/2, pages 1,2;

So here only a few notes to

“…Special relativity introduces the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined, and observers in relative motion will experience time dilation and length contraction effects. ..”

- really the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined is fundamentally wrong.

Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally unique, fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, ( [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where all dimensions fundamentally are independent on each other; utmost universal – “kinematic” spacetime has metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

- and, of course, fundamentally there cannot be any intertwining of any dimensions, any “time dilations”, “space contraction”, etc.

So that

“….These phenomena have been validated through numerous experiments, such as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and subsequent tests involving particle accelerators and high-speed particles… “

- really is quite incorrect. No any “intertwining” , “time dilations”, “space contraction” weren’t experimentally observed – that is fundamentally impossible. All what indeed is observed is/are real contraction of moving bodies lengths, slowing tick rates of moving clocks and intrinsic processes rates in unstable particles,

- but bodies aren’t “space” – though, of course are in space; clocks aren’t “time” though, of course tick in time, which [space and time] compose fundamentally only an empty container where everything in Matter exists and changes.

Though that

“….Special relativity forms the basis for modern physics, influencing fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology, and challenging our intuitive notions of space and time…”

- is essentially correct, since the SR is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle; and so in everyday physical practice the fact that in the SR the relativity principle is absolutized up to absurd/illusory real interactions of particles, bodies, reference frames, etc., with space/time/spacetime is inessential. Again more see the pointed above SS posts in the linked sister thread.

Branko Mišković added a reply

Please read the file uploaded.

380.76 KBijpsr-1000117.pdf

Opinion Article

Orientation in Space

Branko V. Miskovic

Independent Scientist, Novi Sad, Serbia

Abstract

The position, motion and acceleration of physical objects in the natural laws understand a relevant reference frame. In this sense, the two extreme solutions have been mutually confronted: an absolute cosmic frame or certain equivalence in a class of the frames at least. The imagined formal frames need be connected to evident material bodies. Owing to the complex mutual motions of all celestial bodies, none of them deserves a privileged status. Not only that the vacuum medium is inaccessible by instruments, but its nature and existence are questionable. On the other hand, even the limited equivalence of the formal frames, in the special relativity, does not obey some exceptional technical situations. A few restrictions of relativity in the mechanical and EM processes are here presented. As the synthesis of the two extreme theses, Mach understood a local orientation, in relation to the dominant material surroundings. In the technical practice, such a frame is connected to Earth. The astronomy and astronautics are tacitly referred to the local surroundings, just determined by nearby celestial bodies or their gravitations.

Aim: The solution of one of the crucial questions in physics.

Study design: Comparison and relation of known physical facts.

Methodology: Exhaustive reexamination of these relations.

Study duration: Throughout the author’s working life.

Results: Instead of the absolute or arbitrary orientation, the local preferential frames are finally affirmed and applied.

Keywords: Absolute, Relative, Local, Frame, Motion

Introduction

Physical laws describe the object interactions, in the form of the forces or energies determined by the kinematical quantities. The material bodies or particles, as the objects, represent the concentrated amounts of respective substantial quantities. The static, kinetic and dynamic forces are respectively determined by the positions, motions and accelerations of such objects [1,2]. The three mentioned kinematical quantities need be determined in a relevant reference frame, connected to an evident material body. With respect to the perpetual mutual motions, rotations and revolutions of all celestial bodies, the relevant reference is very questionable. Not only that such a frame is due to determine all the forces and energies, but also the object trajectories. Though theoretically simplest, the absolute reference frame has not been identified. At least approximately, the local technical orientation usually concerns Earth. Even after substitution of the terrestrial by solar orientation, it is not adequate in the wider cosmic space, out of the solar planetary system.

With respect to the limited former sights, the initial problem took the cosmological sense. Irrespective of the physical laws, a comparative body played the role of the cosmic center. In the first view, Earth seemed to be such a center. However, the paths of the other planets in this frame are extremely complex and illogical. Instead of the irregular planetary paths in relation to Earth, their concentric, circular or slightly elliptical orbits around Sun, obeying the three Keppler’s rules, were the bases for reliable formulation of the law of gravitation. On the other hand, such Moon’s orbit around Earth appears similarly complex in relation to Sun. Overlooking this fact, the traumatic transition from the narrower into wider references gave the impression of a great scientific revolution. In the final instance, none of these two references is applicable in the wider cosmic space, pointing to the predominant material surroundings, in the given spatial domain or respective level of observation.

A similar problem appeared in electrodynamics. Though the terrestrial orientation satisfies the usual technical practice, the reference of light propagation in the wider space is problematic. In the aim of confirmation of the expected absolute reference, connected to the rigid vacuum medium, Michelson made the known experiment, proposed by Maxwell. The difference of the two relative speeds of light in the longitudinal and transverse directions in relation to the orbiting Earth had been calculated in advance. However, the negative practical result pointed to the local preferential frame, connected to Earth. With respect to the traumatic Copernican U-turn, this fact has not been noticed nor emphasized. The later more accurate results, in amount of a few percent of the calculated value, have not been explained but are tacitly neglected or even forgotten by the time. Instead of the preferential local frames, the arbitraryorientation is proposed and imposed, as the provisory alternative at least.

In the absence of a unique reliable frame, the attention is paid to the mutual relations between two arbitrary frames, which needed equivalence is expressed by the principle of relativity. However, this principle is strictly satisfied by the static forces only, dependent on mutual distance of two interacting objects (Fig. 1), as the difference of their positions in the two frames. The kinetic force in Ampere’s law depends on the speed product [1], inexpressible by the relativity. Including one speed into the field expression, the relativity concerns mutual motion of the magnet and conductor. The dynamic forces, without the other explicit object, are especially problematic. The relativity must be thus restricted to uniform rectilinear motion. The obtained relations of the distances and times pushed back the orientation itself, and the geometrically expressed gravitation did not at all exceed the restrictions of relativity. The two unresolved problems are thus shadowed by the two useless theories.

Restricted Relativity

With implicit idea of relativity, Newton made the wellknown experiment for checking the needed frame equivalence. Rotating a container with water, he observed the radial forces manifest by the concave water surface. Comparing the stationary and transitional kinematical states, he reliably excluded the force dependence on the container rotation, but referred it to the undetermined wider surroundings. In the absence of the precise answer, he assumed a unique and rigid cosmic frame. Not being theoretically determined nor practically confirmed, this frame is the subject for the further reexamination.

Looking for a better solution, E. Mach asked the known double question. Would the water surface shape be influenced by the more massivecontainer, or even by the rotating cosmos? The former part suggested the hierarchy and fractional sum of more local frames, but latter one expected the equivalence of the two extreme frames, already denied by Newton. However, the known fact calls in question the former thesis at least. The forces acting on its satellites do not depend on the rotation of Earth, as the container carrying their orbits around Sun.

A similar result Faraday obtained in electrodynamics. Rotating a conducting disc in the front of cylindrical magnet, he noticed the kinetic induction [1] between the sliding contacts placed in the center and rim of the disc (Fig. 2). However, the magnet rotation was ineffective at all, so that the common rotation gave the same former result. Touching the magnet by the contacts directly, its conducting body took over the role of the disc, with the same induction. Alike the celestial case, this one does not satisfy the relativity. Unlike the former example, not strictly reconsidered, this one can be explained.

Figure 2. Faraday’s kinetic induction

The relativity here concerns the difference of the kinetic and dynamic inductions (1). The former of them is ascribed to the object motion (v) through the present magnetic field (B).

The speed of the causing electricity is implicitly contained in the field expression. On the other hand, the speed (U) of the field itself determines the dynamic induction.

v × B + B × U = (v – U) × B (1)

However, the objects and domains of appearance of the two inductions essentially distinguish. Unlike the kinetic induction affecting the moving electricity only, dynamic one affects all the present electricity. Moreover, the former induction concerns all the object motion perpendicular to the field, but latter one is also conditioned by the field gradient [1]:

∇ × E = U · ∇B = – ∂B/∂t (2)

Figure 3. Kinetic and dynamic inductions

Figure 3 compares the two EM inductions. The current in the central conductor is followed by the circular magnetic field. The transverse motion of a parallel or perpendicular object conductor causes the kinetic induction. Such motion of the carrier, along the field gradient, causes the dynamic induction in the parallel objects only. In the transverse (or circular directions Fig. 2), the field gradient equals to naught. Similar relation may be ascribed to the gravitation on the celestial orbits. The field rotations transverse to their gradients are irrelevant.

Light Propagation

All waves, from the mechanical, via sound up to EM ones, as the medium disturbances, propagate at the speeds determined by the elasticity and inertia of respective media [1]. Unlike the former two waves, concerning matter consisting of the particles, the last wave type also propagates through the vacuum medium. Though not explain this medium, the waves demand its existence. The addition of matter, increasing the medium density, causes the slower propagation. The explanations of various physical forces [2] finally rely on respective media. Though light consists of photons, as the energetic particles, it propagates at the wave speed, determined by Maxwell’s relation (9b). The negation of vacuum medium – by special relativity, does not offer any other explanation of the above phenomena. The propagation of each disturbance is referred to the medium, irrespective of motion of passive observers or their instruments.

The same speed of light relative to the moving devices, or to their formal frames and passive observers, cannot be understood nor explained. Michelson’s result, just being referred to Earth, can be generalized to the other celestial bodies, but not at all to the arbitrary (inertial) frames. Apart from such the exaggerated generalization of the result, this opinion may be also conditioned by some cosmic relations [3]. Owing to the cosmic expansion, two bodies are mutually moving away at the speed (v) proportional with their distance. Despite this fact, the light starts from its emitter, propagates through space and arrives to the detector at the same speed (c) – relative to the local surroundings. In fact, it propagates accelerating in relation to both mentioned devices: from the speed c up to c + v, or from c – v up to c, respectively. The apparent difficulty is thus exceeded.

Doppler’s effects, at motion of the signal emitter or detector (3), respectively, strictly obey the frames connected to the local media. The ratios of the propagated and emitted frequencies – in the former, or of the detected and propagatedones – in latter cases, accord with the ratios of respective speed pairs [3]. If the two relative speeds, (c – u) & (c – v), were equal to the absolute one (c), these two effects could not arise. At common motion of the two devices, the two effects compensate each other, with the detected equal to emitted frequencies. The same result arises at opposite motion of the medium, irrespective of the propagation itself corrected for the medium speed.

wc/wu = c/(c – u) wv/wc = (c – v)/c (3)

However, at light propagating through running water Fizeau obtained the result (4), dependent on the factor k, as the ratio of the material and total field components [1,2]. Apart from the slower propagation, the frame is drawn in the direction (v) of the water flow, as the moving material stratum.

c = co/er + kv k = P/D = 1 – 1/er (4)

The similar Faraday’s effect, twisting the polarization of light propagating along magnetic field lines, is caused by circulation of the static (F), in the form of kinetic (A) potentials. The former of them plays the role of the moving stratum.

A = emVF ∇·A = – em∂F/∂t (5)

The factor of the frame draw in the cosmic space may be similarly determined. Apart from the slower propagation in the present gravitation, the frame draw is determined by the ratio of the moving and dominant potentials.

Though applied in practice, the direct negation of the arbitrary orientation by Sagnac’s effect is ignored in the theory. Namely, two opposite light beams, propagating along the perimeter of a rotating figure, give the evident phase difference, according to the different relative speeds of light. This effect is multiplied by application of a solenoidal light conductor, instead of the figure perimeter. Such device is applied for registration of the angular airplane deviation, instead of the mechanical gyroscope. The references of the observer, in a resting laboratory or the rotating airplane, do not at all influence the result. This practical argument exceeds all the alleged relativistic proofs.

Transformations

The kinetic and dynamic inductions (1) added to the central static field [1] give the summary field around a moving charge (6). The longitudinal speed (V= v) of electric, and transverse (U) – of magnetic fields, obey the principle of relativity [1]. Alike the static field – at rest (E), the summary result (E’) is also centrally symmetric, tending to naught approaching the speed of light propagation. Apart from the magnetic field not affecting resting objects, the axial dynamic induction – subtracted from the radial static field, gives the ellipsoidal result.

E’ = E + (v – U) × B = (1 – emu2)E (6)

Missing the dynamic induction or understanding the object-field motion (u= v – U), H. A Lorentz formulated the summary force (7a). Expecting the similar and paralel magnetic phenomena [1], the symmetric magnetic relation was understood (7b), with the opposite mutual motion of magnetic poles and electric field. In fact, these two equations express the same relations, with the two equal and opposite mutual speeds. Not only that the free magnetic poles do not exist [1], but the field actions on the magnetic moments are essentially distinct. Apart from the former conditionalequation, latter one is fictional.

E’ = E + u × B B’ = B + emE × u (7)

The inverted set (8,9) exchanges the causes and effects. The opposite motion of the frame is understood. The set determinant (8b), as the factor (6) restricted to the transverse plane, points to the privileged frame, connected to the medium. For the sake of the frame equivalence adopted in advance, this value is arbitrarily distributed between the two sets: by 1/g in each of them. The formal inversion only is thus kept.

E = (E’ – u × B’)/g2 g2= 1 – emu2 (8)

B = (B’ – emE’× u)/g2 em = 1/c2 (9)

This action implies the explicit negation of vacuum medium at least. To push back the media, the product of the two constants is usually substituted by the speed c (9b).

By the factor distribution, the transverse field components (7) are arbitrarily increased, calling in question the mathematical form of Maxwell’s equations. Owing to their huge authority, the problem has been avoided by the complementary deformations of the two remaining 4D axes, longitudinal and temporalones!! (10). The former relation divides the position transformation (Fig. 4) by the factor g less from unit, but latter one also transforms the time. Owing to the limited relativity, these transformations are restricted to the uniform rectilinear speed u, in relation to the still unknown relevant reference frame!

x’ = (x – ut)/g t’ = (t – ux/c2)/ g (10)

Figure 4. The position transformation

The equations (10) somehow distinguish lengths and times in the two frames, depending on their mutual motion. Not only that this dependence cannot be physically explained, but lengths and times would depend on the speed, as their ratio! Moreover, the lengths depend on a given time beginning, as well as times – on the adopted frame position. Unlike the time possibly calculated from the frame overlap, the position of a chosen frame cannot be referred to any privileged location. The relative time, dependent on the object position – in the arbitrary frame, is undetermined!! Not only that the reference frames are arbitrary, but represent the mere mental constructs. There is not any logic by which their mutual motion can influence lengths and times, irrespective of any motion of the passive observers.

The ratio of the two equations (10) gives the relativistic speed transformation (11). Here v & v’ denote the object speeds in the two frames, and u – their mutual motion. The usual speed difference is here divided by the nominator less from unit, thus being artificially increased. Applied to light – as the object, this equation turns into the identity: c’ = c. Following through the sequence of inconsistencies, this is the pretext for the same speed of light at all (inertial) frames. This opinion is here already denied by the sequence of empirical facts.

v’ = x’/t’ = (v – u)/(1 – vu/c2) (11)

Avoiding or exceeding all these speculations, Hobble’s ratio of the distance and speed at the mutual motion away of two celestial bodies just understands the unique cosmic time. Some local times, deviating from the absolute one, are theoretically inconceivable and practically impossible. The real transformation of the position (Fig. 4), concerning the absolute time, is the only acceptable alternative. Namely, the positions of an object in the two frames differ no more or less but for the mutual distance covered after the initial frame overlap. In the unique space and time, this is the only reasonable relation.

General Relativity

Despite the sequence of formal inconsistencies above clearly presented, the restriction to a uniform rectilinear motion is the unique declared difficulty of special relativity. Alike inertia being generalized to the force action, Einstein tried to generalize his special to general theories. After some wander through chaotic speculations, he lost from view the initial problem. Owing to the kinetic and dynamic forces out of relativity, he returned to the static laws. On the basis of their possible balance, inertia is reduced to gravitation!? The radial field around a body is copied into the super-spherical space, along t-axis.

Alike gravitation projected on a slope, it itself is thus treated as the similar projection of some super-force acting from the cosmic center (Fig. 5). The field around a body is illustrated by the spatial curvature, as the local deformation of space, in the form of the funnel. At the interstellar space of the regular spatial curvature, such the projection equals to naught.

Figure 5. Local and global curvatures

Without any valid criteria, this concept is widely taken as the theory of gravitation. In the equivalent form, it speaks nothing about the essence of gravitation, but only further mystifies this phenomenon. If the formal mistakes and/or inconsistencies be excluded, there is no any reason by which its results will differ from the classical ones. At least accidentally, this analogy announces the radial cosmic expansion along temporal axis [3], irrespective of the red shift lately noticed.

Albert Einstein

In these times failing in the authorities of any kind, Einstein is an unquestionable scientific authority, if not in general, then in the modern physics at least. Instead of the resort to the praise, a brief and unbiased, as much as possible adequate valorization of his scientific contributions need be here presented. Avoiding unnecessary repetitions, the arguments rely on the above text and its references, also having in view the scientific criteria. Unlike majority of the other scientists, being famous concerning their unquestionable contributions, Einstein is celebrated with respect to his controversial views.

Apart from the photo-electric effect, Einstein deserved the leading position by the three ideas at least: the fourth dimension, curvilinear space and equation: w = mc2. Although the former two ideas were not originally his, Einstein emphasized and affirmed them self-confidentially. The indirect and complicated derivation of his equation seems to be accidental, resulted from the random formal procedures. Apart from the considerable simplification of this derivation, a direct its inference has been also presented in [2]. Not only that this equation is thus affirmed, but its convincing interpretation is finally enabled.

Unfortunately, none of the three mentioned ideas or results had been fully elaborated and applied by Einstein. At least in principle, the fourth axis is directly colliding with relative time. According to the tensor form of Maxwell’s equations [1], time is a real metrical axis. The probable restriction of the medium of light to the spatial gravitation excludes its temporal propagation. The relative time calls in questions its physical sense and reality. Not only that this concept is fantastic and arbitrary, but cannot be argued by any physical reason. At least some of its contradictions are here already clearly presented.

The idea of curvilinear cosmic space has been also unfinished. Though the Riemannian frame excludes the surrounding cosmic background [3], the modern cosmologists understand it. Even the surrounding cosmoses are expected in the background thus tacitly predicted. This inconsistency of the followers, not trying to finalize Einstein’s principal ideas, may be understood: the famous authorities would not make logical mistakes or give incomplete ideas. His equation has not been interpreted so far. Instead of its undefined application, it can be ascribed to the massive particles, unlike similar Plank’s relation for photons.

At least a part of Einstein’s fame relies on the arbitrary spatial orientation, as the main his failure. It implies the same speeds of light at all so called inertial reference frames, declared equivalent by the principle of relativity. Without sufficient vision of physical processes, as the corrective criterion, the formal calculations are prone to various mistakes or inconsistencies. In the final instance, the relativities of lengths and times are unacceptable at all. As the needed condition for these views, the vacuum medium had been explicitly negated. Imposed by the authority, this view still hinders the further development.

Let us also emphasize some Einstein’s methodological errors, mainly reducible to typical inconsistencies. Such is the arbitrary substitution of two similar math expressions by their geometric average. The average of two Doppler’s effects he applied to the cosmic red shift of light [3]. The opposite signs in the two field tensors he substituted by the imaginary unit [1]. In the opposite sense, the set determinant (8b) has been distributed between the two sets. The parallel EM phenomena (7b) were already understood. By the explicit negation of the medium, Einstein imposed the kinematical relativity.

The incomplete or doubtful principal views may be added. Apart from the static interactions, the relativity can be applied to the special cases of some distinct forces. Concerning two Mach’s ideas, Einstein chose the frame equivalence as the worst one. The unexplained kinetic induction was neglected. The lengths and times dependent on the moving observers fail in any explanation. The dependence of the relative time on the adopted spatial frame has not been noticed even by the numerous opponents!? The wide acceptance of relativity is not strictly founded, but imposed in the absence of the competent critiques.

By mess of the notions, Einstein confused the opponents. He substituted the two EM constants by the abstract speed of light, thus pushing back a vacuum medium at least. The absolute light propagation through the medium, irrespective of the instruments and observers, he substituted by the invariant relative speed. The temporal cosmic process, independent of the transverse spatial motion [3], he ascribed to the light propagation in a given spatial direction. The same speeds of light in the local cosmic situations imposed the additional confusion. All these facts taken together made the full mess in the theory.

Substitution of some theses is also frequent. The ellipsoidal electric field deformation around a moving charge, caused by the longitudinal dynamic induction [1], he ascribed to the increased transverse fields, by distribution of the factor g. The incomplete medium draw by the running water he ascribed to the relativistic speed transformation. Instead of the stronger structural stability, the shorter lives of speedy mesons are ascribed to the relative time. The two former cases at least do not obey the numerical relations. In the final instance, there cannot be even enumerate all Einstein’s inconsistencies.

Results

The relativity, as a postulate, is valid for the static forces only. Owing to various reasons, it cannot be applied to the kinetic and dynamic processes. The relativities of distinct physical forces are restricted to the special technical situations.

The same speed of light in a class of the frames, implied by the relativity principle and additional inconsistencies, cannot be anyhow understood nor explained. The generalization of the local to arbitrary orientation is exaggerated.

A sequence of the wave effects somehow contradicts to the relativistic views. At least one of them directly denies the arbitrary orientation of light. The navigational system (GPS) could not take into account the relativistic views.

The relativistic transformations are founded on the sequence of theoretical mistakes and inconsistencies. The dependence of the relative time on the adopted spatial frame is especially unacceptable and must be refuted forever.

Imposing relativity of lengths and times, the special theory lost from view the orientation. Reducing gravitation to geometry, the general theory did not generalize special one. These two theories only mystify the physical relations.

Not only that the restriction to so called inertial frames has not been exceeded, but its definition understands in advance a relevant reference frame. Going into the opposite direction, this opinion terminates in the local orientation.

Starting from the unique (absolute) reference – as the thesis, and arbitrary orientation – as antithesis, Mach’s local orientation in relation to the predominant material surroundings – as the synthesis, satisfies all the practical situations.

Conclusion

Between Earth and Sun, Copernicus chose the latter referent body. Newton similarly preferred the wider surroundings to the water container. Amongst the two Mach’s theses, of the local or arbitrary orientation, Einstein took the latter one. Not only that the orientation is thus overlooked, but disabled. The remaining local orientation, relative to a dominant mass, with some draw of the frame by other masses, satisfies all the practical situations. Although the rotation of Earth does not influence the satellites, its revolution firmly carries their orbits around Sun.

References

1. Miskovic BV. Foundation of Electrodynamics. Int J Phys Stud Res. 2023; 4(1): 98-103. doi: 10.18689/ijpsr-1000116

2. Miskovic BV. Unity of Physics. Int J of Theor and Math Physics. 2024; 2(1).

3. Miskovic BV. Curvilinear Cosmology. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophysics. 2023; 5(2): 231-236. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000143

4. Mišković B. A Brief Review of Special Relativity. Int J of Theor and Math Physics. 2019; 9(2): 36-40. doi: 10.5923/j.ijtmp-20190902.02

…

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Question

Apr 2024

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Lev Verkhovsky added a reply:

We don't understand anything about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory

(Second Version, February 2018)

Lev I. Verkhovsky (Moscow)

Lev.ver48@mail.ru My site: http://lev-verkhovsky.ru/

Abstract

Lorentz transformations in their originally more general form, i.e. with the scale factor are considered. It is shown, that H. Lorenz, A. Poincare, and A. Einstein put this factor equal to one without proper foundations. It is clarified the physical sense of this factor – he describes the Doppler effect. As the result the paradoxes of the special theory of relativity are removed, grandiose simplifications occur in GR and the natural path to the construction of unified field theory is opening.

FROM THE AUTHOR:

In 2000 I published in Russian a brochure "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and a Unified Field Theory": http://viXra.org/abs/1801.0305.

Now I present the English translation of version II of the brochure with minor differences from the version 2000 (and with abbreviations not relating to physical content).

Description

In classical mechanics, during the transition from one inertial frame of reference to another, the coordinates change in accordance with the Galilean transformations. In the case of motion of the second system relative to the first along the X axis at a speed v, only this coordinate is recalculated: x` = x - vt; The other spatial variables, as well as the time variable, retained their values: y` = y, z` = z, t` = t.

But in the late 19th century it was realized that in electrodynamics Galileo's formulas no longer work: Maxwell's equations are not invariant with respect to them, because of which different inertial observers become unequal. Therefore, it was necessary to find other transformations, which received the name of Lorentz; they look (again when moving along the X axis) like this:

and c is the speed of light.

The physical interpretation of the new transformations was given by A. Einstein in his special theory of relativity (STR). It is clear that if on try to change something in Lorentz's transformations -- this is the purpose of our work -- on must be ready for a serious reconstruction of the SRT itself and the theories based on it, first of all the general theory of relativity (GR). And in order to better understand the essence of the proposed innovation, it is useful to trace how the search for new (Lorentz) transformations was underway.

CHAPTER I. SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY: THE LOST MULTIPLIER

1.1. From Galileo to Lorenz

In 1887, W.Voigt of Göttingen discovered that the wave equation (to which Maxwell's equations are actually reduces) retains its form under such transformations:

As one can see, the radical appeared

and time has become relative, that is, depending on the mutual motion of two observers (in general, its formulas differ from the current Lorentz transformations by a constant factor of 1/Q).

The Englishman J. Larmor, the Dutch H. Lorenz and other physicists deduced the transformations, starting, as a rule, from one or another model of the ether -- a hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate. In 1898, Lorenz received these expressions:

Note that in addition to the Voigt radical, there is also a factor ƞ(v) in them, which equally affects all the coordinates (both -- spatial and temporal), that is, it characterizes a general change of scale. Lorentz pointed out that this coefficient should have a definite value that can be established, "... only comprehending the essence of the phenomenon." In 1904, he returned to this issue and came to the conclusion that ƞ(v) should be equated to one.

The following year the events developed rapidly: on June 5, Poincare spoke in Paris with a message published in the "Comptes Rendus". He considered the same type of transformations as Lorentz, and he also put ƞ (v) equal to one (then the French scientist suggested to call these formulas "Lorentz transformations", and this was confirmed in science).

And on June 30, "Annalen der Physik" received the famous article by Einstein "On the electrodynamics of moving media". A young employee of the patent bureau deduced the transformation of coordinates, basing not on the requirement of invariance of Maxwell's equations, but on the two postulates underlying his theory: 1) all inertial systems are equal; 2) the speed of light is constant, that is, it does not depend on the speed of the light source.

Einstein also at first gets the same general form of transformations as Lorentz with Poincaré, and then finds out what the coefficient ƞ(v) should be. Primo: the application of direct and inverse transformations leaves everything unchanged, that is, (v) (-v) = 1ƞ ƞ . Secundo: the change in the sign of the velocity should not influence (the isotropy of space), therefore ƞ(v) = (-vƞ ). From these two statements he immediately gets that

In July Poincaré finished his work (published in 1906), where he considered in detail the question of the coefficient ƞ(v). He argued that the transformations would be a mathematical group (and this is an absolutely necessary requirement) only if

So, all three founding fathers of relativistic physics agreed that the speed-dependent coefficient ƞ(v) must be identically equal to one, that is, it actually disappears from the formulas. In such a private, truncated form the Lorentz transformation entered into thousands of books and textbooks; so it is not surprising that now few people remember the initially more general form of them -- with a scale factor ƞ(v).

1.2. Gedankenexperiment

The reader has probably already guessed that further reasoning will be somehow connected with this multiplier. We unexpectedly meet again with it and understand its possible physical meaning, considering from a new angle the same thought experiment from which Einstein repelled when creating the STR.

As already mentioned, Einstein proceeded from two postulates. The first of them (on the equality of inertial systems) is completely understandable, but the second (on the constancy of the speed of light) looks strange -- indeed, it contradicts our intuitive ideas based on the usual mechanics.

In fact, let us imagine that there are two fixed observers Aand B, the distance between them is L (Fig. 1). If at the moment when the rocket, on which the observer N is moving with velocity V, is compared with A, both of them (that is, Aand N) will shoot from the same guns to the side B, then a bullet from N will arrive to it earlier, because the speed of the rocket will be added to the speed of a bullet.

Fig. 1

If, instead of shots from rifles, observers A and N produce flashes of light from identical lanterns, then, according to Einstein's postulate, the light signals will come from them to Bsimultaneously. This is the principle of the constancy of the speed of light -- the movement of the rocket does not affect it in any way. At the beginning of the century, this was an experimentally established, albeit paradoxical fact (it was pointed out by the experiments of Michelson-Morley). And as someone advised, "if you have a paradox, make it an axiom." This is exactly what Einstein has made.

But after accepting these two postulates, you immediately come to a contradiction between them:

according to the second of them, the rays from A and N must reach Bsimultaneously. However, during this time the rocket will have shifted and will be at point P at a distance (L - vL/c) from B (Fig. 2 ). But then the speed of the light released by Nwill be less c.

Fig. 2

In other words, for both observers, the velocities of light cannot be the same. Let's call this reasoning "the main contradiction". The desire to solve it led Einstein to construct the STR, and he saw the key to the problem in the analysis of the concept of simultaneity.

1.3. The decisive step

But this mental experience can be interpreted in a different way. Note that although light pulses from A and N will come to B simultaneously, the wavelengths of the two signals perceived by them will be different -- light from Nwill experience a violet shift, that is, its wavelength will decrease. This is a well-known Doppler effect, which STO does not pay much attention to -- it treats it as external, not affecting the geometry of space-time. In STO, the Doppler shift of the wavelength of light describes a simple formula:

But the Doppler effect will change the scales used in the measurements, namely the wavelength and the period of the oscillations of the light signals, which, unlike the rigid rulers and abstract clocks, should be considered genuine physical scales. It is easy to imagine that if we approach to the source of light signals, then all the scales (according to Doppler) are compressed, and if we move away from it, they are stretched.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that the coefficient D, which quantitatively describes this effect, must somehow figure in the coordinate transformations when transferring to a moving frame of reference and, therefore, contribute to the very geometry of space-time. Namely, it will make scales variables.

Now we are ready to offer another way out of the basic contradiction. Let's just assume that -- taking into account the scale change -- the paths traversed by light in the same time interval from the observers Aand N to observer B, that is, the lengths of the segments AB and PB (Figure 2) will be the same.

But then the question immediately arises: how can a part of a segment equal the whole? Of course, this is not possible in terms of the familiar Euclidean geometry, however, the length and duration are dimensional quantities, so their numerical values depend not only on them, but also on the scales used in their measurement. Since the scales have become variables, the lengths of the segments AB and PB can in principle be expressed by the same numerical values.

So, if we equate them, we immediately will know how the scales should change in order for this requirement to be fulfilled: L = K (L – vL/c), where Kis the desired scale factor; K = c/(c - v), and it is easy to see (school algebra) that

What happened? In addition to the well-known radical Q(v), as the devil from the snuffbox, an additional factor D(v) appeared, which describes the Doppler effect! But after all, in the expressions that at first were received by Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein, as we recall, there was a scale factor ƞ(v), and they unanimously equated it to unity. So, maybe he does not have to be so?

1.4. Return of the lost multiplier

Poincare said that ƞ(v) should be equal to one, so that the transformations were a group. Their group properties describe the law of addition of velocities of SRT: if the system K2 moves with speed v1 relative to K1, and K3 - with speed v2 relative to K2, the system K3 moves relative to K1 with speed

Let us check whether this dependence breaks the Doppler factor. In the successive application of two transformations, the two original coefficients ƞ(v) are simply multiplied:

We see that the law of addition of velocities remained in its original form. It turns out that the great mathematician Poincare was wrong.

The arguments of Einstein based on considerations of symmetry of motions in opposite directions turn out to be lightweight, since approximation and removal are not equivalent from the point of the Doppler-effect. Therefore, his condition ƞ(v) = (-vƞ ) must be discarded, and then ƞ(v) is no longer required to be a unit.

Thus, we assume that ƞ(v) = D(v). The transformations of coordinates, taking into account the scale factor will be written as follows (we will call them the "New Lorentz transformations" ):

{The exponent r is required because the Doppler factor change its value to the inverse on transition from approach to removing and vice versa: r = sgn (x - vt); r = 0 if x = vt, that is, when the observer crosses the point, the coordinate of which he determines. It is the change in the parameter r that ensures the equality ƞ(v) = (-vƞ ) in the particular case that Einstein considered when ƞ(v) characterizes the change in the length of the rod when it moves in one direction or another from the observer. Now together with the sign of v, the value of r will also change: at first the rod was on one side of the observer, and then on the other, that is, crosses it. As a result, ƞ(v) remains unchanged.}

The physical meaning of our innovation is simple: if an object is at rest in some reference frame, then measurements are carried out by some standard scales (rest scales). Approaching the object leads to Doppler reduction of scales, and the movement from it leads to their stretching; in the general case, when the velocity has an arbitrary direction, the scales change is given by the formula describing the Doppler effect as a function of the angle at which the light travels from the moving source O1 to the observer O. In particular, if it is equal to 90o, there will be the so-called transverse Doppler-effect; in this case

1.5. Kinematics without sophisms

In SRT, that is, under the Old Lorentz transformations, all the main dependencies determined the coefficient

which includes only the square of the velocity. Therefore, the change in the sign of the velocity did not affect: Q(v) is always greater than one, because of which the lengths in moving frames of reference are always shortened, and the clocks are slowed down.

Now the transformation includes the product of two coefficients -- the previous Qand D

For one direction of motion (when V > 0), the second coefficient is greater than 1, for the other (V < 0) -- less. Moreover, the new factor determines the result, that is, if D > 1, then the product is the same, if D < 1, then the product also. Hence, the Doppler effect will determine the asymmetry of the two opposite directions -- depending on it, lengths and times will increase or decrease, as well as other physical characteristics. (Of course, such an asymmetry is associated only with measurement procedures and in no way breaks the isotropy of space-time itself.)

The laws of the new relativistic kinematics are obtained directly from the new transformation formulas. I will cite some of them.

1. Moving clocks are accelerated or slowed (from the point of view of the stationary observer). Themotion of the moving clock now determines the formula T` = T (1 + v/c),where T` is the time interval over the moving clock in the reference frame where they are at rest. The notorious "paradox of twins" (a favorite subject of science fiction writers) will not be anymore -- by the time of the meeting they will both grow old the same way.

It is possible to imagine it so. Let's the rocket is removing from us and a telecast is broadcast from it. In our resting frame of reference everything that we see on the TV screen takes place at a slower pace, so for us, the clock on the rocket lags behind. But when the rocket turns back, everything seems to us already accelerated, and by the time of arrival, the readings of both clocks will equalize.

2. Similarly, a rod oriented along the direction of movement is lengthened or shortened depending on the sign of the speed: l = l` (1 - v/c), where l` is the length of the rod in the reference frame where it is at rest.

3. In SRT, the geometry of a rapidly rotating disk turns out to be non-Euclidean: there is no change of length along the radii, but there are along tangent directions (coefficient Q), that is, the usual dependence of the length of the circle on the radius becomes incorrect (this is the so-called Ehrenfest paradox). Now, taking into account the transverse Doppler-effect (D, in this case, is 1/Q, and the product of our two coefficients gives unity), there will be no tangential changes. Therefore, the geometry of the disk remains Euclidean, which agrees with the principle of the relativity of rotational motion (otherwise this effect would allow us to reveal the rotation of a single body in the universe -- such a movement would become absolute).

The laws of dynamics will now change too. For example, in the formula expressing the dependence of mass on velocity, a Doppler factor is added, that is, it will no longer be m '= Qm, but

Hence, the mass will grow or decrease depending on the sign of v.

1.6. The scales in nature

In SRT, the geometric quantity called the four-dimensional interval: s2 = x2 + y2 + z2 – c2t2 turned out to be equal in all inertial frames of reference (invariant). Now the interval will stretch or shrink by ƞ(v)times (along with the length and time scales, only the condition s = 0 is invariant). By the way, Einstein, while discussing in 1921 the theory of H. Weyl, wrote that it would be worth trying to change the theory of relativity in this way.

But all inertial systems are equal, so we immediately come to a very important conclusion about scale invariance (scaling) in the physical world. This means that a change in the space-time scales automatically leads to such a consistent adjustment of the values of masses and other physical quantities that no experimentally detected violations in the laws of nature occur. In other words, there are no fixed scales in the surrounding reality (such a possibility was discussed already in the 18th century by the Croatian thinker R. Boshkovich, later by G. Helmholtz and other scientists).

In the early twentieth century, this issue attracted close attention. From a mathematical point of view, the Old Lorentz transformations (when the interval does not change) give a linear orthogonal transformation (with 10 parameters). But in 1910 the British G. Bateman and E. Cunningham discovered that Maxwell's equations (more precisely, the wave equation) are invariant with respect to wider, so-called conformal transformations, which include stretching and contraction of the interval (these are similarity transformations, given by 11 parameters), and also "inversion", when the interval varies from s to 1/s(it is characterized by 15 parameters).

It would seem that the basis symmetry of all physics should be as broad as possible, that is, the conformal symmetry, and there have been many attempts to implement this idea, but they have not been crowned with success. As our historian of physics V.P. Vizgin wrote in the 1970s, "... the diverse, sometimes mysterious connections of conformal symmetry with physics continue to excite the imagination of theorists to the present day."

Interval in STR was constant. At new transformations it became variable: s` = (v) sƞ , that is actually we already passed to the similarity group, when the interval can be compressed and stretched. In addition, an approach with a velocity v gives a change in the interval in ƞ(v) times, and the removal with the same velocity is 1/ (v)ƞtimes. Inversion is associated with the so-called «general Lorentz transformation» (when the determinant is negative), in which, besides the turns, the reflection is included (it will change the direction of time).

(By the way, inversion transformation plays an important role in biology, for example, describes the process of shape formation in flowers.)

Apparently, under the New Lorentz transformations, the 15-parameter conformal group is realized. On these representations de Spatio et Tempore, physics must be based.

CHAPTER II. GRAVITATION AND OTHER FORCES

2.1. Geometry and gravity

After the creation of the STR, Einstein took ten years to build a general theory of relativity (GRT), which also encompassed non-inertial frames of reference. A guiding star for him was the analogy between gravity and accelerated motion.

Under the New Lorentz transformations, this transition from uniform motion to an accelerated one becomes almost obvious. In fact, for uniform motion, the interval is multiplied by a constant number: s` = (v) sƞ , where ƞ(v) = const. Therefore, the principle of equal rights for all inertial observers can be formulated as follows: the laws of nature proceed in the same way in frames of reference connected by transformations, in which the interval changes a fixed number of times.

In the case of non-uniform motion, the factor ƞ(v) will already be variable, depending on the coordinates: ds` = [v(x,y, z,t)]dsƞ . However, if in this case the space-time scales at each point are changed in a certain way, then the interval can again be multiplied by a constant number (that is, the condition ds` = ads, where a is a constant) is fulfilled. To do this, simply enter the variable coefficient for ds, and put F(x,y, z, t) = a/ [v(x,y,z,t)ƞ ].

This factor F(x,y,z,t),affecting the scale and so compensating for the change in speed, that the accelerated motion becomes indistinguishable from the inertial one, it is naturally to consider as a gravitational potential.

2.2. The gravitational equation

The value of F(x,y,z,t) will be scalar, and following Poincaré, M. Abraham, G. Nordström, and other scientists of the beginning of the last century, it can be assumed that it satisfies an equation that is a natural extension of the Poisson equation

expressing Newton's law of gravitation, to d'Alembert's equation:

Here, the fourth coordinate -- time is added, because of which the equation became invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations (in the old and new sense). Such a transition from a mathematically very complicated tensor general relativity to a scalar theory of gravitation will be a huge simplification. In fact, the entire general relativity has been reduced to a simple equation.

In classical physics, the constant gravitational potential did not manifest itself in the experience. Now we see that it alters at all points the length and time scales (as well as the interval s). And there are no visible changes because the masses and other physical quantities, as we have already said, because the laws of nature are scale invariant. Hence, the relationship between the principle of scale invariance and gravity became clear.

(Incidentally, from the point of view of changing the scales, there is no difference between the straight and uniform motion and the introduction of a constant gravitational field: s` = (v) sƞand s` = Fs. As already mentioned, the body mass depends on ƞ, therefore it will depend on F.

Such dependence was supposed by E. Mach -- the Mach principle.)

Einstein used curved (Riemannian) geometry in general relativity, and in this geometry, there are difficulties associated with conservation laws which have not yet been eliminated; so there were attempts to construct a theory of gravitation in flat space-time. We have obtained that the potential F(x,y,z,t)serves as a coefficient showing the change in scales at each point, that is, it determines the so-called "conformal factor". As a result, a known conformally flat space arises in which the conservation laws are satisfied as well as in the planar space.

2.3. Three whales on which stands GRT

As we read in textbooks, the experimental confirmations of general relativity are reduced to the three main predicted effects: the curvature of light rays in the gravitational field, the displacement of the perihelion of Mercury, and the gravitational shift of the spectral lines. What can we say about them now?

1. Light travels along the shortest paths, and in a space with a variable length scale, a straight line, generally speaking, will no longer be the shortest line (geodesic) connecting two points (in much the same way as in a transparent material with a variable refractive index). Near the gravitating mass, say, the planet, the scale of the length (meter) will be less than far from it, and the length (the number of meters that fit into a certain line segment) is correspondingly larger. Therefore, it is more advantageous for a light beam to stay away from the planet and it will bend, what is observed.

2. The problem of Mercury. In the middle of the 19th century. U. Le Verrier revealed an anomaly in the motion of this planet: the point of its perihelion is slowly shifting (only 43 arc seconds per century; for other planets this effect is even less). To explain it on the basis of classical mechanics was not possible, therefore astronomers began to try somehow to modify the Newtonian law of gravitation. For example, when the force depended not only on the distance but also on the speed of mutual motion of the Sun and the planet.

In 1898, the teacher of one of the German gymnasiums P. Gerber, based on ideas that are not completely clear to historians of science, but considering the finiteness of the speed of propagation of the gravitational field (considering it equal to the speed of light), proposed such an expression for the gravitational potential:

From it, he received a formula expressing the displacement of the perihelion of Mercury that gave a numerical value, exactly coinciding with the actual. When later Einstein derived his formula from The General Theory of Relativity it was the same as Gerber's.

From the New Lorentz transformations, as already mentioned, the dependence of mass on velocity (in the direction of the action of force) is:

and of distance on velocity:

Substituting them into Newton's formula for the gravitational potential U = m/r, we see that the Gerber expression is correct:

where v = dr/dt. Thus, the problem of Mercury is immediately solved on the basis of the New Lorentz transformations.

2.4. Are the photons reddening?

According to Einstein, light coming to us from the star experiences a red shift -- the photons seem to lose some of their energy, overcoming the force of attraction (if the light goes in the opposite direction, then, respectively, the violet shift). And such a wavelength change should in principle be observable for the radiation of the Sun and other stars, although due to the chaotic motion of atoms there the effect is difficult to detect.

In the 1960s R. Pound and his colleagues experimentally tested this prediction of general relativity in terrestrial conditions. They started a beam of light along a tower 23 meters high and used the Mossbauer-effect to fix the wavelength shift. But the relative change of this quantity in this case should be extremely small -- on the order of 10-15. Nevertheless, the authors of the work claimed that they managed to observe just such a shift.

With a new interpretation of gravitation, this effect should not exist: the gravitational potential, as we have established, calibrates the scale, that is, determines the wavelength and the period of oscillations at each point. Therefore, identical atoms located in places with different potentials (for example, hydrogen atoms on the Sun and on Earth) will emit light of different wavelengths (on the Sun with smaller, on the Earth with larger).

And when the light emitted on the Sun reaches our planet, its wavelength will equal that which radiates the hydrogen atom on Earth -- in accordance with the local value of the gravitational potential. Hence, to notice the displacement of the wavelength of light to the earth observer in any way will be impossible.

What affects the gravitational potential? Everything: on the scales of length and time, mass, charges, but it influences so that no visible changes in the laws of nature occur. Therefore, for a hypothetical observer on the Sun and for a person on Earth, the wavelength and period of oscillations of light emitted by atoms of the same type will appear the same in both places.

We can say that in the region of a higher potential, all processes are accelerated, but such effects cannot be noticed in principle. Any clock sent from one area to another, upon return, will show the same time as those that remained in rest -- there will be no paradox of the clock (or twins) in this case.

Another imaginary experience. Let the spacecraft moves away from us -- it moves inertially in a region with zero gravitational potential. The light source on the ship emits light with a certain wavelength, and we receive it with a greater wavelength (Doppler-effect). Then the ship enters the area of gravity of the massive body (planet) and begins to accelerate (fall into the gravitational field). What will we observe? No change: the wavelength of light should increase (Doppler-effect), but also decrease, as the light source moves towards the growth of the gravitational potential -- both effects compensate each other.

As for Pound's experiments, they were not widely cross-checked, so we can assume that their results are erroneous.

2.5. Symmetries and fields

Einstein devoted the last 30 years of his life to the search for a unified field theory, and in our time this task remains central in theoretical physics. In the 1970s, on succeeded in combining electromagnetic and weak interactions (Salam--Weinberg theory), and now physicists are trying to attach a strong one to them.

The key to solving this grandiose problem is the principle of "gauge invariance" (and the physical fields themselves are called gauge, or compensating). Briefly speaking the presence of a field allows us to move away from a weak, global symmetry (when some parameter varies equally throughout space) to a stronger, local (when its change depends on the point). In other words, the introduction of the field extends the symmetry of equations describing the laws of nature.

This is particularly clearly seen in the example of how we introduced gravity. If, under uniform motion, there was a global scale transformation in the entire Minkowski space s' = (v)sƞ , then for nonuniform motion it will already be local: ds` = (v,x,y,z,t) ds.ƞ But the introduction of the gravitational field allows to compensate the change in speed so that the accelerated motion becomes a free fall. Therefore, such a field ensures equality of uniform and accelerated movements.

In addition to gravitation in nature there are other fields (Einstein did not even know about the existence of some of them). Is it possible likewise to "summon them out of nothingness"? (Now we take on the functions of the Creator of the Universe -- we decide which fields should be in it.) Now, when the interval ceased to be permanent (as it was in SRT -- there was nothing to compensate for), it seems to be possible.

In fact, gravity, as a scalar field, turned out to be compensating for the transition from a global scale transformation to a local one. However, there are mathematically more general transformations -- affine, projective (F. Klein considered this sequence of geometries in his "Erlangen program"). It would be logically if the hierarchy of fields corresponded to this hierarchy of geometries.

Hence, by analogy, one can demand the invariance of the laws of nature relative to local affine coordinate transformations, that is, independent changes in scales for each coordinate separately. Then, to compensate for such changes, we must introduce not a scalar field, but a vector field (of four components), which is naturally we should consider as a four-dimensional electromagnetic potential.

2.6. Mathematical Interlude

We have come to the fact that both the gravitational and electromagnetic (electroweak) fields cause a change in scales at each point of space-time, but the first of them is characterized by a scalar function and the second by four such functions. And such a 4-vector can no be considered as a gradient of a scalar function (the scalar field reduces to a vector field, but not vice versa). This is due to the nonsmoothness, the especial points of the electromagnetic field (as we know, electromagnetism is closely related to topological facts, such that "a spherical hedgehog cannot be combed without cuts or crochets").

In fact, such a geometric interpretation of the electromagnetic field was proposed in 1918 by G. Weyl. But his theory was not accepted, since a change in the interval when passing through a closed contour due to the presence of singular points could become non-integrable and ambiguity arose. However, in quantum mechanics, as E. Schrodinger showed for the simplest cases, for example, for the Bohr quantum conditions, the total change in the phase of the wave turns out to be equal to an integer number of waves, that is, not observable.

Apparently, this is a general principle, in other words, in quantum mechanics, the contradiction is removed, and the wave properties of matter themselves as if specifically exist for this purpose (so that non-integrability does not lead to ambiguity). As a result, everything turns out to be logically linked to the overall picture.

The geometric meaning of the very important principle of gauge invariance of the electromagnetic field becomes clear. It says that the gradient of any scalar function can be added to its vector potential, and this does not affect the intensity of the field, which alone manifests itself in the experiment. It is obvious that such an arbitrary function is a gravitational potential, that is, electromagnetism does not seem to notice gravity because there the functions are smooth.

Now it's time to remember the last of the known physical interactions -- strong, intranuclear. How do we can enter it?

Acting by analogy, we can require the invariance of the condition s' = const with respect to even more general -- local projective coordinate transformations. Then, to compensate for them, we need to introduce an already eight-components field, which, apparently, can be identified with what appears in the modern theory of strong interaction (quantum chromodynamics).

CONCLUSION

Many scientists felt that the theory of relativity is not all right -- no other physical concepts have caused such fierce controversy for many decades. But if an acceptable alternative cannot be found, then, as the well-known methodology scientist T. Kuhn noted, "rejection of any paradigm means a rejection of science in general".

So it happened with the theory of Einstein. Of course, it has been tested in various experiments, particle accelerators are designed on its basis, that is, already has the status of engineering science. But even the wrong theory can in many cases give correct results. On the other hand, in modern physics, there are enormous difficulties connected, first of all, with the divergences in quantum field theory, which connects relativism and quantum mechanics. It is known how to artificially overcome it (the renormalization method), but according to P. Dirac and many other theorists, the basic equations are incorrect.

It can be assumed that correcting the old error in the Lorentz transformations will remove these difficulties. In general, it will affect and even transform all physics -- from the theory of elementary particles to cosmology. There is a hope that the way to "beautiful clarity" which was lost in the course of the quantum-relativistic revolution will be open.

…

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Question

May 2024

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Reply to this discussion

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Roggers Waibi added a reply

Christian Baumgarten added a reply

Article The Simplest Form of the Lorentz Transformations

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

Rather detailed consideration of what the SR is see in series of SS posts in this thread sister https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_understand_special_relativity/2, pages 1,2;

So here only a few notes to

- really the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined is fundamentally wrong.

- and, of course, fundamentally there cannot be any intertwining of any dimensions, any “time dilations”, “space contraction”, etc.

So that

Though that

“….Special relativity forms the basis for modern physics, influencing fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology, and challenging our intuitive notions of space and time…”

Branko Mišković added a reply

Please read the file uploaded.

380.76 KBijpsr-1000117.pdf

Opinion Article

Orientation in Space

Branko V. Miskovic

Independent Scientist, Novi Sad, Serbia

Abstract

Aim: The solution of one of the crucial questions in physics.

Study design: Comparison and relation of known physical facts.

Methodology: Exhaustive reexamination of these relations.

Study duration: Throughout the author’s working life.

Results: Instead of the absolute or arbitrary orientation, the local preferential frames are finally affirmed and applied.

Keywords: Absolute, Relative, Local, Frame, Motion

Introduction

Restricted Relativity

Figure 2. Faraday’s kinetic induction

The relativity here concerns the difference of the kinetic and dynamic inductions (1). The former of them is ascribed to the object motion (v) through the present magnetic field (B).

The speed of the causing electricity is implicitly contained in the field expression. On the other hand, the speed (U) of the field itself determines the dynamic induction.

v × B + B × U = (v – U) × B (1)

∇ × E = U · ∇B = – ∂B/∂t (2)

Figure 3. Kinetic and dynamic inductions

Light Propagation

wc/wu = c/(c – u) wv/wc = (c – v)/c (3)

c = co/er + kv k = P/D = 1 – 1/er (4)

A = emVF ∇·A = – em∂F/∂t (5)

Transformations

E’ = E + (v – U) × B = (1 – emu2)E (6)

E’ = E + u × B B’ = B + emE × u (7)

E = (E’ – u × B’)/g2 g2= 1 – emu2 (8)

B = (B’ – emE’× u)/g2 em = 1/c2 (9)

This action implies the explicit negation of vacuum medium at least. To push back the media, the product of the two constants is usually substituted by the speed c (9b).

x’ = (x – ut)/g t’ = (t – ux/c2)/ g (10)

Figure 4. The position transformation

v’ = x’/t’ = (v – u)/(1 – vu/c2) (11)

General Relativity

Figure 5. Local and global curvatures

Albert Einstein

Results

Conclusion

References

1. Miskovic BV. Foundation of Electrodynamics. Int J Phys Stud Res. 2023; 4(1): 98-103. doi: 10.18689/ijpsr-1000116

2. Miskovic BV. Unity of Physics. Int J of Theor and Math Physics. 2024; 2(1).

3. Miskovic BV. Curvilinear Cosmology. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophysics. 2023; 5(2): 231-236. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000143

4. Mišković B. A Brief Review of Special Relativity. Int J of Theor and Math Physics. 2019; 9(2): 36-40. doi: 10.5923/j.ijtmp-20190902.02

Reply to this discussion

Analog

Circulation

Real Time

Vectorization

Mental Competency

Following

All replies (3)

📷

Akram Louiz added a reply

April 30

I explored your comments and ideas about Einstein's relativity. Hence, I want to share my scientific opinions with you. The biggest problem of theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered holy and sacred since it venerates the light.

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

Furthermore, Einstein's theories can't stand against Ockham Razor. Here is my Physics letter that disproves all Einstein's principles.

Read it please objectively by following Ockham Razor :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369143082_Physics_letter_Cosmical_observations_and_experiments_against_the_relativistic_explanations_of_the_Doppler_effect_and_the_Gravitational_effect_of_the_light

Recommend

📷

Abbas Kashani added a reply

May 1

Dear Akram Louise

Greetings and respect

I have reviewed your comments and ideas about Einstein's relativity. Therefore, I would like to share my scientific opinions with you. The biggest problem with theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered sacrosanct because it honors light.

Here is Einstein's strongest rebuttal of relativity, read it objectively:

I am at your service, dear teacher. I hope I can be useful. Thank you Abbas

📷

Tarun Parashar added a reply

2 days ago

This discussion dives deep into contrasting perspectives on fundamental physics theories, particularly special relativity. Here's a breakdown of the main points raised:

1. **Quantum FFF Model Differences**: The Quantum FFF Theory differs from the standard model in several key aspects, including the nature of fermions, the vacuum structure, and the concept of consciousness in particles.

2. **Critique of Einstein's Special Relativity**: Fred-Rick Schermer presents a critique of Einstein's approach, arguing that Einstein's reliance on spacetime as the explanatory framework neglects the behavior of matter itself. He uses an analogy of mice in a cage to illustrate his point, suggesting that Einstein attributed too much agency to spacetime rather than matter.

3. **Response on Vacuum Energy**: Wolfgang Konle defends Richard Feynman's idea of vacuum energy, proposing that the additional energy density could be used to recycle star fuel from black holes, although this idea may seem initially counterintuitive.

4. **Fundamental Postulates of Special Relativity**: Sergey Shevchenko elaborates on the postulates of special relativity, particularly emphasizing the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle. He suggests that the fundamental flaws of special relativity only reveal themselves on a fundamental level, while in everyday physical practice, the theory aligns with reality.

5. **Clarification of Fundamental Phenomena**: Sergey Shevchenko further delves into the clarification of fundamental phenomena such as space, time, energy, information, and matter, advocating for a philosophical and scientific framework that considers these concepts in the context of informational patterns and systems.

Overall, the discussion highlights diverse perspectives on the interpretation and understanding of special relativity, touching on issues of fundamental principles, theoretical frameworks, and philosophical underpinnings.

Recommend

…

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Question

Apr 2024

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Reply to this discussion

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

"How do we understand special relativity?"

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Roggers Waibi added a reply

Christian Baumgarten added a reply

Article The Simplest Form of the Lorentz Transformations

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

Rather detailed consideration of what the SR is see in series of SS posts in this thread sister https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_understand_special_relativity/2, pages 1,2;

So here only a few notes to

- really the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined is fundamentally wrong.

- and, of course, fundamentally there cannot be any intertwining of any dimensions, any “time dilations”, “space contraction”, etc.

So that

Though that

“….Special relativity forms the basis for modern physics, influencing fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology, and challenging our intuitive notions of space and time…”

Branko Mišković added a reply

Please read the file uploaded.

380.76 KBijpsr-1000117.pdf

Akram Louiz added a reply:

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

Furthermore, Einstein's theories can't stand against Ockham Razor. Here is my Physics letter that disproves all Einstein's principles.

Read it please objectively by following Ockham Razor :

Physics letter: Cosmical observations and experiments against the relativistic explanations of the Doppler effect and the Gravitational effect of the light Louiz A 1 * 1 Independent Researcher, Settat, Morocco *Corresponding author, Email address: louiz.akram@gmail.com Received 18 Nov 2022, Revised 15 Dec 2022, Accepted 30 Dec 2022 Citation: Louiz A. (2022) Physics letter: Cosmical observations and experiments against the relativistic explanations of the Doppler effect and the Gravitational effect of the light, Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 8(2), 106-110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.48383/IMIST. PRSM/mjpas-v8i2.38600 Abstract: Most physics lovers asked themselves several times: Why should we limit the velocities in our nature to the velocity of light C ? And why a particle of light shouldn't have an ordinary mass even if the redshift or blueshift of light have been discovered. In my previous work about the Michelson-Morley experiment, I concluded that the light can be studied easily like all the other waves. Actually, many scientists venerated the light by some theories that gave a limit to the velocities of photons and abolished their mass. This work makes a conclusion about Einstein’s relativity after an easy study about the Pound-Rebka experiment which deals with the Gravitational effect of light, and you will find also some logical remarks about the Doppler effect. Keywords : Pound; Rebka; Michelson; Morley; experiment; the light; photon; redshift; blueshift; Einstein; relativity. 1. Introduction As a result of my work about the michelson morley experiment (Akram Louiz, 2020), we can accept the change of the frequency of the light when the reference frame changes but we should also accept that the velocity of the light changes too. For example, in the doppler effect, the real constant is not the speed of light but the wavelength since the source of the light causing the wavelength doesn't change but the reference frame changes. You can also discover my answer to the time problem of the GPS system in my work about Newtonian mechanics rotations (Akram Louiz, 2020). It is a work that can also be applied to the cases where atomic or quantum particles rotate at a speed higher than three quarters of the speed of light. The steps proposed for the fast rotations studies allow to avoid the time dilation as a solution. The Pound–Rebka experiment was the experiment in which photons were emitted from the top of a tower and measured by a receiver at the bottom of the tower (Yarman et al., 2016, Maluf et al., 2009) and (Pound et al., 1960). I made this work about the Pound-Rebka experiment by using Newtonian easy mechanics and I found a correct answer. Hence, this should encourage us to revise many principles about the field of optics which is not perfectly studied. The imperfections in the fields of optics do not only concern Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 107 theories but also widely used formulas like the ones that I suspect in my recent article by using concave mirrors (Akram Louiz, 2023). 2. The Doppler effect and scientific observation principles We should agree with the Quantum mechanics experts who don't consider that the photon mass is absolutely null but very small instead. So we have the right to use Newtonian mechanics when dealing with light photons but with caution (by considering also my thesis about Newtonian mechanics rotations). Furthermore, in the Doppler effect, the real constant is the wavelength since the source of the light doesn't change the manner of light production, whereas the real variables are the frequency and the speed of light. I am suggesting that the wavelength depends only on the nature of production of light at the source of light. Indeed, the frequency changes, but it is the light speed C that changes proportionally, and not the wavelength. At the end, the equation : C = (frequency × wavelength) stays always correct. Also, the matter and antimatter experiments never consider radiations which are faster than the speed of light. The gamma emissions of nuclear reactions consider also that gamma radiations have the speed of light and have a wrong exaggerated small wavelength. Now the question that we should answer is: Can we make an experiment that finds the wavelength of a radiation in a manner that is perfectly independent from the frequency ? Everybody can also know from some cosmic observation articles that we could detect from some cosmic events that gamma rays are faster than light rays. This already has a ridiculous and complicated explanation by using Einstein's principles of relativity (Deng et al., 2014, Kumar et al., 2015). However, my work about the Michelson-Morley experiment gives the correct and obvious explanation since it also proves that the speed of light calculated by Maxwell is not the ultimate speed in our nature. We proved easily in that article that the rate (percentage) of fringe shift by the formulas demonstrated is null and thus it confirms theoretically that the result of Michelson-Morley experiment is perfectly null (Akram Louiz, 2020). However, we can’t conclude that the luminiferous aether doesn’t exist like Einstein said or that the speed of the light doesn’t change by a changing reference frame. This criticism about the Michelson-Morley experiment has been widely accepted and is also cited in the very useful book titled “The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics” (de Climont, 2020). 3. The Pound-Rebka experiment The energy of photons increases when they travel toward a gravitational source which is the Earth in this experiment. The Pound-Rebka experiment measures the change of light (the blue shift effect) while it is moving from the top of a tower downwards (Pound et al., 1960, Ziefle et al.,2022). Let’s consider during this experiment that the photon has a mass m that causes the gravitational effect. Consequently, during the gravitational blueshift, we have: Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 108 m × g = m × γ where ɣ is the acceleration of the photon downwards and g is the gravitational acceleration. Let’s consider that Vr is the velocity of the received photon and that Ve is the velocity of the emitted photon. And thus we have: g= Vr− Ve t where t is the time between the emission and the reception of the photon. Let’s consider that Vs is the velocity of the photon when its source S is fixed and doesn’t move. Consequently, during a Doppler effect: Ve = Vs − vs where vs is the velocity of the source (upwards). Let’s consider that the gravitational effect and the doppler effect abolish each other. And thus: Vs = Vr . Consequently: Ve = Vr − vs ⇔vs = Vr − Ve Finally, we conclude that: vs = g× t and it is the correct formula that can be demonstrated for the Pound-Rebka experiment differently by using Einstein’s relativity. 4. The photon mass I suggested that the gravitational effect is because of the real mass of a photon. I also suggest that this mass can be found easily by making or observing a gravitational blueshift or redshift of the light in a vacuum, and by using the famous formula: ΔE= 1 2 × mΔV 2 . Where: ΔV 2 = Vr 2 − Ve 2 and Δ E = Er − Ee with Er is the energy of the received photon and Ee is the energy of the emitted photon. 5. A General letter to the lovers of physics By using the acceleration of the photon in Special Relativity instead of the velocity of the photon, Einstein's lovers can have a correct answer. Also, by using the frequency of the lightwave instead of the photon velocity, Einstein's lovers can also have a correct answer. However, you will notice that in all Einstein's theories, you should always avoid the use of the speed of light in your calculations in order to have good answers, and that makes you use more complicated methods. As a result of my work about the Michelson-Morley experiment and after verifying many light effects, I accept the change of the frequency of the light when the reference frame changes. However, in this case, the velocity of the photon changes too and the real constant is obviously the wavelength. This is the case of the doppler effect: The correct constant is not the speed of light but the wavelength since the nature of the light source causing the wavelength doesn't change when the reference frame changes. I believe that " The constant light velocity" is a non-objective complex that physicians are facing. Physicians can use my method of Michelson-Morley experiment in order to prove that the lightwave is an ordinary wave. Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 109 Let's discuss this matter also by criticizing philosophy : By blindly following Spinoza's religious ideas, Einstein tried to prove that the light is Superior ( like if the light has the characteristics of a God). Hence, he refused that the light needs another element to be natural. This is the reason why he tried to deny the aether and the mass of the photon. We should believe without any kind of fear that we live actually in a natural Euclidean where there is no spacetime nor curvatures. We have also the right to believe that aether exists around us. A light wave needs the aether to propagate and the use of the mass of the photon can help any researcher to make easy and obvious demonstrations concerning the behavior of the light. Many scientists say that Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic waves prove that the speed of light is constant but that is totally wrong. Everybody knows that the SI international system of units has abolished since 2019 the exact values of the permeability and the permittivity of the vacuum (Michaud, 2013, Leuchs et al.,2023). Hence, the vacuum permeability μ0 and the vacuum permittivity ϵ0 should now be found experimentally and independently from the value of any constant velocity of the SI international system of units. However, the experiments proved that the uncertainty of the measure of the vacuum permeability and the vacuum permittivity is enormous, and thus, even if the inverse of the root of the product (μ0×ϵ0) has the dimensions of a velocity, the vacuum permeability and permittivity can no longer be deduced from the constant speed of light considered by Maxwell (Michaud, 2013, Longair, 2008). Einstein's theories were rejected before me by two famous Nobel laureates who are Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark. A book entitled: "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" has even been published against his theories and it was the result of a collaboration between several scientists of that time (Gobilard et al., 2019). Finally, the scientists whose purpose is to make physics perfectly objective and free from all subjective beliefs should never be considered as Pro-Nazi scientists. Many researchers still produce new articles in the field of general optics and its theories (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022, Szostek et al., 2019), and this proves that this field has never been a perfectly studied field of physics despite its simplicity. And thus, the field of optics deserves that we study its phenomena with objective and new methods without any kind of subjective principles. 6. A new suggestion concerning the product of the permeability and the permittivity of the vacuum Since the inverse of the root of the product of the vacuum permeability and the vacuum permittivity has the dimensions of a velocity, why can’t we consider that this value is equal to the propagation speed of a new hypothetical electromagnetic wave which is directly related to the electromagnetic field which is omnipresent on Earth? This suggestion can be logical since the mathematical demonstrations of Maxwell’s equations don’t use any characteristics of the light but only the state of the vacuum where there is only the electromagnetic field of Earth. Maybe this electromagnetic wave related to the electromagnetic field of Earth has a strange propagation velocity that fluctuates if the Earth electromagnetic field changes.

Disclosure statement: Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Compliance with Ethical Standards: This article does not contain any studies involving human or animal subjects. Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 110 References Louiz A. The correct formulas of Michelson-Morley experiment. Maghrebian Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 6(2), 60-63. Louiz A. A thesis about Newtonian mechanics rotations and about differential operators. Maghrebian Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 6(1), 26-50. Yarman T., Kholmetskii, A., Arik, M., & Yarman, O. (2016). Pound–Rebka result within the framework of YARK theory. Canadian Journal of Physics, 94(6), 558-562. Maluf J. W., Ulhoa, S. C., & Faria, F. F. (2009). Pound-Rebka experiment and torsion in the Schwarzschild spacetime. Physical Review D, 80(4), 044036. Pound R. V., & Rebka Jr, G. A. (1960). Apparent weight of photons. Physical Review Letters, 4(7), 337. Akram Louiz. An experiment of the light with contradictory formulas, 01 March 2023, PREPRINT (Version 2) available at Research Square [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2621768/v2] Deng W., & Zhang, B. (2014). Cosmological implications of fast radio burst/gamma-ray burst associations. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783(2), L35. Kumar P., & Zhang, B. (2015). The physics of gamma-ray bursts & relativistic jets. Physics Reports, 561, 1- 109. de Climont, J. (2020). The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics. Editions d Assailly. Newell D. B., & Tiesinga, E. (2019). The international system of units (SI). NIST Special Publication, 330, 1-138. Ziefle, R. G. (2022). Cognitive bias in physics, with respect to Einstein’s relativity, is demonstrated by the famous experiment of Pound and Rebka (1960), which in reality refutes Einstein’s general relativity. Physics Essays, 35(1), 91-99. Michaud A. (2013). From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, e-ISSN, 01-10. Leuchs, G., Hawton, M., & Sánchez-Soto, L. L. (2023). Physical mechanisms underpinning the vacuum permittivity. Physics, 5(1), 179-192. Longair, M. S. (2008). Maxwell and the science of colour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1871), 1685-1696. Gobilard, L., & Blitz, L. (2019). A hundred authors against Einstein: a partial critical translation. Revista Boliviana de Física, 34(34), 33-46. Szostek, R. (2020). Derivation of All Linear Transformations that Meet the Results of Michelson–Morley’s Experiment and Discussion of the Relativity Basics. Moscow University Physics Bulletin, 75(6), 684- 704. Bhattacharjee, D. (2022). M-theory and F-theory over theoretical analysis on cosmic strings and calabi-yau manifolds subject to conifold singularity with randall-sundrum model. Asian Journal of Research and Reviews in Physics, 25-40. Karol, S., Roman, S., & Polish, I. (2022). The existence of a universal frame of reference, in which it propagates light, is still an unresolved problem of physics. Jordan Journal of Physics, 15(5), 457-467.

The correct formulas of Michelson-Morley experiment Louiz Akram The Higher Institute for Maritime Studies, Morocco – Naval engineering. Casablanca *Corresponding Author; Email: louiz.akram@gmail.com Received 20April 2019, Revised 30 January 2020, Accepted 20 May 2020 Abstract: When the light photons bounce off a moving mirror, they react with its atoms to be reflected, consequently, the photons change their velocity vector after each impact depending on the velocity vector of the mirror and thus of the atom. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the event that changed the modern science about "the light" by leading to Lorentz and Einstein's theories about time. I made the formulas of the Michelson-Morley experiment by considering the effects of the reflection on the light and the rate (percentage) of fringe shift calculated by the formulas which I demonstrated is perfectly null. As a result, not all physics must be wrong, but only a principle that Einstein and Lorentz stated by fixing the light speed for all observers, which makes us study light in a very difficult way. The formulas demonstrated in this work allow us to study the light as a normal wave and to understand easily all the other light effects without being obliged to use any relativity of the time. Keywords: Michelson, Morley, light photon, interferometry, mirror, reflection, absorption, emission, null result, reference frame, speed of light, relativity. 1. Introduction The speed of light has been calculated by maxwell after fixing the electric and magnetic characteristics of the source and of the empty space [1- 3]. However, the special relativity considers that the speed of light can only be constant for all observers thanks to the Michelson-Morley experiment [4,7]. It is a theory that has been tested by Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, Ives-Stilwell experiment and many others [8,11]. This theory is also used when dealing with moving light clocks [12,13]. and when performing experiments by using lattice clocks [14,15]. Many works still try to present this theory as a correct theory by daring to curve theoretically the space time [16, 18] while other rational thinkers stay aware that our space is obviously the Euclidean space and they prove it by their realistic physics works [19, 20]. Some researchers refuse both the special relativity and the general relativity and try to disprove their mathematical tools [21] or to prove that the luminiferous aether exists [22, 23]or that the relativistic demonstrations can be replaced by easy Newtonian demonstrations [24]. The steps explained in this work when dealing with the light reflection give correct answers and should help to avoid the complicated relativity of time especially in Michelson’s interferometer. In this work, we will prove formulas that predict the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. Since we are verifying the experiment results of Michelson-Morley, we are free to change the light velocity vector when it is reflected. We consider that T1 and T2 are the two times needed by the two half beams to reach the captor starting from the source, and that the splitter doesn’t influence the light when it passes without any deviation through it, otherwise we will have to use compensating plates to correct that. When a light photon bounces off a moving mirror, it reacts with one of the mirror’s atoms to be reflected through the absorption then the emission. Consequently, the photon gets also an additional velocity vector. It is the velocity vector of the atom during the emission and thus of the mirror. This phenomenon is similar to a ping pong ball bouncing without slipping inside a box that is moving sidewards. In this case the ping pong ball gets the box velocity as a sidewards component of its velocity vector after it bounces and thus the ball seems to accompany the box in its movement. Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 61 In this work, 𝑉⃗ is the velocity vector of the mirrors and 𝐶1 is the speed of the light directly after the source. We can consider that: 𝐶1 = 𝐶 if the source of the light is fixed during the experiment, where C is the famous speed constant of the light. And we can consider that: 𝐶1 = 𝐶 + 𝑉 if the source of the light moves during the experiment with the velocity V. However, the detector (interferometry) is considered always fixed during the experiment. 2. The proposed approach The figure 1 describes the paths taken by the light beams in Michelson-Morley experiment. In this figure we considered arbitrarily that α = ϐ but γ different. Also τ2 and τ3 are arbitrarily considered different until this work makes the investigation. The half beam1 is the one reflected from the mirror1 and the half beam2 is the one reflected from the mirror 2. For half beam1: We can prove that: 𝑇1 = 2 × ( 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝑡1 𝐶1 ) + 𝐿 𝐶2 − 𝑉×𝑡2 𝐶2 + 𝐿 𝐶3×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾)| (1) (each term is explained down) By considering that: 𝐶1 × 𝑡1 = 𝐿 + 𝑉 × 𝑡1 ⇒ 𝑡1 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 (2) where 𝑡1 = 𝜏1. 𝐶2is the speed of the light returning after being reflected from the mirror 1. Figure 1. The apparatus of Michelson-Morley experiment. During the reflection operation of the light, the speed of the light photon absorption by the reacting atom of the mirror is 𝐶1 − 𝑉. Consequently, the photon will be emitted with the same speed (same energy at the absorption) relatively to the reacting atom along the same axis 𝑖 . However, since the atom is moving during the emission with a speed 𝑉 × 𝑖 then: 𝐶2 = 𝐶1 − 2 × 𝑉 (3) By considering also that: 𝐶2 × 𝑡2 = 𝐿 − 𝑉 × 𝑡2hence: 𝑡2 = 𝐿 𝐶2+𝑉 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 (4) Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 62 where: 𝑡2 = 𝜏2 − 2 × 𝜏1 And that:𝐶3is the speed of light after being reflected from the splitter and before reaching the detector. The speed of the light photon absorption by the reacting atom of the splitter is: 𝐶2 + 𝑉 = 𝐶1 − 𝑉. Consequently, the photon will be emitted perpendicularly along the axis 𝑗 with the same speed (same energy at the absorption) relatively to the reacting atom. However, since the reacting atom moves during the emission along the axis 𝑖 with the speed V, then 𝑉 × 𝑖 will be in this case a component of the emitted photon velocity vector. In the end, the velocity vector will become: 𝐶3 ⃗ = 𝑉 × 𝑖 − (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 (5) Hence: 𝐶3 = √(𝐶1 − 𝑉) 2 + 𝑉 2 (6) and 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛾) = 𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (7) and 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾) = −(𝐶1−𝑉) √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (8) And by considering that t3 is the time needed by the light to reach the detector after being reflected from the splitter, we have: |𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾)| = 𝐿 𝐶3×𝑡3 ⇒ 𝑡3 = 𝐿 𝐶3×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾)| = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 (9) We deduce that: 𝑇1 = 2 × ( 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝐿 𝐶1×(𝐶1−𝑉) ) + 𝐿 𝐶1−2×𝑉 − 𝑉×𝐿 (𝐶1−2×𝑉)×(𝐶1−𝑉) + 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 × (1 + 2×𝑉 𝐶1 − 𝑉 𝐶1−2×𝑉 ) + 𝐿 𝐶1−2×𝑉 + 2×𝐿 𝐶1 (10) For half beam 2: By following the same steps, we can prove that: 𝑇2 = 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝑡1 𝐶1 + 𝐿 𝐶′2×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼)| + 2×𝐿 𝐶′3×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛽)| (11) (each term is explained down) By considering that: 𝐶′2is the speed of the light after being reflected from the splitter and before reaching the mirror 2. Consequently: 𝐶′2 ⃗⃗ ⃗ = 𝑉 × 𝑖 + (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 (12) (similar to the case of 𝐶3 with half beam1) Hence 𝐶′2 = √(𝐶1 − 𝑉) 2 + 𝑉 2 (13) and 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼) = 𝐶1−𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (14) and 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛼) = 𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (15) And also by considering that: 𝐶′3is the speed of the light after being reflected from the mirror2 and before reaching the captor. The speed of the light photon at the absorption is𝐶′2 ⃗⃗ ⃗ − 𝑉 × 𝑖 = (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 . Consequently, the photon will be emitted with the same speed (same energy at the absorption) relatively to the reacting atom. However, since the reacting atom moves during the emission along the axis 𝑖 with the speed V, then: 𝐶′3 ⃗⃗ ⃗ = 𝑉 × 𝑖 − (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 . (16) Hence 𝐶′3 = √(𝐶1 − 𝑉) 2 + 𝑉 2 (17) and 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛽) = −(𝐶1−𝑉) √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (18) and 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛽) = 𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (19) we deduce that: 𝑇2 = 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝐿 𝐶1×(𝐶1−𝑉) + 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 + 2×𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 × (3 + 𝑉 𝐶1 ) + 𝐿 𝐶1 (20) Finally: (21) Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 63 Remarks: We proved above that: (22) and thus the half beam2 hits the mirror2 at: (23) We proved also that: (24) and thus the two half beams hit the splitter at the same time (25) Hence they become parallel before reaching the detector at exactly the same time. 3. Conclusion The result is made by considering that the speed of light changes by the changing reference frames since this work tests the results of Michelson-Morley experiment and doesn’t consider that Einstein’s conclusion about the luminiferous aether is correct. The rate (percentage) of fringe shift by the formulas demonstrated above is null and thus it confirms theoretically that the result of Michelson-Morley experiment is perfectly null. However, we can’t conclude that the luminiferous aether doesn’t exist like Einstein said or that the speed of the light doesn’t change by a changing reference frame. References [1] Longair, M. S. (2008). Maxwell and the science of colour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1871), 1685-1696. [2] Bartlett, R. (2019). RE:" 150 years of Maxwell's equations" by Nader Engheta-Science 10 Jul 2015: Vol. 349, Issue 6244, pp. 136-137. [3] Bettini, A. (2016). Maxwell Equations. In A Course in Classical Physics 3—Electromagnetism (pp. 339-396). Springer, Cham. [4] Michelson, A. A., Pease, F. G., & Pearson, F. (1929). Repetition of the Michelson-Morley experiment. JOSA, 18(3), 181_1-182. [5] Szostek, K., & Szostek, R. (2017). The Explanation of the Michelson-Morley Experiment Results by Means Universal Frame of Reference. Journal of Modern Physics, 8(11), 1868. [6] Croca, J. R., Moreira, R., Gatta, M., & Castro, P. (2019). Experiments on the Speed of Light. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 7(05), 1240. [7] Szostek, K., & Szostek, R. (2017). The Explanation of the Michelson-Morley Experiment Results by Means Universal Frame of Reference. Journal of Modern Physics, 8(11), 1868. [8] Gurzadyan, V. G., & Margaryan, A. T. (2018). The light speed versus the observer: the Kennedy– Thorndike test from GRAAL-ESRF. The European Physical Journal C, 78(8), 607. [9] Wörner, L., Schuldt, T., Resch, A., Peters, A., Rasel, E. M., Gürlebeck, N., Wendrich, T. (2018, July). BOOST: A Test of Special Relativity. In 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly (42). [10] Buenker, R. J. (2018). The Universal Time-Dilation Law: Objective Variant of the Lorentz Transformation. [11] Michimura, Y. (2017). Tests of Lorentz Invariance. In Tests of Lorentz Invariance with an Optical Ring Cavity (5-25). Springer, Singapore. [12] Rindler, W. (2003). Relativity: special, general, and cosmological. [13] Sfarti, A. (2018). Optical Clock Behavior in a Gravitational Field. A A, 2(2), 2. [14] Takamoto, M., Ushijima, I., Ohmae, N., Yahagi, T., Kokado, K., Shinkai, H., & Katori, H. (2020). Test of general relativity by a pair of transportable optical lattice clocks. Nature Photonics, 1-5. [15] Bongs, K., & Singh, Y. (2020). Earth-based clocks test general relativity. Nature Photonics,14(7), 408-409. [16] Boskoff, W. G. (2020). A Mathematical Journey to Relativity: Deriving Special and General Relativity with Basic Mathematics. Springer Nature. [17] Chen, F., & Hsu, F. T. (2020). General Relativity, Where Time and Space Are Curved. In How Humankind Created Science(pp. 423-551). Springer, Cham. [18] Torromé, R. G. (2020). Maximal acceleration geometries and spacetime curvature bounds. IJGMM,17(4), 2050060-343. Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 64 [19] Shirokov, D. (2020). On constant solutions of SU (2) Yang-Mills equations with arbitrary current in Euclidean space ℝ n. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics,27(2), 199-218. [20] Zhang, C., Jiang, J., & Zhao, Y. (2019, May). Euclidean space with orbital angular momentum. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops)(pp. 1-6). IEEE. [21] Sato, M. (2020). De Broglie waves, the Schrödinger equation, and relativity. I. Exclusion of the rest mass energy in the dispersion relation. Physics Essays, 33(1), 96-98. [22] Sato, M. (2007). A revisit of the papers on the theory of relativity: Reconsideration of the hypothesis of ether-dragging. arXiv preprint arXiv:0704.1942. [23] Deutsch, S. (2006). Einstein's greatest mistake: abandonment of the aether. Iuniverse. [24] Louiz, A. A thesis about Newtonian mechanics rotations and about differential operators. Maghrebian Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 6(1), 26-50.

…

What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy?

Question

Mar 2024

What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy?

It has not been proven until today and nature has always applied and proven exceptions and violations in the accepted theories many times in the past. That these were merely human formalisms and experimental artifacts and exploiting the limits of technology, and physical limits and laws are constantly being broken and bent in nature. Hereby we will attempt to show theoretically why and how there is and experimentally evidence in our universe of vacuum space, either in its theoretically idealized absolute form, thus free space or the partial vacuum that characterizes the vacuum of QED or QCD. And its zero-point energy and oscillations may actually be the greatest proof in nature for super energy.

It is possible without violating causation. that the apparent effect of "nothing" of vacuum space may be evidence for it

superluminocity and all this time it was hidden right in front of us. We are here trying to answer a fundamental question of physics, why the vacuum is basically space to us looks like nothing on the assumption that "nothing" exists in nature, and why a hypothetical superluminous vibration, a particle the size of Planck creates apparent nothingness in our spacetime. The novelty of the research here infers that free space is dark energy and that superluminous energy.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

(1) Depends what is meant by ``super vacuum''. The words must, first, be defined, before questions can be asked. As it stands, it doesn't mean anything.

(2) To a good approximation the earth is moving around the Sun in a vacuum, i.e. its motion can be described by Newtonian mechanics, where the only bodies are the Earth and the Sun and the force between them is Newton's force of gravitation.

(3) Dark energy is the property of space and time that describes the fact that the Universe isn't, simply, expanding, but that this expansion is accelerating. To detect its effects it's necessary to measure the motion of bodies outside our galaxy.

To understand all this it's necessary to study classical mechanics-that leads to understanding the answer to the second question-and general relativity-in order to understand the answer to the third

László Attila Horváth added a reply:

Dear Abbas Kashani ,

The graviton - which creates or capture elementary X-rays and gamma rays- , by itself, it can be considered almost like a super vacuum.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

What are rather numerous, and really strange, “vacuums” in mainstream physics, and what are two real vacuums is explained in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model , 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force.

The first vacuum is the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which is the actualization of the Logos set elements “Space” and “Time” [what are “Logos” set, “Space” and “Time” see first pages in 1-st or 2-nd links] at creation and existence of a concrete informational system “Matter”,

- i.e. this vacuum is a logical possibility for/of Matter’s existence and evolving, and so is by definition nothing else than some fundamentally “empty container” , i.e. is “real/absolute” vacuum.

The second vacuum, which can be indeed rationally called “physical vacuum”, is the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s spacetime above;

- while all matter in Matter, i.e. all particles, fields, stars, galaxies, etc., are only disturbances in the lattice, that were/are created at impacts on some the lattice’s FLE. At that it looks as rather rational scientifically to assume, that such vacuum really existed – that was the initial version of the lattice that was created/formed at the “inflation epoch”, more see the SS&VT initial cosmological model in section “Cosmology” in 2-nd link.

After this initial lattice version was created, in the lattice a huge portion of energy was pumped uniformly globally [and non-uniformly locally], what resulted in Matter’s “matter” creation, which we observe now.

Since all disturbances always and constantly move in the lattice with 4D speeds of light, now can be only some “local physical vacuums”, etc.;

- though that is really quite inessential – the notion “physical vacuum” is completely useless and even wrong, since the really scientifically defined FLE lattice is completely enough at description n and analysis of everything that exists and happens in Matter. The introduced in mainstream physics “vacuums” really are nothing else than some transcendent/mystic/fantastic mental constructions that exist in mainstream physics because of in the mainstream all fundamental phenomena/notions, including “Matter”, “Space/space”, “Time/time” are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- while these, and not only, really fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the SS&VT philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- the SS&VT physical model is based on which.

More see the links above, a couple of SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_concept_of_quantized_vacuum_And_what_is_the_role_of_gravity_in_nature_And_what_is_the_relationship_between_dark_energy_and_quantum_gravi are relevant in this case also.

Abderrahman el Boukili added a reply:

Super vacuum, in my view, is just the vacuum itself, that is, the channel through which the universe of particles and anti-particles intersects.

Courtney Seligman added a reply:

For all practical purposes, the Earth is moving through a vacuum as it orbits the Sun, as there is so little of anything in any given place that only the most sensitive instruments could tell that there was anything there. But there are microscopic pieces of stuff that used to be inside asteroids or comets, and pieces of atoms blown out of the Sun as the Solar Wind, and cosmic rays that manage to get through the Sun's "heliosphere" and run into anything that happens to be in their way. So though the essentially empty space around the Earth would qualify as a vacuum by any historical standard, it isn't an absolutely perfect vacuum. And I suppose a "super vacuum" would be a region where there isn't anything at all, including not only matter, but also any form of energy (which has a mass equivalence of sorts, per Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity); and if so, then "super vacuums" do not exist.

Harri Shore added a reply:

The concepts you're exploring—super vacuum, dark energy, and the nature of the vacuum in quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics (QCD)—touch on some of the most profound and speculative areas in modern physics. Let's break down these concepts to provide clarity and context for your inquiry.

Super Vacuum

The term "super vacuum" is not widely used in mainstream physics literature but could be interpreted to mean an idealized vacuum state that is more "empty" than what is typically considered achievable, even beyond the vacuum state described by quantum field theories. In standard quantum field theories, a vacuum is not truly empty but seethes with virtual particles and fluctuates due to quantum uncertainties, known as zero-point energy.

Is the Earth in a Vacuum?

The Earth is not in a vacuum but is surrounded by its atmosphere, a thin layer of gases that envelops the planet. However, outer space, which begins just beyond the Earth's atmosphere, is often described as a vacuum. This is because outer space contains far fewer particles than the Earth's atmosphere, making it a near-vacuum by comparison. It's important to note that even the vacuum of outer space is not completely empty but contains low densities of particles, electromagnetic fields, and cosmic radiation.

Dark Energy

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. It is one of the greatest mysteries in modern cosmology, making up about 68% of the universe's total energy content according to current observations. The exact nature of dark energy is still unknown, but it is thought to be responsible for the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe since its discovery in the late 1990s through observations of distant supernovae.

Vacuum Energy and Superluminosity

Vacuum energy refers to the energy that exists in space due to fluctuations of the quantum fields, even in the absence of any particles or radiation. It is a manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, which allows for the temporary creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from "nothing."

The concept of superluminosity or superluminal phenomena (faster-than-light phenomena) is speculative and not supported by current mainstream physics, as it would violate the principle of causality, a cornerstone of the theory of relativity. However, there have been theoretical explorations of conditions under which apparent superluminal effects could occur without violating causality, such as in the context of quantum tunneling or warp drives in general relativity.

Vacuum Space as Evidence of Superluminous Energy

Your hypothesis suggests that vacuum space or "nothingness" might be evidence of a superluminous energy or vibration at the Planck scale that creates the apparent emptiness of space. This is a speculative notion that would require new theoretical frameworks beyond the standard model of particle physics and general relativity. It also implies that dark energy, the force behind the universe's accelerated expansion, could be related to this superluminous vacuum energy.

While current physical theories and experimental evidence do not support the existence of superluminous phenomena or energies, the history of science shows that our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. Theoretical proposals that challenge existing paradigms are valuable for pushing the boundaries of our knowledge and prompting new avenues of experimental and theoretical investigation. However, any new theory that proposes mechanisms beyond established physics must be rigorously tested and validated against empirical evidence.

Courtney Seligman added a reply:

1. A vacuum is a region of space with no matter; a super vacuum could be defined in one of two ways, depending on whether it is a concept, or a description of current technology. In the first instance, it with be a region of space with neither matter nor energy (in which case, unless an extremely small region, it does not exist, because any part of space big enough to see without a microscope would at least have light of some sort passing through it (e.g., at least the Cosmic Background Radiation). In the second instance, it could be used to describe a "laboratory" vacuum which has far less matter in it than any previously created laboratory vacuum.

2. The Earth is in a region that is essentially a vacuum, because most of the space between the planets has practically nothing in it at any given time. However, there are cosmic rays and the Solar Wind everywhere, so though merely pieces of atoms, there is some stuff everywhere in space; but the amount is so small that for all "practical" purposes, it is a vacuum.

3. Dark energy is a fiction created by cosmologists to explain why, despite having too little mass for the gravity of that mass to fight the tendency of empty space to expand (per Einstein's General Theory of Gravity), the geometry of the Observable Universe is "flat", which would require something to add up to 100% of the "critical mass" of the Universe, and since visible and unobservable ("dark") matter makes up at most 27% of the critical mass, cosmologists created the concept of dark energy to make up the remaining 73%. However, there is no need to presume that the Universe is flat. Just as the Earth is a globe but looks essentially flat (on the average, and particularly at sea) because you can't see enough of it to see its real shape, the Universe is actually what is called "hyperbolic" in shape, which is exactly what you would expect if its mass is less than the "critical" mass. However, almost all cosmologists are convinced by various characteristics of the Observable Universe that the "real" Universe is at least 1000's and perhaps 10 to the 1000's of times bigger than what we can see, what we can see is too small to see its real shape, so it just looks "flat". Since by definition we can't see anything but the "Observable" Universe, we will never be able to see the true shape of the Universe; so "dark energy" will remain a "useful" fiction for calculation purposes for the foreseeable (if not infinite) future; but I am certain that we will never figure out what it is, because it doesn't exist. (Having been both a mathematician and a professional astronomer, I can assure you that even when something like "dark energy" doesn't exist in real life, creating a mathematical model that includes it, in order to make the math work right, is considered perfectly OK by professional mathematicians.)

…

What is the concept of quantized vacuum? And what is the role of gravity in nature? And what is the relationship between dark energy and quantum gravi

Question

Mar 2024

What is the concept of quantized vacuum? And what is the role of gravity in nature? And what is the relationship between dark energy and quantum gravity?

The concept of a quantized vacuum effectively acting behind the scenes as a medium for the strong and electroweak interactions, and gravity is not a new topic in science and physics, and was brought back decades ago by string theory and other quantum gravity theories. such as quantum loop gravity, gravitons or superfluid vacuum theory (SVT), all of which attempt to explain the origin of gravity. and all the other four known forces as intrinsic and intrinsic physical properties of the vacuum that many today believe that deciphering the vacuum is the key to answering great unsolved problems in physics such as the cosmological constant. Dark energy and dark matter can be said that quantum vacuum research is of great importance for the body to go beyond the standard model of particle physics research, the development of quantum field theory, and the development of cosmology.

these days. After matter and light, vacuum is perhaps the last frontier that we must conquer to understand the nature and fundamental level of the universe at its best. However, all these theories that attempt to explain the phenomenon of the vacuum limit themselves by using and obeying the speed of causality dictated by the visible speed of light c, the basis for explaining all visible matter and energy in our universe and their interactions. , but vacuum is not light. And not matter, it is the lack of these that does not necessarily translate into nothingness. The best clue nature gives us is that the vacuum is not nothingness, it is the bounded zero point energy (ZPE) and vacuum fluctuations (ZPF). And virtual particles flow in and out of the vacuum, which, however, contradicts the massive vacuum energy predicted by QED. Density is therefore the cosmological constant difference and perhaps the greatest unsolved problem in physics today. Therefore, the author here supports by ansatz the idea that by observing the ZPE and ZPF vacuum combined with the cosmological constant problem, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and most of the intact vacuum energy is hidden from us and inaccessible. Our device ZPF and ZPE hidden vacuum energy only shows that the "conversion" is not complete and is the Heisenberg matter. The Uncertainty Principle In this context, if this theorized untouched and untouched type of vacuum energy is hidden, outside our phase of spacetime and beyond ordinary matter and known light, it can be assumed that our known physics must also be primitive and Essentially by violating the "holy grail" that is the speed of light in a vacuum, therefore, the absolute speed of causality is violated. After that, all ordinary matter and ordinary light energy and all four fundamental forces in our observable universe can be explained. And it worked as a manifestation in our spacetime of a locally disturbed and flawed vacuum. With the fourth force is therefore gravity

The only force that can be transmitted to us from the total energy of the hidden vacuum not only disturbed but intact. The latter spacetime also explains dark energy and possible dark matter phenomena, and why these seem so elusive. However, proof of the superluminosity property for a hypothetical sub-Planck-sized vacuum quantum, possibly analogous to a boson, is a

A waste of work using well-known theories that forbid this in the first place because they are based on the c-speed limit.

E = MC2

Juan Weisz added a reply

Just study normal QM ..stay away from controversy.

Sydney Ernest Grimm added a reply

Dear Abbas Kashani

That is an interesting topic, unfortunately there are not much active RG members who are familiar with the topic (as far as I know).

Vacuum is not a well defined concept. In the past vacuum was every volume without matter. But nowadays vacuum has another meaning too: vacuum is every volume in the universe where the local Higgs field is flat (no decreased scalars). The underlying idea is that rest mass needs local decreased scalars. That means that >99% of the volume of a Hydrogen atom is still vacuum space.

If we redistribute all the concentrated energy in the universe – atoms, molecules, objects, celestial bodies, etc., etc. – to the volume of vacuum space, the universal scalar field (Higgs field) is flat again. That means that all the scalars in the universe have exactly the same magnitude.

This enormous volume without matter is still “filled” with energy because the whole volume is tessellated by the universal scalar field (Higgs field), the universal 3D topological field (electric field) and its corresponding vector field (the magnetic field). At the moment that energy is concentrated by these 3 basic quantum fields (the creation of local matter) new forces are created too: the strong force, the weak force and the force of gravity.

So we cannot speak about quantized vacuum, because it is too limited. The quantization envelopes the whole volume of the universe. That’s why they mostly use the term “quantized space” (quantum gravity).

In a universe without matter the universal electric field doesn’t differ from the universal electric field now. So there are the continuous fluctuations of the universal electric field that create local amplitudes [C. Riek et al. (2017); “Sub-cycle quantum electrodynamics”. Nature 541, 376-379 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21024]. The linear propagation of the fluctuations of the universal electric field is the constant speed of light (c). The energy fluctuations itself are quantized and known as Planck’s constant (h).

Now it is easy to derive the mathematical (geometrical) property of the quantum of energy. Because our “model” is limited to the existing 3 basic quantum fields that tessellate the whole volume of the universe.

If energy is equal to volume, the acceleration of a particle must result in the increase of the volume of the particle. That is not what we observe. The shape of an accelerated particle changes, but not its volume (length contraction). Now there is only one possibility left: energy is surface area. In line with Einstein’s formula E = m c2 (if energy is volume, the formula have to be E = m c3).

However, how must we interpret the relation between energy and surface area?

Now your quantization of space comes into sight. Because if space itself is quantized, the volume of our universe has a structure and the units of the structure are the volume quanta of the universe. So every unit has a volume and a surface area. Although the surface area of every unit is a joint surface area with the adjacent units around. Therefore the 3 basic quantum fields represent the dynamical properties of the units of the structure of quantized space (also termed “discrete space”).

That is what they told us when we started our scientific education: physical reality is about the mutual relations between the observable and detectable phenomena (= dynamical properties).

With kind regards, Sydney

Stam Nicolis added a reply

The ``quantized vacuum'' is the state that is annihilated by the annihilation operators of the excitations described by the theory. In flat spacetime it's unique, in curved spacetime it's not.

The role of gravity is in defining spacetime curvature. More specifically, in imposing invariance under general coordinate transformations=diffeomorphisms. It is this, defining, property of classical gravity that leads to the inevitability of spacetime singularities. How this symmetry emerges from a quantum theory of gravity isn't known, since a quantum theory of gravity isn't known.

Dark energy is well defined in classical gravity, where its effects can be described by the cosmological constant. What it means for quantum gravity isn't known.

Stefano Quattrini added a reply

Abbas Kashani ,

<<The only force that can be transmitted to us from the total energy of the hidden vacuum not only disturbed but intact. The latter spacetime also explains dark energy and possible dark matter phenomena, and why these seem so elusive.>>

we have an example of "background energy" acting in the macro but most do not even consider as such because they did not see this as such...

Following a sort of Cavendish experiment set twin masses in deep space and let them go... you have a "system" of approaching masses till they collide and form just one. You have to assume potential energy transferred into the the "system" to justify the kinetics of their approach and after collision there is radiation emission.

Where such potential energy comes from ?

From the masses?

if one applies the invariance of rest mass and energy conservation it is not difficult to arrive at the necessity of the "background energy"....

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

To answer the question “What is the concept of quantized vacuum? And what is the role of gravity in nature? And what is the relationship between dark energy and quantum gravity”

- it is necessary before scientifically to define/understand what are really objectively existent “vacuum” and “gravity”, and further – what are really existent only in mainstream physics, first of all in Standard particle Model, QFTs, and further cosmology, “physical vacuum”, “true vacuum”, and “false vacuum”.

For that is necessary before to define/understand really scientifically what is the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Mater”, for what is necessary .also to define/understand what are other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, which all are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, - while all these phenomena/notions really can be really scientifically defined/understandable only together.

So really in mainstream physics really everything, i.e. “space”, “time”, “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so the Forces’ mediators – and so “charges” and “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational as well.

Correspondingly in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely logically inevitably is nothing else than unscientific/transcendent/mystic something.

Really Matter – and all other really phenomena/notions above - can be, and well essentially are, really scientifically defined/understandable only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Including in the model it is rigorously scientifically shown that Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct).

The spacetime is fundamentally nothing else than some infinite “empty container” – which contains inside so just “vacuum by definition”, and both – the 8D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s), and the 1D time dimension, ct, fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, “quantized”, so on.

Everything in Matter exists and happens as some disturbances in the lattice, so in this case the notion “physical vacuum”, can be, in principle, be introduced, i.e. the case when the lattice isn’t disturbed everywhere, and that seems was just after the “inflation epoch”, when first version of the lattice was formed [more see the 2-nd link, section “Cosmology”], but after “Matter”, i.e. real particles and fields was/were created in the lattice, this notion looks as superfluous;

- while the mainstream physics “physical vacuum”,where in every space point all numerous in the mainstream “virtual fields” of all numerous “Forces”, and all “virtual particles” that are some “excitations of virtual fields” constantly and always for some mystic reasons and by some mystics ways appear and also mystically disappear/ “annihilate”,

- and further “false vacuums” that are some mystic “bubbles of state of “true vacuum””,

- really are nothing else than some fantastic mental constructions. Everything in Matter exists and happens only really

The thread is rather long already, so now

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue

As well as Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which acts in the absolute absolutely flat Matter’s spacetime above, which is in a few traits similar to other – Electric Force that is well “quantized”, and at gravitational interactions eventually all interactions – as also interactions of all real Forces – fundamentally are QM interactions. But since Gravity is extremely weak Force, really only “ too-not QM” masses tangibly enough on background of other Forces interact, and so the QM nature of gravity really practically inessential in most cases in Matter,

- though can be essential if Gravity strength is extremely large; what can be in some exotic material objects, first of all – in central objects of supermassive black holes.

Nonetheless even in such cases Gravity fundamentally hasn’t any relation to “dark energy”, which is introduced in mainstream cosmology aimed at “to explain” seems real accelerated expansion of matter [of cosmological objects] in 3D space, which in cosmology is “explained” as that is expansion of the space, when the expanded space “carries” cosmological objects apart; and that is described in cosmology by introducing the “cosmological constant” in the GR equations.

That in cosmology isn’t, of course, some explanation – “dark energy” is some completely ad hoc mystic energy that has no any relation to everything what is known in physics; while, again, Matter’s spacetime is absolute and cannot expand; while the main GR postulate that gravitational interactions are interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” is fundamentally wrong.

However, if the expansion really happens, that can be because of the FLE-lattice expansion, what, with a well non-zero probability, firstly in extremely short time happened at “inflation epoch”, when the first version of the lattice was formed from possibly one primary FLE. In both cases for that some large portion of energy was spent, but this energy is completely beyond physics, more see section “Cosmology” in 2-nd link in the SS post above.

SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_inflationary_cosmology_epitomize_the_concept_of_a_just-so_story_with_meagre_evidence

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO33_What_Does_the_Dimensionless_Nature_of_the_Fine-Structure_Constant_Mean, and

- reDzennn comments, 9/8 [because the moderator] passages, in

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.html Nature Physics (2024), , and [5 passages] in

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-gravity-strong-strength-proton.html Reviews of Modern Physics (2023), ,

- are relevant to this thread question

Cheers

László Attila Horváth added a reply

Dear Abbas Kashani ,

I agree with Sydney Ernest Grimm , the space phace ('vacuum') of any a prriori entity cannot be quantized. The gravity is due to the radial deficiency of this spatial phase, which increases in the direction of the core phase.Gravity gets an excellent explanation based on this metaphysical approach. That's way exists garvitons. You will also have the interpretability of the garvitation wave. Einstein's free-fall explanation is acceptable in this context... Newton's gravity also has its place of interpretation.

Regards,

Laszlo

P.S: Today I have luck. In the early hours of this morning, I managed to film with a smart phone a simple phenomenon that can be used to illustrate (visualise) how gravitons are created and how they help to emit light... Tomorrow the video will be presented at my YouTube Chanel: https://www.youtube.com/@Geo-Intuition

…

What is the concept of quantized vacuum? And what is the role of gravity in nature? And what is the relationship between dark energy and quantum gravi

Question

Feb 2024

What is the concept of quantized vacuum? And what is the role of gravity in nature? And what is the relationship between dark energy and quantum gravity?

A waste of work using well-known theories that forbid this in the first place because they are based on the c-speed limit.

E = MC2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juan Weisz added a reply:

Just study normal QM ..stay away from controversy.

Sydney Ernest Grimm added a reply:

Dear Abbas Kashani

That is an interesting topic, unfortunately there are not much active RG members who are familiar with the topic (as far as I know).

However, how must we interpret the relation between energy and surface area?

That is what they told us when we started our scientific education: physical reality is about the mutual relations between the observable and detectable phenomena (= dynamical properties).

With kind regards, Sydney

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

The ``quantized vacuum'' is the state that is annihilated by the annihilation operators of the excitations described by the theory. In flat spacetime it's unique, in curved spacetime it's not.

Dark energy is well defined in classical gravity, where its effects can be described by the cosmological constant. What it means for quantum gravity isn't known.

Stefano Quattrini added a reply:

Abbas Kashani ,

we have an example of "background energy" acting in the macro but most do not even consider as such because they did not see this as such...

Where such potential energy comes from ?

From the masses?

if one applies the invariance of rest mass and energy conservation it is not difficult to arrive at the necessity of the "background energy"....

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

To answer the question “What is the concept of quantized vacuum? And what is the role of gravity in nature? And what is the relationship between dark energy and quantum gravity”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- and further “false vacuums” that are some mystic “bubbles of state of “true vacuum””,

- really are nothing else than some fantastic mental constructions. Everything in Matter exists and happens only really

The thread is rather long already, so now

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

So let’s continue

- though can be essential if Gravity strength is extremely large; what can be in some exotic material objects, first of all – in central objects of supermassive black holes.

SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_inflationary_cosmology_epitomize_the_concept_of_a_just-so_story_with_meagre_evidence

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO33_What_Does_the_Dimensionless_Nature_of_the_Fine-Structure_Constant_Mean, and

- reDzennn comments, 9/8 [because the moderator] passages, in

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.html Nature Physics (2024), , and [5 passages] in

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-gravity-strong-strength-proton.html Reviews of Modern Physics (2023), ,

- are relevant to this thread question

…

What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy? Abbas Kashani added a reply:

Question

Mar 2024

What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy?

It is possible without violating causation. that the apparent effect of "nothing" of vacuum space may be evidence for it

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

(1) Depends what is meant by ``super vacuum''. The words must, first, be defined, before questions can be asked. As it stands, it doesn't mean anything.

To understand all this it's necessary to study classical mechanics-that leads to understanding the answer to the second question-and general relativity-in order to understand the answer to the third

László Attila Horváth added a reply:

Dear Abbas Kashani ,

The graviton - which creates or capture elementary X-rays and gamma rays- , by itself, it can be considered almost like a super vacuum.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force.

Since all disturbances always and constantly move in the lattice with 4D speeds of light, now can be only some “local physical vacuums”, etc.;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- the SS&VT physical model is based on which.

More see the links above, a couple of SS posts in

Abderrahman el Boukili added a reply:

Super vacuum, in my view, is just the vacuum itself, that is, the channel through which the universe of particles and anti-particles intersects.

Courtney Seligman added a reply:

Harri Shore added a reply:

Super Vacuum

Is the Earth in a Vacuum?

Dark Energy

Vacuum Energy and Superluminosity

Vacuum Space as Evidence of Superluminous Energy

Courtney Seligman added a reply:

Abbas Kashani added a reply:

Introduction The ‘Theory of Everything’ is a hypothetical theory of physics that explains and connects all known physical phenomena into one. There is a possible solution to the origin of gravity force, postulating it as angular piece of this theory, this solution erases gravity as one of the fundamental forces of nature and unifies it with strong nuclear force. Let’s analyze the forces that occur in the universe transforming string theory. It allows to explain many physical behaviors that without its existence would be practically impossible to understand, even so, these strings have not been able to be discovered and are only that, a theory that serves as an important support to the world of physics. One of the best known theoretical applications about them is how their vibration can provoke the creation of matter, but this is not about theories already written, we are going to place these strings in a simpler way to answer some doubts in subatomic world. This theory uses 4 dimensions in space and a behavior as one dimension in strings with superconducting capacities. Like an elastic band between V-shaped sticks where the elastic band slides down, the strong nuclear force, forces these strings to bend to fall dawn.

It’s not directly related to electromagnetism. . Actors . String Theory String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by onedimensional objects called strings. Each string that we cross would be the minimum distance that can be traversed during a displacement. We can note two important qualities of strings: Distance to the most distant object detected by the human being is more than 30 billion light years, that means there are beams of light which are able to travel that distance without decreasing its speed (they modify only its wavelength). Like light, an object can move into space for a practically unlimited period, as long as it doesn’t find a force to stop it. If strings exist, they act as a superconductor of matter with a resistance near 0. In order to generate waves it’s easier into a strongly linked structure. Gravitational waves behave like ocean waves which are similar to an uptight net, these tensions can be decomposed as one-dimensional structure for its study. Strings, at same time, could be one or zero-dimensional, like points under extreme bound forces, think about them as something tenser than any cable that holds the heaviest bridge in the world. The new framework we have drawn would be a set of extremely tense strings, with a practically infinite matter conduction capacity. Remember we are moving into universe at a stimated speed of 600km/sc. Strong Nuclear Force Strong nuclear force is another variable. This force allows the atomic nucleus to remain together, being the strongest of the so-called fundamental interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear). Gluon is in charge of this interaction, it has a scope not greater than 10 to the power of -15 meters, preventing matter to separate by a constant attraction force between quarks of maximum 10.000 N (F). This real picture illustrates the three dimensional structure of gluon-field configurations, describing the vacuum properties. The volume of the box is 2,4 by 2,4 by 3,6 fm.Contrary to the concept of an empty vacuum, this induces chromo-electric and chromo-magnetic fields in its lowest energy state. The frame rate into this example is billions of billions frames per second (FPS). Superconducting String Theory (SST): Fundamentals: superconductor of matter interacting with a force that makes that matter hold together, but, how can they interact with each other? The most simple is to think about two V-shaped sticks (simulating the strings), and an elastic band that tight them at the most opened side (it would simulate the gluon, with size 10 to the power of -15 meters). If sticks are sufficiently lubricated and tense, what does the elastic band do? It will slide to the thinnest side. More elastic bands, more force will be exerted on the sticks to join them, so next bands will slide even faster (equally, more mass causes more attraction). We are talking about unknown limits in known world, such as infinite conduction or tensions never seen in materials. Suddenly, we have erased one of the fundamental forces of nature, gravity force doesn’t really exist, exists the strong nuclear force interacting with strings. this theory ‘Superconducting String Theory (SST)’. Calculations: Apply formulas from inclined planes (Newton’s second law). Simulation is in horizontal direction. Friction is imperceptible and acceleration down the plane is matched with gravity acceleration in our planet. Vertical force is not gravity force, it is gluon force, which values ares estimated, so we keep force 10.000 N (F1) and mass 0,0002 eV/c2 (m2). It can be considered vertical angle, but it’s depreciable.Dark energy and universe’s expansion. The behaviuor of the strings implies to have any kind of polaritation to expand, at least, strong enough to avoid get closer and restablish its structure after any contraction. This strength propagates over long distances.Gravitational constant (G = 6,67408 × 10−11 m3 kg-1s -2) and its problem to measure with high accuracy since it can be related to the density exposed. Schrödinger equation, to describe how the quantum state of a quantum system changes with time, similar to Newton's second law. Planck's length (1,616229 × 10-35 m) which can indicate the distance between strings. Gluon size and its larger size far from earth. Black holes.and .....

…

What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy? Abbas Kashani added a reply:

Question

Apr 2024

What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy?

It is possible without violating causation. that the apparent effect of "nothing" of vacuum space may be evidence for it

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

(1) Depends what is meant by ``super vacuum''. The words must, first, be defined, before questions can be asked. As it stands, it doesn't mean anything.

To understand all this it's necessary to study classical mechanics-that leads to understanding the answer to the second question-and general relativity-in order to understand the answer to the third

László Attila Horváth added a reply:

Dear Abbas Kashani ,

The graviton - which creates or capture elementary X-rays and gamma rays- , by itself, it can be considered almost like a super vacuum.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force.

Since all disturbances always and constantly move in the lattice with 4D speeds of light, now can be only some “local physical vacuums”, etc.;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- the SS&VT physical model is based on which.

More see the links above, a couple of SS posts in

Abderrahman el Boukili added a reply:

Super vacuum, in my view, is just the vacuum itself, that is, the channel through which the universe of particles and anti-particles intersects.

Courtney Seligman added a reply:

Harri Shore added a reply:

Super Vacuum

Is the Earth in a Vacuum?

Dark Energy

Vacuum Energy and Superluminosity

Vacuum Space as Evidence of Superluminous Energy

Courtney Seligman added a reply:

Abbas Kashani added a reply:

Reply to this discussion

Mohammed H.Ali added a reply

Until date, there is no conclusive evidence to support this claim. Throughout history, nature has consistently shown exceptions and violations to widely accepted beliefs. These human formalisms and experimental objects are just abusing the constraints of technology. In nature, physical limits and rules are continuously being surpassed and manipulated.

…

Discover the world's scientific knowledge

With 160+ million publication pages, 25+ million researchers and 1+ million questions, this is where everyone can access science