The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez

[deleted]

Israel, (sorry - last time I mispelled)

Thanks for the references. I will read them along with your essay from the previous contest.

By the way - I recently posted a couple of items on Daryl's thread in response to something he posted on my thread awhile back. Afterward I noticed some very interesting conversation just previous - between you, Darly and John Merryman. I hope I didn't interrupt and hope it resumes - it looked like it was just getting good. I will keep an eye on it.

Israel Perez

Chris

No problem. Indeed our discussion is quite interesting, if you think you have something to contribute please feel free to express openly.

Best regards

Israel

Israel Perez

Dear Helmut

Thank you very much for your comments and for reading my essay. I glad we agree in the existence of the PSR. I had a very important discussion with Daniel Wagner who has a relational view of physics and so he rejects the PSR. One should recognize the weaknesses of our approaches. SR leads to a series of paradoxes and deprives the universe of PSR. On the other hand, the detection of the PSR has been quite elusive and therefore most physicists see it as an illusion. They got a point. But as I discussed in my essay a theory gains its scientific value due to its utility to solve the problems under consideration. I have found the PSR quite useful to solve the present problems, although the price to pay for is too high...

As to light, I hold that there is a medium for the propagation of light, hence light has to be a wave with no duality. The duality was introduced by Einstein himself in 1905 when he assumed light as a particle. Judging in retrospective I think this was not a good idea, because this caused the confusion we are all familiar with. A more real situation is that an atom does not emit at a single-one frequency but at different frequencies centered around an average value. These frequencies interfere constructively and create what in optics is called a wave packet. The wave packet is a localized pattern in space, in this sense, the packet resembles a "photon". Light of a single frequency has never been measured. In a theory one has to be consistent mathematically and philosophically. The theory of C. Christov (see my reference 19 and references therein) solves all of these ambiguities by assuming that space is a fluid. Based on this simple assumption all relativistic effects are reproduced and most problems can be solved, cosmological and microsocopic.

I would suggest you read my previous essay, there I discuss some of the qualities that a theory should have in order to have success. Perhaps you may be interested in this topic.

Cheers

Israel

Israel Perez

Hi Eckard

I hope you have convinced yourself that the measurement not only of the one-way speed of light but of any physical entity is not a trivial task at most people believe (see my reference 17).

GPS clocks are synchronized assuming per se that c is constant, so any measurement of the one-way speed of light based on GPS is automatically invalidated. Despite of this, I hold that in an isotropic and homogenous vacuum (the PSR) the one-speed of light should be isotropic.

The synchronization of clocks is a big problem, perhaps an impossible task.

Israel

[deleted]

Israel,

Perhaps nobody questions that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in the PSR. However, Einstein's theory refers to the observer, not to the PSR. Einstein synchronization is part of this admittedly arbitrary monist convention.

I was curious what Wikipedia says about "one-way speed of light". [15] redirects to [1]. Isn't this strange? [1] points to an old textbook by Shang. Yesterday I was pointed there to what is now [3], a 2010 entry which ends with a remarkable sentence: "The debate about conventionality of simultaneity seems far from settled, although some proponents on both sides of the argument might disagree with that statement." I already gave the address: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

Anyway, it is wrong to say one-way speed of light cannot be measured. It can only not be measured without an agreement on synchronization.

Eckard

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

Yes, Einstein refers to the observer because in his theory there are no PSRs. So, I am considering another theory different from SR where the PSR is included (for instance, keep in mind Lorentz' theory).

You: Anyway, it is wrong to say one-way speed of light cannot be measured. It can only not be measured without an agreement on synchronization.

If we agree in a clock synchronization the result is not a pure empirical fact but it will depend on our conventions (therefore the one-way speed cannot be measured). Besides, you are saying that if a synchronization is defined the one-way speed can be measured. It is clear that for any synchronization convention we adopt we will get a different value for the one-way speed. Then let me know what synchronization is the best and why that one and not any other.

Cheers

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

Isn't a synchronization best if it does not imply paradoxes? At first I would postulate fairness. It does not matter what A measures concerning B if not B measures the same concerning A. Both A and B can be affected by the Doppler illusion. Let's leave the subject of light and consider a duel with easily verifiable sound waves in air instead. An unbiased arbiter must be located permanently in the middle between A and B which may move relative to each other. Therefore he must not have an arbitrarily fixed position re A or re B. Instead, both times of flight must be taken into account. Fairness demands that A moves re the arbiter's absolute (PSR) time as does B.

Please read what I yesterday wrote to Daryl Janzen at 1364.

Eckard

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Israel,

After noticing some interesting comments of yours on another thread, I was drawn to read your essay. I must congratulate you on an excellent submission! I have a few comments and questions.

Let me first remark that while I don't dispute your arguments for treating the existence of the PSR as "not an issue of parsimony but of usefulness," I believe that there are good reasons, particularly in regard to the possibility of spacetime microstructure, to reinterpret the principle of covariance in such a way that the assumption that "all (suitable) frames of reference are created equal" is not only "not useful," as you characterize it, but actually "false."

1. Regarding your distinction among true, false, and useful assumptions, would you agree that an assumption that is "useful" for the purposes of one theory might be "false" for a more refined theory? For example, you mention the unsettled (and possibly unsettle-able) question of whether the universe is infinite, and in many contexts, the answer to this question is irrelevant to the derived predictions. However, there are discrete theories that use the assumption of a finite universe to try to predict the small nonzero observed value of the cosmological constant, and for these theories, the answer is not irrelevant. Similarly, for your other example of time-reversibility, some theories of spacetime microstructure require a fundamental local "arrow of time" and others require its absence (examples of both appear in this essay contest!)

2. I think we can agree that one of the most "useful" assumptions since the beginning of the scientific revolution has been the smooth manifold structure of space/spacetime. However, I believe that this assumption may be nearing the end of its usefulness. Riemann himself did not take this assumption for granted, and my own opinion is that it has persisted largely because the associated mathematical tools were quickly developed and reasonably tractable. Information-theoretic, order-theoretic, category-theoretic and graph-theoretic constructs, for instance, were largely inaccessible or nonexistent at the time.

3. It is possible to reinterpret the principle of covariance in the following way. In relativity there is a local causal order (partial order) on Minkowski spacetime defined by light cones. A given event succeeds the events in its past light cone, precedes the events in its future light cone, and is unrelated to the events outside its light cone (which is why the order is only "partial"). A frame of reference imposes a time order, which is a refinement of the causal order; in this refined order a given event either succeeds or precedes every other event except those in the same "spacelike section." Traditionally, a frame of reference is given by a coordinate system, and two (inertial) frames of reference are related by a Lorentz transformation. However, this requires the manifold structure to persist down to arbitrarily small scales. In many theories of quantum gravity, there is a nonmanifold spacetime microstructure, and frames of reference can no longer be viewed in this way. However, order-theoretic ideas still apply as long as there is a causal order, and a "generalized frame of reference" may be defined simply as a refinement of the causal order. The point of all this is that even if one restricts to refinements "resembling" inertial frames in relativity, it will usually no longer be true that all such frames are "created equal." For instance, arbitrary boosts may be problematic. Theories that exhibit some of these features include causal sets, causal dynamical triangulations, and deformed special relativity (DSR).

4. When you mention "dark matter" (section III part A) you suggest that this phenomenon is an aspect or property of spacetime. Now, I lean toward the same view, but my impression is that the mainstream view still regards dark matter as simply particles that don't interact electromagnetically. Is your statement here deliberately at odds with the mainstream view, or am I misinterpreting your statement?

5. I agree with your analysis that the concept of the "aether" would likely have been merely "reinterpreted" or "refined" rather than discarded if various high-energy and cosmological phenomena had been recognized at an earlier date.

6. The ideas you present in section IV B may be radical, but are certainly worthy of serious consideration. Of course, this would require more details than one can be expected to present in a short essay!

Thanks for the great read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

Israel Perez

Dear Benjamin

Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:

In a logical construct (a theory) I would prefer to replace the words "true" or "false" by "right" or "wrong". This is one of the distinctions that K. Popper remarked in his works in view of the fact that sometimes assumptions have a metaphysical character and therefore they could be outside of any experimental verification. But, on the other hand, by applying the laws of logic along with its criteria and methods one can "proof" whether they are right or wrong. So, I would answer your question with a "yes".

The issue of the finiteness of the universe has some different connotations depending on the meaning of the word "infinite". One can deal with these concepts in either physical terms or mathematical ones. For example, some people consider that the surface of the earth is infinite because it is "unbounded" (despite that we know that in 3D space it is finite). This concept is extrapolated to the universe in order to justify the possibility of its infiniteness. However, when I refer to an infinite universe, I mean in the Euclidean sense. As we all realize we do not even have a intuitive idea of what we mean when we say that a particle is placed at an infinite distance. Despite this, as I argue in my essay, for the purposes of modeling one can make the assumption that the universe is either finite or infinite (even though the experimental verification of the latter may not be feasible) as long as this assumption is useful to solve the problems under consideration.

As to points 2-6 my comments are these:

Physicists have some problems that demand a solution. These problems are understood within the context of the prevailing theoretical framework (TF) founded on a certain number of useful assumptions. If one replaces the fundamental assumptions, one is replacing, partially or totally, the TF. When this occurs we have another TF in which the problems may acquire a completely different physical meaning. An examples that comes to my mind is the explanation of gravity: first, a la Newton as a force and then, a la Einstein, as the curvature of space-time. So if I chose a radical TF, current problems may look radically different. After analyzing the history of the foundations of physics I found that there is one consideration that was pivotal in leading physics to its present state: the rejection of the luminiferous aether (PSR). Evidently by doing this, we are depriving any future theory of the conception that space is a material medium and that, for instance, an EM field is a state of this medium. The notion of aether was replaced by geometry (Minkowski or Riemann space-time). So according to relativity, space is modeled as a geometrical vessel filled with ordinary matter and fields (gauge, EM, etc.). This view, although very productive in his time, has led physics to the present state: Big bang, dark matter, dark energy, horizon and flatness problems, CMBR, wave-particle duality, etc. All these matters are the result of modeling space as a manifold, as a totally empty background.

After several attempts to unify GR and QM many people wonder which of these theories is fundamentally incorrect. If we reconsider the assumption that space is not emptiness but a massive fluid with an internal structure (and thus a PSR), the medium for EM fields (that is, the opposite view to relativity) we have a radical and different TF in which the problems of the prevailing TF look completely different (in some cases, the problems do not even exist). So, inevitably this view rejects relativity altogether (I hope I have answered your questions, in particular that one from point 4). But, the fact that relativity is rejected does not mean that Lorentz covariance is rejected. You may recall that Lorentz developed a theory based on the existence of the aether from which he derived Lorentz symmetry. This teaches us that Lorentz covariance is an emergent property of space (understanding space as a material fluid). So, in a certain sense we are replacing SR by Lorentz' theory. The former has no PSR whereas the latter does.

There is a more developed theory [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to solve most problems in physics. IMO, this is the right theory, but, as I explained above, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view. Despite this, I think I have found a consistent TF that is not only in agreement with the body of evidence but with intuition too.

I hope I have answered some of your questions.

Best regards

Israel

Israel Perez

Dear Benjamin

Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:

As to points 2-6 my comments are these:

I hope I have answered some of your questions.

Best regards

Israel

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Israel,

Thanks, I understand better now. You characterize your approach as "radical," but without radical ideas, we'd never get anywhere. I wish you the best of success with your work! Take care,

Ben

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

One can chose only the most convenient clock synchronization, thought there is no fundamental justification to chose either one or the other. In any case, one has to assume a frame where the one-way speed of light is isotropic (the PSR). For frames in motion relative to the PSR the convention is arbitrary. So, I think that this topic has been extensively studied and discussed for many years and it is time to move on. I think I have found the way out of the conundrum and I just have to follow it.

Israel

David Rousseau

Dear Israel,

You have written an interesting and important essay. I very much like the way in which you clarify concepts up front and then argue in those terms. Such philosophical discipline is too often neglected by theorists. Your argument shows the power of this approach.

I support your defence of space as a material medium, and particularly liked your inference that "the warping of space can be physically reinterpreted as the change in the density of the material medium". The model that Julie and I defend in our essay is consistent with such a view - we argued that space is a kind of material substance which can interconvert with an even more fundamental substance we call "energeum", and argue that "dark energy" is the result of energeum converting into space. The reverse transaction, of space locally converting into energeum would allow for space to have a physically effective variable density, which can present mathematically as a 'warp in space' just as you propose.

I enjoyed reading your essay, and hope you will find ours interesting too. Good luck in the competition!

Best regards,

David

Israel Perez

Dear David

Thank you for reading my essays and for your stimulating comments. Indeed, modern physics have neglected philosophy as a tool to create theories. But the fruitless attempts of the last 30 years have been a lesson for physicists to recognized that philosophy based on analysis and intuition has a very important role to play in science. I think this is one of the reasons of this contest (Most of the organizers of the FQXi project share the view the physicists should recover the old way of doing physics). Vesselin Pektov (one of the contestants) has recently inaugurated the Herman Minkowski Institute at Montreal. The aim of this institute is to do physics including analytical and philosophical reasoning. These events reflect the recognition that the way of doing physics today is leading to a dead end.

I follow the traditional way of doing physics. This approach has led me to understand the problems from another perspective and some of the consequences are laid down in my works. I am sure you will find very interesting my previous essay where I exposed my deepest notions about the universe (space, time, etc). Probably you will find a relation with your view.

With respect to the notion of space and some of its consequences, please take a look at my reply to Benjamin Dribus above and my discussion with Daniel Wagner in both of our entries. Also check the discussion I had with Daryl Janzen in his entry and mine where I defend the view that the expansion of the universe could be a mere illusion just as dark matter, dark energy, the Big bang, etc. These are the results of the General theory of relativity which denies space as a substance. If one assume that space is a material fluid, one is contradicting relativity. Thus, either we keep relativity or we drop it altogether.

Best Regards

Israel

Vladimir Tamari

Hello Israel. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

Israel Perez

Dear Vladimir

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am doing my best to read as much essays as I can.

best luck in the contest

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Dr. Israel Perez,

I agree with most of the readers' comments about your very well presented essay. However, the aspect that is of fundamental importance in it is that it lays the basis for a full blown critique of physics as it has evolved and thereby providing us with a handle to address the prevailing crisis. This is where I find your essay to be most valuable.

This does not mean that I am in full agreement with everything that is stated in your essay. It is quite understandable that you were not able to express everything relevant that you wished to express within the 25,000 character limitation and thereby there would be obvious gaps (as it would be the case in all essays in the competition). In my view we can begin the critique of physics as it has hitherto developed, by starting with a discussion of some of the gaps and understatements in your own essay.

One of the very important matters that I feel that I differ is your statement: "It is worth elucidating the fact that the special RT has ONLY ONE POSTULATE, i.e., the PR, since the second one is already implicit in the first one".

Actually, according to Einstein SRT has not two but THREE POSTULATES. It is true that in the 1905 paper, Einstein states only two postulates. And he states that these two are "irreconcilable". If they are irreconcilable from the point of view of the creator of the theory himself, then WE MUST UNDERSTAND that there must be something deeper in the STRUCTURE of the Relativity Principle (RP) which the popular notion of it (as the mere equivalence of all ISR) does not reveal to us in a naïve interpretation of it. Therefore, it is apparent that your statement that the principle of the velocity of light (PCVL) is IMPLICIT in the PR deems to be incorrect.

This position of Einstein that the first two postulates are in contradiction with one another is something that Einstein never changed, but surely it would have bugged him, how to find a way to transcend this contradiction. 44 years later, when he wrote his Autobigraphy (in 1949), he wrote: "The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz transformation') are POSTULATED for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME."(1, p. 55).

So it is by the introduction of the THIRD POSTULATE he claims that the contradiction of the first two gets reconciled. However, we are still in the dark as to what this contradiction is.

What is this contradiction? In which way does PVCL contradict PR?

In place of Lorentz' proposition that a moving body contracts by the 'Lorentz factor', Einstein's position was that the space (of the frame CO-MOVING with the object) contracts and the time in that frame dilates by that factor. Now along with it there is also a velocity transformation that occurs by the same facctor. Why? (For the sake of clarity, let us discuss in concrete terms of a particle moving relative to earth since all experiments human beings have ever done, have been done on earth).

According to Newton's second law, if a force F imparts a velocity v, when a force gamma.F is applied, it has to impart a velocity of gamma.v. But it is found that when gamma.F is applied the velocity (in the first approximation) is v (relative to earth). So in order to circumvent this problem SRT's position amounts to the following. Although from the observer's frame (earth) the velocity ought to be gamma.v, in the ISR co-moving with the particle the force and the velocity get scaled down by the factor gamma, and the velocity in that frame turns out to be v. It is by this scaling down of velocity which is structured into RP that LP are found to be the same in all ISR.

Then this poses a problem in regard to the motion of a photon. Can we apply the same principle of scaling down by the gamma-factor to the motion of a photon? In the frame co-moving with the photon the contraction factor is (1- c2/c2)1/2 = 0. So RP cannot be applied to the motion of photons. This is why to two postulates are contradictory.

SRT has never explained how the Lorentz transformation reconciles this contradiction between the other two postulates as it claims. It is a pure bluff. This is why what it cannot explain or prove it has wriggled out by postulating.

I have mentioned above that in the "first approximation", it appears that gamma.F imparts a velocity v in the frame co-moving with the particle. This is because, when the displacement is measured, it is not found to be x = vt (as in classical mechanics), but it is x' = gamma'.(x -ut) where u is the velocity of earth's orbit. Note that gamma' here is not a function of v (the supposed velocity of the particle) but a function of the earth's velocity; gamma' = 1/(1 - u2/c2)1/2. How this difference in the displacement occurs is a matter that needs to be explained. Instead Einstein postulates what needs to be explained and in the process pretends that the contradiction of the first two postulates is solved by this postulation.

Now there is a very interesting point that needs to be pursued. Einstein has stated that the contradiction is solved by "relations of a new type ('Lorentz transformation') are POSTULATED for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME."

Now it has to be clear that the linch-pin that holds SRT together is the position that both co-ordinates and TIME are converted in accordance with LT.

In a laboratory on earth when the displacement of a fast moving particle is measured we get x' = gamma(x -ut) instead of x = vt. This can happen by the velocity v having got reduced for some dynamic reason to v' = gamma(c-u). Then, x' = v't. However, if this is admitted it would immediately contradict that LP are the same in all ISR. To uphold this, it requires to insist the x' = vt' (i.e. time unit changes while the velocity remains invariant). Then it can be claimed that LP remain the same, and thereby the velocity remains the same at v, and at the same time in the frame co-moving with the particle, the time changes to t' = gamma(t - ux/c2).

But there is one hitch here which SRT cannot escape from. The displacement is measured as x'=gamma(x -ut) relative to the lab-frame on earth using the 'meter-stick' of the lab. Then the time t' = gamma(t -ux/c2) too must be measured by the laboratory clock. But this clock does not give this time as SRT claims.

I asked Dr. George Ellis (and two other relativists too) during the past weeks, whether there has been a single experiment that has confirmed LT time conversion equation t' = gamma(t- ux/c2)against a measured displacement of x' = gamma(x -ut).

They very confidently pointed to the time dilation equation t' = t/(1 - v2/c2)1/2 which is the wrong answer.

For instance George Ellis: "Yes - THE DECAY OF COSMIC RAY PARTICLES. This is discussed in most standard texts on special relativity, for example Flat and Curved Spacetimes (Ellis and Williams)".

(They are not even aware that there are TWO DIFFERENT TIME EQUATIONS are involved with SRT. Or more likely they conveniently forget this thorny issue).

Anyway when I persisted with Dr. Ellis for him to provide me with an answer whether LT time equation has been verified by even a single experiment, he wrote:

"I have no intention of reading in detail this or any of the other hundreds or so papers per year trying to show special relativity wrong. I have scanned your paper briefly and YES I AGREE THAT THAT SPECIFIC EQUATION PER SE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED but time dilation has, which is its core element. The whole point however is that SR is a TIGHTLY INTEGRATED PACKAGE which is the foundational basis of present day particle physics and has been verified by many millions of experiments".

I attach and extract of the discussion with Dr. Ellis for your reference.

The next point I would like to discuss, is how faith and belief in SRT is maintained by reference a "TIGHTLY INTEGRATED PACKAGE", which have nothing to do with the space-time theory, but a set of empirical equations elicited by iterations of data (independent of the theory), and which empirical equation are reconfirmed by repeated experiments.

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: DISCUSSION_WITH_ELLIS.doc

[deleted]

Dear Viraj

Thank you for reading my essay and for your well-thought comments. This time I have been very busy with my work here at the university, and I hadn't had a opportunity to reply some of the post in my entry. After analyzing the foundations of relativity I have understood that the criterion that will decide the future of theoretical physics is the background dependence of theories. People wonder which theory, GR or QM, is wrong. I have reached the realization that background dependence is an essential ingredient of a theory. So, GR should be modified or replaced in the future. I came to the conclusion that the flaw of relativity is the lack of a PSR for once we reintroduce it the inherent perplexities of the theory vanish. However, I am aware that relativity will not embrace a PSR and therefore one should build a new theory with different pillars in which space seen as material fluid is the fundamental postulate. From this postulate one can derive Lorentz symmetry and reproduce the predictions of relativity.

There is a well developed theory that I am supporting [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to explain most physical phenomena (IMO, this is the right approach). This theory is in need of further improvements and experimental verification. But, unfortunately, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view, in particular, it contradicts the background independence of relativity. Despite this, I think I have found a consistent theoretical framework and for the future my task, as a physicist, is to show that this is the right direction.

As Ellis argues, there is no experiment contradicting relativity (special or general) and therefore it turns out to be futile trying to disprove it. The theory makes the correct mathematical predictions but, from my view, not the most cogent physical interpretations. So, if we have identified its Achilles' heel, from my part, I have nothing more to say about relativity. We should, instead, move on. This is how science works. What we should do is to seek for new foundations and build a new theory that in a given limit reproduces the empirical observations as relativity does.

I don't see the two postulates irreconcilable because, as I said, there is only one postulate, the PR. Einstein considered them as irreconcilable although it is not clear why. It is clear that there is no need of introducing the second postulate for it is already implicit in Maxwell equations. The "deeper structure" that I can see is the PSR, that there is medium for light, space itself.

You: In place of Lorentz' proposition that a moving body contracts by the 'Lorentz factor', Einstein's position was that the space contracts and the time in that frame dilates by that factor.

Well, to be honest in his article of 1905, Einstein interpreted Lorentz contraction as if objects really contract and as if clocks really dilate. The interpretation that space contracts and the time dimension dilates came later when Minkowski introduced its space-time, later Einstein had to support this mathematical interpretation to keep up with the mathematical trend.

You: Then this poses a problem in regard to the motion of a photon. Can we apply the same principle of scaling down by the gamma-factor to the motion of a photon? In the frame co-moving with the photon the contraction factor is (1- c2/c2)1/2 = 0. So RP cannot be applied to the motion of photons. This is why to two postulates are contradictory.

Here you are assuming that light is a particle like any other and thus you attached a frame of reference to it with the aim of evaluating the physics in this system of reference that moves at the speed v=c. At this speed relativity breaks down completely and nothing can be said about the physics. It is not clear to me why you claim that the postulates are contradictory.

You also say: But there is one hitch here which SRT cannot escape from. The displacement is measured as x'=gamma(x-ut) relative to the lab-frame on earth using the 'meter-stick' of the lab. Then the time t'=gamma(t-ux/c2) too must be measured by the laboratory clock. But this clock does not give this time as SRT claims. I asked Dr. George Ellis (and two other relativists too) during the past weeks, whether there has been a single experiment that has confirmed LT time conversion equation t'= gamma(t-ux/c2)against a measured displacement of x'=gamma(x-ut).

Well, I am sure if I get your point, but if I do, as I argue in my essay, the one-way velocity of any physical entity cannot be measured, we only measured averages. So, when we measure a distance, the measurement of distance takes a time interval. The equations assume points in space and time, whereas in reality we can only measure time and space intervals. The theory assumes a set of synchronous clocks placed at each point a long a system of reference and considers that space intervals are measured simultaneously (which in practice is not true) and that time intervals are measured in the same space location (which is not also true if the earth moves through space). Perhaps my reference 17 could help you understand this problem better.

Best regards

Israel

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Frank Ullmann

Dear Israel,

I just realized that the link (in my post) to my essay did not work. So:

About the length of world lines ... (my essay)

I would be happy to hear what you think about it.

Kind regards,

Frank

Cristinel Stoica

Hi Israel,

Many physicists seem to go back and reconsider PSR, for various reasons, mostly related to quantum theory. It would not be the first case in which an apparently perfect symmetry is broken, the most clear in my opinion is that of the electroweak force. It is good to challenge this from time to time. Your essay is very beautifully written.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Israel Perez

Dear Cristinel

Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. After analyzing the foundations of physics I have understood that the criterion that will decide the future of theoretical physics is the background dependence of theories. People wonder which theory, GR or QM, is wrong. I found that background dependence is an essential ingredient of a theory. So, GR should be modified.

Good luck in the contest!

Israel

« Previous Page Next Page »