The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez

Israel Perez

Dear Viraj

Sorry for not replying before but I have been very busy days. For these same reason I haven't read your essay and I am afraid it would take some time. I just have read your last posts and I would like to make some brief comments.

You: In effect we have started off... ...we have no clear understanding between us about the different roles played by Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein in trying to find an artificial solution to the above problem, and how these ill-conceived attempts have condemned the future generations into a state of conceptual obscurantism.

Well, I differ from your opinion. I do not see Lorentz, Einstien and Poincaré as trying to find "artificial solutions" and I do not think these solutions are "ill-conceived attempts" or that they "have condemned the future of physics". You should be aware that the task of discovering the secrets of nature and modeling it is not an easy task. They did, what they could in their respective times, with the intellectual tools they had at hand. So if what they did has led us to the present state of physics (which you call "conceptual obscurantism") we have to solve it but not blame them. As you put it is as if they had done it maliciously.

You: physics of slow moving particles developed for two centuries by IMPLICITLY considering that all 'reference frames' are equivalent.

It is not that one set off laws (i.e. classical laws are at work) when a particle moves at low velocities and another set of laws (i.e relativistic laws) suddenly come into operation when that particle is in fast motion. If this be the case at velocity range does this transformation of laws occur?

Do you agree that the same laws of physics have to be at work even at slowest of motions of particles, as they are when the same particles move at near light velocities?

What we need is to find the required algorithms which will enable us to develop mechanics which can be uniformly applied to slow and fast motion equally.

Do you agree? I hope to hear your views.

The Galilean principle of relativity was valid only for mechanical laws, but it fails with electrodynamics. This has nothing to do with slow or fast motions. Newtonian mechanics can be applied to slow or fast motion of particles, but it will not reproduce the observations of fast motions. Finding transformations that leave Maxwell laws invariant paid the way for SRT. However, Lorentz transformations were incompatible with the Newtonian dynamics and so a new dynamics (relativistic) had to be built. SRT states that the same laws of physics (Mechanical and electromagnetic) must be found in any inertial system of reference. SRT (and Lorentz theory, and Christov theory) is a theory that mathematically reproduces all observations (of course, disregarding temperature and gravitational effects). If this theory reproduces the observations given its range of validity, I do understand in what part of SRT you disagree. And I do not understand why you argue that SRT applies for fast motion and Newtonian mechanics for low motion. Both can be applied to any kind of motion, but Newtonian mechanics fails to reproduce the observations at fast motions, this is why it is said that SRT governs fast motions but this is only a semantic matter. So, again, I do not see why you make a point out of a pointless issue. SRT or Christov theory are theories that can be applied to fast or slow or any kind of motion. There is no point of discussion here.

Now, you also talk about introducing the effects of gravitation and the motion of the earth around the sun to compute the dynamics of an experiment conducted on earth. These effects are out of the scope of SRT since we are dealing with gravitation and non-inertial systems of references (the earth itself is basically a non-inertial system of reference). Therefore, we should apply a more complex theory such as general relativity or any other you may wish. In such a case and strictly speaking, SRT does not apply.

Best regards

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

Thank you for the response.

Part 1

The basic issue I need to clarify with you is that whether you agree with my following position in regard to the so-called "Relativistic Phenomena".

Irrespective of whether a particle moves at 1 km/s (0.000000000009c) or 0.99999c the physical processes that are involved in that motion has to be the same. The same phenomena that happen in one must also happen in the other. This means that same equations (laws) that give expression to phenomena in one must be valid for the other.

Do you agree?

Given the above condition, why we do not observe the so-called relativistic phenomena when a particle moves at lower velocities is because, the physical processes involved are non-linear. Although the same processes that give rise to relativistic phenomena occur even at lower velocities as well, because of the non-linearity, they occur at such low intensities, that the phenomena though they occur, REMAIN IMPERCEPTIBLE at the PRESENT DEGREE OF ACCURACY OF OUR MEASUREMENTS. However, at very high velocities, the non-linear processes INTENSIFY EXPONENTIALLY, and then at this stage the phenomena become perceptible and manifest themselves, at the degree of accuracy of available measurements.

Do you agree?

The three main 'relativistic phenomena' are the following:

(1) In order to set a particle of mass M in motion at velocity v, momentum p = gamma. Mv is required. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)

where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2 where v is the VELOCITY OF THE PARTICLE

(2) When the particle has been set in motion, its internal processes slow down by the same factor gamma as above. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)

(3) When the particle has been set in motion at the supposed velocity v [as in (1)], the measured displacement is not given by x = vt, but given by x' = GAMMA(x -ut). (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this).

Where GAMMA = 1/(1 - u2/c2)1/2 where u is the VELOCITY OF THE 'REFERENCE FRAME' where the experiment is conducted.

Note: For all experiments human beings have ever conducted u = velocity of orbit of the earth, although if we go by contentions of SRT the "velocity of the reference frame" has to be that of the lab frame; which is the velocity of earth's rotation. Why the analysis of data of earth bound experiments show this discrepancy for the value of u = 30 k/s and not u = 0.463 k/s, has not been explained by SRT. Secondly although SRT uses gamma and GAMMA in "Relativistic Dynamics", it has not given a dynamic explanation of how and why gamma and GAMMA come into being by dynamic relationships in the first place. They are introduced in SRT as if they have fallen from the sky.

Do you agree?

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

Part 2

There are a lot of matters where you have not understood my positions correctly such as (1) (my statement) "Newtonian mechanics does not apply", which you have construed as (2) (your interpretation) "Newtonian mechanics cannot be applied".

(1) Means that Newtonian mechanics is not equipped to address relativistic phenomena because it has been developed on the basis that physical processes are linear. Here I am describing an OBJECTIVE SITUATION.

whereas

(2) Means some one can attempt to solve a problem concerning a fast moving particle if he wishes, (though it is known that it does not work). Here you are construing that I maintain even such a futile SUBJECTIVE ATTEMPT cannot be made

I will address other misconstrued positions and misunderstandings on your part in a later post.

Best regards,

Viraj

Israel Perez

Dear Viraj

Yes, I agree that the effects are present at all velocities from 0 to c.

You: (1) In order to set a particle of mass M in motion at velocity v, momentum p = gamma. Mv is required. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)

(2) When the particle has been set in motion, its internal processes slow down by the same factor gamma as above. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)

And also: Secondly although SRT uses gamma and GAMMA in "Relativistic Dynamics", it has not given a dynamic explanation of how and why gamma and GAMMA come into being by dynamic relationships in the first place. They are introduced in SRT as if they have fallen from the sky.

I do not understand why you affirm that "SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this" and that "They are introduced in SRT as if they have fallen from the sky." I told you that the Newtonian dynamics is not Lorentz invariant. Therefore, Lorentz invariance demands a new dynamics (relativistic). Lorentz invariance is the principle from which the relativistic dynamics is derived. This shows that relativistic dynamics is not falling from the sky (as you say) and this is the explanation that SRT gives to justify why the factor gamma has to appear. You should check in the literature how relativistic dynamics was developed. It was a process that took several years starting in 1900 with the works of Larmor, Thomson, and Lorentz and ending in 1912 with the works of Planck, Poincaré, Lewis, Einstein, Tolman, Abraham, etc. For instance, it is false belief that Einstein discovered the famous equation E=mc2. This equation was discovered by Planck, Tolman and Lewis in 1908 applying the principle of action and reaction (Newtonian principle) and the principles of energy and momentum conservation. In short, it does not matter the path one takes to derive an expression, what matters is that the expression reproduces observations. There are several approaches to arrive at the same expression and they are all legitimate. You may have another approach based on your assumptions and those assumptions may be as artificial as those you see in SRT. You may wish to read my essay from the previous contest where I stated some of the virtues a theory should have to be considered by the scientific community. Another example of an expression "falling from the sky" is Newton's law of gravitation. This law does not follow from any higher principle. The law was more like a GUESS such as in a given limit it has to be reduced to Keppler' laws. So, despite that the expression is a "guess" is quite useful and there is no point of discussion of how Newton derived it. What matters is that the expression reproduces observations with certain accuracy given its range of validity.

You: When the particle has been set in motion at the supposed velocity v [as in (1)], the measured displacement is not given by x = vt, but given by x' = GAMMA(x -ut). (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)

Here again you insist in introducing the frame of the sun. If you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, I wonder why not introducing the motion of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy and so on and so forth. As well, I told you that strictly speaking, if you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, then you should use a more complex theory because the earth is a non-inertial system of reference. SRT does not apply in these situations. Thus, if we would like to describe the phenomena in a simplistic way, we have to consider only the system of the earth as an inertial system and the system of the particle. And apply SRT (or Lorentz theory or Christov theory or any other). Given this I disagree with your view of introducing the system of reference of the sun. But if you insist in introducing the system of the sun, then we should not use SRT but the general relativity or any other theory and consider the earth as a non-inertial system of reference and gravitational effects. If we would like to complicate even more the situation, we could introduce temperature effects. As you can see, including all these effects the problem becomes extremely complex to deal with.

Now, if you have a better theory than relativity, I would appreciate very much if you could send me the corresponding information of the RECOGNIZED journal where you have published your results.

Best regards

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

You wrote: "Here again you insist in introducing the frame of the sun. If you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, I wonder why not introducing the motion of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy and so on and so forth".

I am not introducing any frames of my choosing whatsoever. I am only referring to Lorentz' finding. I have mentioned this to you many many times, and I will try to drive the point home once again:

Please read Lorentz, 1904 paper.

When Lorentz examined the DATA OF KAUFMAN'S EXPERIMENTS on fast moving electrons, the displacements did not match up to the expected x = vt. He then set upon the task of developing an EMPIRICAL EQUATION for the displacement x', that would consistently fit the data. This was done by iterating the data through a trial and error process.

On doing so he found out that the equation x' = GAMMA.(x-ut) works for the observed results (of these experiments done on earth), IF AND ONLY IF u IS EQUAL TO THE VALUE 30 K/S. (He had no choice in this, 30 was the number PROMPTED BY THE EQUATION that worked). Since the only conceivable factor that consistently involves 30 k/s for experiments conducted on earth is earth's motion, it was then SUBSEQUENTLY deduced that this term involves earth's annual motion. (Note: I have played no part in this finding, I was not even born then!! So please don't accuse me of trying to introduce the motion of the earth relative to the sun).

Lorentz did not force this idea because of his pet theory of the preferred frame. He had no choice in the matter. When he fitted the data into the equation, the only number that consistently satisfied the equation so that it matched the observed results was 30 k/s. If he made a personal input on his own at all, it was the matter of INTERPRETING that the quantity 30 k/s that consistently satisfies the equation as arising from earth's annual motion. It was just a matter of "putting two and two together".

And this was done before Einstein generalized Lorentz' result, and referred to the u term vaguely as the 'velocity of the reference frame'. And just because Einstein has stated it this way, by believing him literally, if you go back to Kuafman's results, and try to insert u = 0.462 k/s (velocity of the lab frame - earth's rotation) or the velocity of the lab relative to the centre of the galaxy, in the equation you will not get theoretical results that match the observed results of Kaufman (or any other results of thousands of experiments conducted on earth).

This is why having developed SRT as if one can obtain the correct results by choosing any reference frame whatsoever by your whim and thereby creating a state of conceptual confusion, Einstein then backtracked and wrote: "The liberty of choice, however, is of a special kind; it is not in anyway similar to the liberty of a writer of fiction. Rather, it is similar to that of a man engaged in solving a well-designed word puzzle. He may it is true, propose any word as the solution; but, there is only ONE word which really solves the puzzle in all its parts. ...". (Ideas and Opinions, p. 294-5).

What does this 'Liberty of choice of a SPECIAL KIND' mean? There is NO CHOICE of a reference frame at all. You have to discern beforehand which is the one and only correct reference frame is, and apply the velocity of that one relative to yet another unique frame, just like you have to discern the correct word in solving a word puzzle.

Best regards,

Viraj

[deleted]

CONTINUING:

Dear Israel,

You wrote:: "I told you that the Newtonian dynamics is not Lorentz invariant. Therefore, Lorentz invariance demands a new dynamics (relativistic). Lorentz invariance is the principle from which the relativistic dynamics is derived. This shows that relativistic dynamics is not falling from the sky (as you say) and this is the explanation that SRT gives to justify why the factor gamma has to appear".

The term Lorentz invariance is a glorified term, for the trick that has been adapted to upgrade Newtonian dynamics to include the gamma-factors.

1. The force in Newtonian mechanics (as you know) is defined as the time derivative of momentum. d(mv)/dt = F.

In relativistic dynamics, it pretends the same relationship exists. It claims that

d(gamma.Mv)/dt = gamma.F.

In order to obtain this result an illegitimate operation has to be done. gamma has to be considered a constant, and pulled outside the bracket and the expression written as

gamma.d(Mv)/dt,

completely ignoring the fact that gamma is a function of the variable v, the same variable that is being differentiated with respect to t. This operation is untenable.

This will show that, effectively what is done on the pretext of "Lorentz invariance" is finding an excuse to stick gamma in front of F without in any way explaining how the gamma-factor comes about.

2. Also you do not seem to recognize that there are two gamma-factors involved. In a particle accelerator experiment conducted on earth, the momentum p that is applied to set the particle at the expected velocity is p = gamma.Mv where gamma is a function of the (supposed) velocity v. In this the particle acquires the momentum Mv. This means that the applied momentum p gets SCALED DOWN by the factor gamma. (Note: gamma is a function of the velocity of the particle).

Now when the displacement is measured in time t, with respect to the lab-frame (where the experimentor is conducting the experiment), it is found that this displacement is not given by x = vt. It turns out that the displacement is less and matches the equation x' = GAMMA(x -ut), where u is the velocity of orbit of the earth and GAMMA is a function of u. Furthermore in this case GAMMA factor SCALES UP, the other term (x-ut).. (Note GAMMA is a function of the velocity of the lab-frame)

Now if we assume invoking the principle of "Lorentz invariance" is admissible for introducing the SCALING DOWN factor gamma of momentum, how can the same principle be invoked to justify the SCALING UP factor -GAMMA of displacement?

3. What you do not seem to understand is upon doing various experiments, and analyzing their results, various EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS have been developed very accurately, independent of any theories (Lorentz, Einstein's or Christov's). And when new experiments are performed these equations are confirmed over and over again. Theories have come up later to explain these equations, and they now pretend that these equations have been developed by these theories and people naively give credit and worship these theories for the independently developed equations.

What McEahern wrote in relation to the equations of QM and the theory is equally true for equations of "relativistic phenomena" and the contentions of SRT. "It is important to remember that nothing we have said alters any of the equations or predictions

of the physical theories. We merely point out that the slapped-on misinterpretations of the "meaning" and "significance" of the equations is the source of all the 'weirdness'".

Relativistic dynamics is nothing more than applying the EMPERICALLY DEVELOPED EQUATIONS (independent of any theories) for the solutions of problems.

Best regards,

Viraj

Israel Perez

Dear Viraj

It is fair to recognize that we are not understanding each other. You have your ideas and based on them you keep attacking and saying that relativity makes tricks, etc. I disagree with this since the theory, within its scope of validity, makes the correct quantitative predictions (although not the most plausible physical interpretations). So this talk has become pointless for me. I do not understand your central point of discussion. I am sorry.

I thank you for your interest.

Best regards

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

1. You have stated to the effect that SRT does not provide "the most plausible (of) physical interpretations". But when I point out and CRITCISE the not plausible interpretations you allege that I 'attack'.

2. I read your essay, rated it and commented on it. I have corresponded with you for well over a month. Still you have not had the courtesy to read and comment on my essay.

3. If you read my essay you would have understood my standpoint on the theory of relativity. It comes directly from the leads of what Einstein has left behind, particularly in his Autobiography. If he was satisfied and thought SRT to be correct and an invincible theory he would not have written: that there is a 'Right Way and we are capable of finding it'. The 'Right Way' he pointed at was to take the analogy between the impossibility of the Perpetuum Mobile and Lorentz Transformation to its logical conclusion, by finding a Universal Principle that is common to all physical processes. My essay concerns the fulfillment of this dream of Einstein.

The greatest tribute one can pay to Einstein is to take his ideas forward so that we transcend SRT, (and not to keep a blind eye to conceptual errors in SRT, bury our heads in the sand and live with SRT).

4. Here is an extract from my essay:

In regard to the fictitious axioms in the foundations of physics Einstein wrote: "If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented (fictitiously), can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay more has the right way any existence outside our illusions? ......". We need to note that in answering the above question , Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas: " ..without a hesitation that there is, in my opinion a right way, and that we are capable of finding it (in the future) ...Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is a realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. (thus quite in contrast to the abstruse mathematical formalisms of SRT and GRT), I am convinced that we can (i.e. WILL be able to) discover by means of purely mathematical constructions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena" (1, p. 398). We must note that Einstein indicates here candidly that RT is directing not quite towards the 'right way' and implies that RT will be surpassed and replaced when the 'right way' is found.

Einstein's view seems to be that Newtonian space-time methodology needs to be replaced, i.e. metaphorically to write its obituary, and new physics needs to be patterned in the same mould as thermodynamics. Einstein wrote: "Newton, forgive me; you found the only way, in your own age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power. The concepts that you created, are even today still guiding our thinking in physics (including RT and QM), although now we know that they will have to be replaced by others (in the future), ..... Consequently, the obituary (of concepts of space-time physics created by Newton) can limit itself in the main to communicating of thoughts which played a considerable role in my endeavours - A theory is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, the more different kinds of things it relates, and more extended its area of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which the classical thermodynamics made upon me. .... I am convinced that, ... it will never be overthrown" (1, p. 33).

We need to take note of Einstein's statement: "the obituary can limit itself ... to ... thoughts which played a considerable role in my endeavours" - Einstein's theories could surpass Newtonian mechanics to the extent they have, because he consciously treated phenomena in general, through the lens of thermodynamics. But unfortunately, his approach has been only a transitional endeavour in between Newtonian foundation and the expanded thermodynamic foundation, since his approach was to draw an analogy between a certain known thermodynamic phenomenon and a mechanical phenomenon (without explaining their physical bases), and inferring from it that both phenomena occurred under the same general principle. Then he claimed this belief warranted justification for him to raise the phenomenon into a kinematic axiom. We can see this logic in the following statement: "The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations, ..... This is a restricting principle for natural laws, comparable to the restricting principle of the non-existence of the perpetuum mobile which underlie thermodynamics" (1, p.57).

Once this parallel between the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile and the Lorentz transformation is discerned, although the physics behind these have not yet been explained, he chose to raise the Lorentz transformation to a postulate:.. "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). His modus operandi was to accept the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile as an empirically verified truth and to postulate that Lorentz transformation in mechanics was analogical to it (without delving into details of its physics of either) and called it a "physical interpretation" of the latter.

While he formulated his relativity theories on a provisional basis, Einstein seems to have been deeply committed to finding a general solution based on the extension of the principles of thermodynamics. The general principle Einstein was desperately searching for (see end note 7) is that whether in thermodynamics or in mechanics, a fraction of energy in action is usurped to form an organic link with the background energy field. Carnot showed that in an ideal engine, there is a loss of a fraction of energy, which prevents all the heat energy produced to be converted to work. This fraction dQ = T2S1 is the product of temperature T2 (intensive component) of background energy, and the entropy S1 (extensive component) of energy in action. In general terms, the fraction of energy dQ usurped to form the organic link with the background is given by the product of the extensive component Ea of the energy in action and the intensive component Ib of the energy of the background. Thus the fraction of energy forming the organic link with the background dQ = Ea x Ib. This explains the physics behind the impossibility of perpetuum mobile and Lorentz transformation. Thus in the motion of a particle (relative to earth), the intensive component of the background energy field is u = earth's orbital velocity (not the velocity of any arbitrary inertial frame as SRT claims). The extensive component of the energy in action is Mvc/c2 (inertia of energy of motion). Hence dQ = (Mv/c).u is usurped to form the organic link with the background leaving Mvc(1 -u/c) for relative motion. This is the physical basis of the Lorentz transformation - see end of this paper".

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: 19_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

George Ellis pointed me to Feynman's lectures, vol. 2 which refer to vol.1. I should stress that my primary concern is not questioning SR but questioning the related pre-determined from eternity to eternity spacetime. Of course, I realized some moot points.

Feynman considered an absolute frame of reference excluded by the MMX. My Fig. 5, Shtyrkov, etc. may give rise to question this. On the other hand, Feynman begun his explanation of SR with discussing convincing experimental results that can be interpreted either with the formalisms by Lorentz and Einstein or ascribed to a wave-like behavior of fast moving particles but not with traditional Newtonian mechanics.

I see already the idea of two moving relative to each other frames of reference along a common line rather unrealistic. The two origins may first come closer to each other and then move in opposite directions. SR calculates an average Doppler effect.

Einstein postulated constancy for the speed of light with the tacit unrealistic assumption that this c refers to the observer.

What about Einstein synchronization, this might indeed be an impossible task. Could you please point me to an explanation how did you manage reloading the preferred (absolute) frame of reference without denying its opposite: Einstein's postulate of relativity? Maybe you can tell me what it means in detail that the laws of physics must not depend on the chosen frame of reference. I know that Einstein followed a suggestion by Poincaré that all physical laws are invariant under Lorentz transformation.

Isn't a rigid frame of reference unphysical because its arbitrary motion would allow transfer of signals faster than light?

Eckard

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

I'm not sure if I got your point. I hope the following comments could be useful. As well, you should read the discussion about absolute and relative motion that I had with Daniel Wagner both here in my entry and his. There I exposed the weaknesses of both approaches.

First of all recall that Einstein assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in all inertial systems of reference. It is said that he considered a particular clock synchronization that left the physical laws invariant under certain transformations (i.e. Lorentz transformations). My reference 17 discusses that the one-way speed of light has not been measured. It also says that to get an accurate clock synchronization it is indispensable to know the one-way speed of light. Thus, it is clear that we are in vicious circle. This technical problem tells us that no experiment can be used to decide in favor of Einstein's theory or any other with different clock synchronization. What we measure is average speeds or round trip speeds. Despite this, any theory should assume that in at least one system of reference Maxwell's laws are valid. This system is the system I called the PSR. Now I explain how the principle of relativity should be understood.

As I argue in my essay, experiments guide us in finding the laws of physics. Experiments represent the "facts", the "observations". But the interpretation of the facts, lately, has become dependent of the theory. An "experimental" fact is nowadays not only an experimental fact but a theoretical fact, a subjective fact because it gains its meaning within the context of a given theoretical and conceptual framework. So, keeping this in mind, we have to understand the following:

Imagine an observer placed at rest in space and let us put a system of reference there which we will call the PSR. This observer wants to find the laws of physics in this system and to do so he has to conduct a series of experiments of several kinds (mechanical, electromagnetic, etc.). After he finishes his experiments he has obtained the data (the facts), he then analyzes the information at hand to find the relationships among the variables. And finally, with a series of assumptions (principles) and his mathematical tools he develops a theory hoping that it will be capable of reproducing the observations. He now wonders which laws of physics would be in another system of reference that moves at constant speed v relative to the PSR. He then builds a ship, put all his instruments in the ship and travels through space at constant speed. He then performs the same experiments as before and repeat the same operations. For his surprise he finds the same correlations and arrived at the same physical laws.Without hesitation he infers that the same laws of nature should be the same in all inertial systems of reference and he proclaims the principle of relativity. In this sense, this is how I argue that the principle of relativity should be understood. The fact that one could not determine the absolute motion of the ship relative to space does not mean that space (or the PSR) does not exist.

If you have noticed, we have another technical problem, the PSR seems to be undetectable although is not physically inconceivable. But as well we have the same problem with the one-way speed of light. This technical issues however should not hold us back from supporting our assumptions, in my case the PSR, in Einstein case, the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. Thus, if you have grasped the sketch you should understand how theories are laid down.

Daryl Janzen attempts recocialition of the PSR with relativity for logical reasons. By contrast, although I also consider the PSR for logical arguments, I do not attempt reconciliation with relativity because this theory, by definition, denies per se the PSR, the PRS is not part of the theory. My idea is then to support or build a new theory that assumes the PSR as a fundamental element. One such theory which I sympathize with is Christov's theory. This theory is still incomplete and some improvements has to be worked out.

There is another difference in the way relativity deals with modeling nature. Relativity assumes that space-time exists independent of matter and fields. Fields and matter filled space-time, i.e., fields and matter are placed IN space-time, and by doing so, they modify it. For this reason, it is said that GR is a background independent theory. In contrast, I follow the opposite view. I assume space (the PSR) as a material fluid and particles and fields are states or excitations of the vacuum. Hence this is a background dependent theory. This view can easily reproduce the relativistic effects and account for many other problems in physics.

As to your last question, I don't understand the relation of a rigid frame of reference with the faster than light signals. Could you elaborate more.

I hope these comments had been useful.

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

Why didn't you quote Christov in your essay if you are sympathizing with his theory?

He wrote: "The Effect of the Relative Motion of Atoms on the Frequency of the Emitted Light and the Reinterpretation of the Ives-Stilwell Experiment" in Found. Phys., 40 (2010), 575-584.

He also wrote what I quoted, and he wrote: "Frame indifferent formulation of Maxwell's elastic-fluid model and the rational continuum mechanics of the electromagnetic field" in www.elsevier.com/locate/mechrescom.

I have to admit that I mistook you. When you defended relativity, you meant the Galilean principle, not Einstein's generalization of it. I only do not yet understand why you seem to question the idea that the PSR is the absolute space. Well there are various alternatives including Pashsky, Rashevski, Marinov, Tangherlini, and Selleri. I have to admit, being not yet sure myself. I naively imagine that Galilei's relativity does not apply for electromagnetic fields propagating into the unlimited space is different from the encapsulated view of Galileo's ship without windows.

You asked why I consider an infinitely extended rigid frame of reference unphysical. I consider even the cosine function and the harmonic oscillator merely approximations to aspects of reality. Imagine a rigid body of 600,000 km length shifted within one second. This would transfer an action twice as fast as light.

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Eckard

I didn't mention Christov's works, because the topic I deal with doesn't demand his citation or quotation.

You: I have to admit that I mistook you. When you defended relativity, you meant the Galilean principle, not Einstein's generalization of it.

This paragraph tells me that you are not understanding my ideas. Your statement is a misunderstanding. One can talk of three principles of relativity: The Galilean principle, the principle of relativity and the generalized principle of relativity. The Galilean principle only applies for Newtonian mechanics. I do not defend the Galilean principle. The fact that I talk about the absolute frame of reference or the PSR does not mean I am talking about the Galilean principle. The second one applies for special relativity and the third one for general relativity. What I support is the idea that the same laws of physics should be find anywhere and at any time, that is, if I carry out an experiment here and right now and somebody else in another part of the universe moving or not relative to me also right now carries out the same experiment, he would find the same laws of physics. This is the generalized principle of relativity. In my essay I argue that there should exist a PSR to which we can relate all motions. But I know that relativity theory is a theory that does not accept PSRs, therefore I have to find another theory where I can put the PSR. This theory is a theory in which we assume that space is a material fluid. Any body in motion relative to this material space undergoes length contraction and time dilation. Christov's theory renames the generalized principle of relativity as the principle of frame indifference because he's dealing with another theory in which there exists a PSR (the material space itself) but the idea of invariance or covariance is the same as in the case of relativity (the laws of physics should be the same for all observers) although the approach he followed is dynamical (as Lorentz did) and not geometrical as relativity does.

You: I only do not yet understand why you seem to question the idea that the PSR is the absolute space. Well there are various alternatives including Pashsky, Rashevski, Marinov, Tangherlini, and Selleri.

These authors also provide a geometrical interpretation of space (an empty arena) and hence their approach doesn't differ considerably from the interpretation of space given by relativity. For instance, Marinov transformations reduce to Tangherlini transformation for a given selection of the constants. From the perspective of Tangherlini theory, it is assumed that space is a geometrical flat empty container (similar to Newtonian space that is mathematically represented by Euclidean geometry) and then a reference frame is placed at rest relative to this space. In this theory this system of reference is the PSR and, similar to SR, the length contraction or time dilation are nothing but kinematical effects. On the contrary, Christov's theory models space as a material fluid, and therefore, in analogy with Lorentz' aether theory, length contraction and time dilation are not kinematical but dynamical effects. Can you see the great difference between both approaches and how reality is modeled in each case?

You: I have to admit, being not yet sure myself. I naively imagine that Galilei's relativity does not apply for electromagnetic fields propagating into the unlimited space is different from the encapsulated view of Galileo's ship without windows.

Indeed, the Galiean principle of relativity is incompatible with the laws of electrodynamics. Here there is no point of discussion.

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

The number of postings in your thread reached 255 and fell back to 252. Perhaps someone reported posts as inappropriate.

I did not yet reply to your last posting because I am still trying to understand some tricky questions.

Eckard

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

I think you are right, I'm gonna check it. Thanks for let it me know.

In relation to how space is modeled in relativity my argument is simple. In relativity space is not modeled as a material continuous fluid, instead it is a container, a flexible empty mesh represented by the metric tensor, and matter and fields fill it. If you check Einstein's field equations, on the left hand side we have the geometrical part and on the right one we have the matter part. So, matter is put on space and given the distribution of matter space warps. Recall that in relativity one still has space-time even if the right hand side is zero. In the XIX century physicists thought also that space was empty (represented by Euclidean geometry) and then fill it with particles and fields (the aether field, the gravitational field) to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and heat phenomena. As you can notice, this way of dealing with reality is basically the same as it is done in relativity, that is, space fill with matter and fields. In contrast, there is the opposite view, space is a continuous material fluid (according to the investigations of Christov this fluid, that he called the metacontinuum, could be either a liquid or a solid depending on certain values of certain constants) and particles (in fact, more properly solitons) and fields are excitations of this medium, these objects do not fill space, instead they are states of it. This is the great difference. Christov's theory is a theory of this kind governed by the laws of mechanics of continuous media. This view has profound implications for physics. So profound that it challenges well established facts (such as the the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory) but at the same time offers much simpler solutions. Of course, there is still a lot of work to do to get satisfactory results but the important point here is that principles have been identified and they are quite solid.

Best Regards

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

Congratulation to the jury. Could the paradigm shift that Edwin expects rather be a shift backward in some sense? Wouldn't this fit well to the question "Which basic assumptions are wrong?"? While I did not quite understand what serious error for instance Spekkens, Ellis and Dribus referred to until the jury commented on their essays, your message was rather clear to me: The denial of an absolute frame of reference is untenable.

Having perhaps successfully dealt with the reason for the denial, I hope you will agree with me on that the expectation by Michelson was not just half but completely wrong from the very beginning. Please find my file "mistake" attached at 1364. I am curious.

Best Regards,

Eckard

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

Perhaps you should reread my essay, in particular the first sections. There I argue that sometimes in order to make progress in physics one has to go backwards and reconsider past assumptions. If those assumptions solve the problems we have NOW, they are very welcomed in a science. The PSR, as I argue in my essay, is not at variance with the principle of relativity. So, time will tell whether it is useful or not. The theory is yet under construction.

As to whether I agree or not with the expectation of Michelson, this is a matter of perspective. If we judged the MMX in retrospective I would agree with you, but we should not forget that at that time Maxwell's theory was not generally accepted. It was not even complete by the 1880s and it only started to gain recognition only after the work of Hertz in 1887-8. There were other competing theories and therefore there was a lot of confusion on the interpretation of the experiment. If we study the problem in great detail the calculations become much more complicated than those found in your paper. You may wish to check the article I wrote on the MMX, there you may find some information and references with more comprehensive calculations that may answer your inquiries.

From my view, the MMX is an excellent academic example to understand the physics at a deeper level. I had studied this problem for some time and my article summarizes the most important findings. So, from my part I have nothing more to say about it, instead it is time to move on. As I said, the result of the experiment (whether negative or positive) does not rule out the assumption of the PSR. Keep in mind that since we do not know the reality, we have to make some times metaphysical assumptions. Therefore they are far beyond direct experimental verification.

Best regards

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

Do we really need metaphysical assumptions if there is simply an overlooked logical mistake is to be found? Thank you for your hint to "The physics surrounding the Michelson-Morley experiment and a new aether theory". You did not yet find out the crucial mistake I tried to explain in "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley". Please read my arguments again, get aware of the decisive steps and reconsider your immature rejection of them. Then I am ready to discuss with you questions that are of secondary importance.

Incidentally, while you quoted 106 references, I am looking in vain for any hint to Paul Marmet who like you preferred the consideration of elementary waves instead of rays in order to calculate the tilt. I guess, you did not even carefully deal with Michelson and Morley 1887 including a supplement that might render the approach by Marmet and by you pointless.

Don't you in Mexico have access to Lorentz 1886 in Dutch original or in French translation? Did you read Michelson and Morley, Am. Journ. Sci. 32(1886)377-386?

Best regards,

Eckard

You were certainly not aware of the three papers by Feist.

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

The decisive step is missing after calculating the angle of rotation described already by M&M in their supplement. When I skimmed your lengthy paper for the first time, I had overlooked that you referred to that supplement. This does not matter. You made then the same mistake as did M&M and perhaps everybody else since then.

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

Perhaps you need some time to check "The mistake by Michelson and Morley". Did you find an error in my hopefully compelling reasoning? Originally the MMX was merely of secondary interest to me. None of the recent papers including yours, Christov's, Shtyrkov's (in Russian), Marmet's, Munera's, Feist's, Gift's, Cahill and Kitto's, Janssen and Stachel's, ... got aware of what I am claiming to have found out simply by consequent reasoning. Should I question my sanity for that reason?

If I understood Peter Jackson and Paul correctly then they consider me correct.

If I am correct, and Michelson's expectation was wrong from the very beginning, at least with vacuum, then I agree with Marmet concerning the due consequences. I tend to agree with you and also with Cahill on that the absolute space was not refuted by any MMX.

In principle, I am open minded for new ideas like your soliton space of four spatial dimensions. Perhaps my notion of a soliton is outdated. If I recall correctly, a soliton is a self-reinforcing solitary wave (a wave packet or pulse) that maintains its shape while it travels at constant speed. In that sense a photon seems to be as fictitious as a phonon, correct?

While I was already aware of Olaf Dreyer, I just found speculations in his essay, nothing tangible. Of course, Cahill's foam is even more vague to me.

Regards,

Eckard

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

I'm sorry for not replying soon. These days I've overwhelmed with my duties here at the university. Your inquiries require some time to be properly addressed. I'lll get back to you asap.

Regards

Israel

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

You: The desperate search for any explanation to the unexpected result led to the hypothesis by FitzGerald, by Lorentz, and by others of a length contraction to the arm ACA with far reaching implications...

Length contraction followed naturally from the idea that the spherical field of an electron at rest, turns out to be an ellipse when the charge moves. This was calculated in 1887-8 by Oliver Heaviside who was collaborating with FitzGerald. FitzGerald realized that if matter is composed of charges and their fields contracts in the direction of motion then an ensemble of charges (a body) should contract. Larmor was also in contact with FitzGerald and arrived at the same conclusion in his work published in 1900. Lorentz, for the same reasons as FitzGerald, arrived at the same conclusion independently some years later 1902. Marmet, instead, argued that bodies should expand. This conclusion I found it totally flawed.

You: The decisive step... ...You made then the same mistake as did M&M and perhaps everybody else since then.

I didn't make a mistake. The calculations are correct but they are restricted to the illustration of the most relevant aspects of the experiment. The article clearly states that I'll be dealing with the physics surrounding the MMX, not detailed calculations. The complete calculations should include gravitational and temperature effects, two angles (theta and phi) defining the orientation of the planes of the interferometer relative to the motion of the earth (see H. Munera et al., Mazur et al.), the refraction of the light when they pass through the mirrors, the calculations of the times from the half-silvered mirror to the detector, etc. If one consider all of this, we would have at least three kinematical variables, namely: v, theta and phi and one equation. Therefore the equation becomes unsolvable (theta and phi basically represent the motions of the earth), thus ruling out the main aim of the experiment. Capria et al. carried out more comprehensive calculations considering the propagation of light even from the half-silvered mirror to the detector (1992MMCapria_FoundPhys_24_885).

You: Did you find an error in my hopefully compelling reasoning? I think so. See below.

Should I question my sanity for that reason? Perhaps.

You: If I am correct, and Michelson's expectation was wrong from the very beginning, at least with vacuum, then I agree with Marmet concerning the due consequences. I tend to agree with you and also with Cahill on that the absolute space was not refuted by any MMX.

I: As I argue in my essay, whether the result of the experiment were positive or negative, the outcome wouldn't be evidence of the existence or non existence of absolute space. According to the scientific beliefs of that time Michelson and Morley naively (as judged in retrospective) thought that the absolute space could have been detected.

I don't have much time to reproduce your calculations, so, I'm assuming that they are correct. For me, it suffices to follow your rationale which is the most important part. Now, I'll give you my comments on your "Mistake".

If I understood well, you found an additional correction to the transversal rays which disagrees with that one calculated by Michelson and Morley in 1886-7. According to you, the time require for the ray in the transversal direction to complete a journey from the half-silvered mirror A to the mirror B and back to A is given as: t_ABA = (2d/c)/(1+r^2). Whereas in the longitudinal direction the round trip time is: t_ACA = 2d/c(1-r^2). According to your words: "=is too small as to be measured. This explains the null result." Actually, I don't understand why you make such affirmation.

If we carry out the time difference between the two rays in those journeys, neglecting terms of 4 order, we'll find that: t_ABA-t_ACA =(2d/c)/(1+r^2)-2d/c(1-r^2)=(2d/c)2r^2 (twice the accepted value). If we considered a 90 deg rotation the maximum time difference would be the double of the previous result, that is: (8d/c)r^2. This is 4 times larger than the value find in most textbooks. So, I don't understand why you affirm that the result is too small.

Now, in the case of the MMX the arms of the interferometer are of the same length, however, for the Kennedy-Thorndike the length of the arms is different, and in this case your calculation would not account for the null result. Moreover, one has to consider the angular dependence. Recall that the apparatus of 1887 was able to rotate. This rotation will induce a phase shift (see mazur and capria et al.), whose contribution to the phase shift is of more relevance than the fringe shift caused by the variations of the speed of the earth.

You: In that sense a photon seems to be as fictitious as a phonon, correct?

You: You were certainly not aware of the three papers by Feist.

No, I was not aware of Feist's papers and not of many other authors, it's impossible to be aware of everybody. So, why do you make emphasis on that?

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

You made a first decisive mistake when you wrote "t_ABA-t_ACA =(2d/c)/(1+r^2)-2d/c(1-r^2)=(2d/c)2r^2". Let's focus on the essence by setting ct_ABA/2d=B and ct_ACA/2d=C. Then I actually calculated B-C = (1+r^2) - 1/(1-r^2) while you wrote B-C = 1/(1+r^2) - 1/(1-r^2).

Do you see your mistake? I wrote 1+r^2, not 1/(1+r^2). My rationale is correct. Maybe I am not insane.

You made a second decisive while unfortunately rather common mistake when you wrote: "whether the result of the experiment were positive or negative, the outcome wouldn't be evidence of the existence or non existence of absolute space".

Actually, the unexpected negative (null) outcome of the MMX was considered compelling evidence against the existence of an absolute space alias common frame of reference alias aether at rest. If the MMX was ill-designed from the very beginning - as I am showing - then it does not preclude an absolute space. Of course, this is no evidence for the existence.

It is well known even to me that the idea of length contraction was inspired by calculations of Oliver Heaviside. Have you references that show he supported the length contraction hypothesis?

While I found more weak points in your welcome reply, I would like to suggest focusing on the essentials.

I consider Feist's measurement essential as long as it is neither refuted nor explained in terms of SR.

Regards,

Eckard

Israel Perez

Dear Eckard

In your document you wrote:

t_ABA = (2d/c) sqrt(1+r^2) sqrt(1+r^2) = (2d/c)/(1+r^2)... So you made the mistake not me.

Second, you still need to consider the angles which evidently refute the main aim of the experiment. In this sense, it's clear that the expectations in the outcome of the MMX are completely wrong. So I agree with you.

Third, again, I repeat that according to the beliefs of that time they thought that the experiment would have proved the existence of absolute space. So, in this sense I also agree with you, but you are judging the facts in retrospective with the knowledge we have of the experiment and of relativity, at that time things looked different.

You: It is well known even to me that the idea of length contraction was inspired by calculations of Oliver Heaviside. Have you references that show he supported the length contraction hypothesis?

Checked a book called the Maxwellians written by Bruce J. Hunt. There you'll find all the information. I don't remember whether he supported length contraction or not. Oliver Heaviside, Fitzgerald and Oliver Lodge were working very close... Heaviside talked to FitzGerald about his calculations, later when they tried to explain the outcome of the MMX, it was clear that objects should contract.

By the way, it was Heaviside first and Fitzgerald who realized that the speed of light must be a limiting speed.

Regards

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Israel,

You: "the expectations in the outcome of the MMX are completely wrong. So I agree with you." Thank you for confirming my sanity and also for making me aware of my typo that unfortunately mislead you.

Perhaps I am the first one who understandably revealed a if not the most serious mistake in science. While Marmet made me aware of the issue, his attempt was not yet convincing. In "the general science journal" a Valeri Petrov wrote "The Main Mistake of Michelson". He was obviously wrong. When Christov wrote "Much ado about nil", he could also not even persuade me.

Regards,

Eckard

Edwin Klingman

Congratulations Israel,

I'm happy to see that you and Daryl were recognized. I hope your ideas gain increasing recognition. This is a great start!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Israel Perez

Dear Edwin

If you are happy, imagine how I feel!! Indeed, Daryl also made it to the first places, I'm very glad that our ideas have been recognized. I also hope this is the beginning of a paradigm shift. Thanks for our our discussion, I know that your work has also an important role to play in this change. Congratulations too!!

Best Regards

Israel

[deleted]

Dear Dr. Israel,

congratulations on getting your ideas recognized. Well-deserved and well-done! I remember you had doubts that your essay may not receive the recognition it deserves for being too controversial. I am very glad that your fears were not realized.

I very much enjoyed our discussions, during which I learned a lot. Thank you and all the best to you!

Israel Perez

Dear MV Vasilyeva

Thank you for your comments, they are very encouraging. Indeed, my fears were not realized. I am quite happy for this. I also enjoyed reading your essay and our discussion, unquestionably we all learned a lot during this contest.

So far, I'm attempting to build a new and stronger theory. The central idea is to have space as a material continuum (of 4D time they are in total 5D). This represents a privileged system of reference. As you pointed out in your essay many problems are very easy to understand and solve. The catch here also is to consider that the real physical entities are not particles and waves but solitons. It has been mathematically shown that solitons reproduce all properties of waves and particles such as spin, charge, interference, etc. So there is no need to deal with two conceptions and talk about the wave-particle duality. Solitons and fields can be seen as excitations and states of space (3D), respectively. This is a radically different view of modelling the universe. In the current view, space-time is assumed as of different nature to particles and fields. Perhaps you may be interested in reading the work of another winner which has a deep connection with your work and mine. His essay it is very illustrative on how nature is modelled in current theories. He proposes also modelling particles, waves and fields as states and excitations of the vacuum or a background, however, although he considers the vacuum as having internal structure he does not assume it as a material substance.

Not on but of.

Olaf Dreyer

all the best

Israel

P.S.: By the way, many people wondered about your name. I'll be glad if you could tell me your name. Thanks

« Previous Page Next Page »