Essay Abstract

The founding assumptions or postulates of Relativity and some of the resulting consequences confound the logic and common sense. In Relativity the Newtonian notions of absolute motion, absolute time, and absolute reference frame have been replaced with the Einsteinian notions of relative motion, relative time, and inertial reference frames in relative motion. This relativity dominated viewpoint has effectively abandoned any critical study or advanced research in the detailed properties and processes of physical space for advancement of Fundamental Physics. In this essay I show that the founding assumptions and postulates of Relativity are fundamentally wrong. To reinforce this argument two practically doable experiments are proposed for detection of absolute motion and establishment of a universal or absolute reference frame. After establishing the Newtonian absolute space, we can focus on the physical properties of space and examine the formation and existence of matter and fields in this physical space. Feasibility of such an advanced study of physical space as an elastic continuum is also discussed. It is shown that all forms of stable and unstable matter particles and fields exist as localized dynamic stress/strain bubbles in the elastic space continuum.

Author Bio

Gurcharn S. Sandhu is an engineer by profession but a physicist by pursuit. After his M. Tech. from Cranfield Institute of Technology (UK) he rendered a long distinguished service in the Defense Research and Development Organization of India. Fundamental research in physics initially started as his hobby but gradually turned into a passion. In pursuit of this passion he obtained premature retirement from service and started devoting full time on fundamental physics research. He has published a book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields", which contains the gist of his research work on physical space as an elastic continuum.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Sri Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,

I was impressed by your paper both for your determined effort to escape what you term the 'mesmerizing effects of Relativity', and with the detailed technical approach you have presented. I have reached a somewhat similar conclusion about physical reality, local interactions and the disservice Einstein has done physics in creating Special Relativity. He could have just emphasized Lorentz' and others' ideas, but instead created this very specialized world of his where measurement is absolute (c constant) but the Universe is relative. It worked but has created many complications...

My work is qualitative compared to yours, and I need to re-read your work especially about proposed experiments. Where I differ from your approach is your conclusion that the universal medium is elastic and perhaps continuous. I rather think of it as having varying angular momentum at local discrete dielectric points making up the ether lattice. I would be honored if you read and comment on my fqxi essay Fix Physics! , and also Beautiful Universe Theory on which it is based.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir Tamari

    Thanks for your appreciation of my essay.

    I don't expect all authors in this contest to completely agree on any one point of view. Small little contributions from many like-minded authors can definitely make a difference in the emergence of a consolidated un-orthodox viewpoint to remove some of the major weaknesses, contradictions and fantasies from current Physics.

    For evolving such consolidated viewpoint, the foremost requirement in my opinion is to distinguish between the physical entities and abstract mathematical notions. I am not against mathematics, but I am against allowing a mix-up between abstract mathematical notions and physical reality. For example I cannot accept 4D spacetime model of GR as a physical entity that can be curved or deformed. I cannot accept the mathematical construct of a metric associated with a coordinate manifold as a physical entity. In my opinion it is absolutely essential to distinguish between the mathematical notion of coordinate space and the physical space.

    Finally, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

    With best wishes

    G S Sandhu

    Dear Vladimir Tamari,

    Congratulations for your excellent essay, I especially enjoyed your diagrams. I liked your analogy with a modern building, very true. I also liked your style and skepticism. However, I cannot agree with your starting assumptions in your Beautiful Universe.

    Overall an excellent essay.

    Best Wishes

    G S Sandhu

    • [deleted]

    • Post #5

    GS Sandhu,

    The following paragraph caught my eye so I will reread your essay in closer detail:

    "A closed region of Elastic Space Continuum in a strained state, satisfying the equilibrium equations & boundary conditions, may be termed as a strain bubble, provided the total strain energy content in this closed region is time invariant constant."

    I believe that we may come to the same conclusions through different routes. I think your section 5 can easily be supported by a simple change in General Relativity. Any comments you may have on my essay are appreciated.

    Regards,

    Jeff Baugher

    Dear Jeff Baugher ,

    Thanks for your positive comments.

    The sentence which you have quoted represents the core area of the proposed research in physical space. In my opinion there is a tremendous scope for advanced future research in coming decades to study and understand all physical phenomenon as embedded in physical space continuum in the form of strain waves and packets.

    I shall make appropriate comments on your essay in your essay thread.

    Regards

    G S Sandhu

      • [deleted]

      • Post #7

      GS Sandhu,

      I am examining your paper published in Physics Essays more in depth. You state: "The GR is based on Riemannian 3D space in which the points of the space continuum are not considered invariant." Do you not mean a 4D space where the 3 spatial bases are not invariant? If not, can you explain more in depth?

      (I accidentally first posted this on my own thread page instead of the appropriate place, which is here.)

      Regards,

      Jeff

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      GS,

      Just to make sure, your equation (24) in your Physics Essays paper should have the mass term >>1, correct?

      Regards,

      Jeff Baugher

      Dear Dear Jeff Baugher ,

      Kindly first study 'Invariance of Arc Element ds' in section II and then study 'Metric Representation of Continuum Deformation' in section III. Thereafter when you study 'Deformable Riemannian 3-D Space' in section III it will become clear that "In GR, the coefficients of metric tensor hij are obtained from Einstein's Field Equations (EFE) and the Riemann curvature tensor Rijkl computed from hij is non-zero. On the other hand, the Riemann tensor computed from the metric tensor gij of the Euclidean space, is always zero. As such the Riemannian 3D space of GR is defined to be a deformable space which is generally perceived as curved space. Albert Einstein had stated that 'the Space-time continuum of the General Theory of Relativity is not a Euclidean Continuum'."

      Further, the mass term 2GM/c2r in equation (24) is

        (Sorry, my previous post got truncated due to some technical problem in much less than symbol.)

        Further, the mass term 2GM/c2r in equation (24) is much less than 1 for studying the induced strain in the weak field limit. This is just for illustration of the induced deformations produced by GR if spacetime is assumed to be a physical entity. Finally it is proved that the 4D spacetime manifold cannot be a physical entity.

        Regards

        G S Sandhu

        • [deleted]

        • Post #11

        GS,

        I will study the sections you are speaking of. As for equation (24), can you work out how you got your answer? I am not algebraically following you. I can't get your answer. If 2GM/c2r1 then [math]2e_{rr}=\frac{1}{1-2GM/c^2r}-1\approx -\frac{1}{2GM/c^2r}-\frac{2GM/c^2r}{2GM/c^2r}= \frac{-1-2GM/c^2r}{2GM/c^2r}\approx\frac{-GM/c^2r}{GM/c^2r}[/math] so that [math]e_{rr}\approx -\frac{1}{2}[/math] and doesn't work either to get your answer.

        Regards,

        Jeff Baugher

        Dear Jeff Baugher ,

        You are getting wrong answer because you are assuming 2GM/c2r in equation (24) as much greater than 1. I have clarified in my last post that as shown in the paper 2GM/c2r is much less than 1. Then through binomial expansion of the first term we get on RHS,

        (1-2GM/c2r)-1 - 1 = (1+2GM/c2r) - 1 = 2GM/c2r

        Regards

        G S Sandhu

        • [deleted]

        • Post #13

        GS,

        Sorry, forum was leaving out my other equation. I was getting [math]2e_{rr}\approx\frac{1}{1}-1=o[/math]. Even if you choose [math]2e_{rr}=\frac{1 \oplus 2GM/c^2r}{1-(2GM/c^2r)^2}-1 \approx 1\oplus 2GM/c^2r-1[/math]

        how are you then justifying that this equation isn't still approximately 0 instead of GM/c^2r if 2GM/c2r

        Dear Jeff Baugher,

        As I have already explained a number of times, when 2GM/c2r is much less than 1, the expression

        2err = (1-2GM/c2r)-1 - 1 = (1 2GM/c2r) - 1 = 2GM/c2r

        and not zero for the simple reason that when the term 2GM/c2r is much less than 1, higher powers of (2GM/c2r) can be neglected but not the first power or the term 2GM/c2r itself. This term itself will be zero only if the mass M=0, in which case there is no gravitational field.

        Jeff, I suggest for any further clarification of doubts on any of my papers referred in the subject essay, you may contact me by e-mail given in my essay. Let us use this forum for discussion of the contest essays only.

        I am also deleting some of the earlier posts which were truncated due to technical problems with some of the mathematical symbols.

        Regards

        G S Sandhu

        Dear Jeff Baugher,

        As I have already explained a number of times, when 2GM/c2r is much less than 1, the expression

        2err = (1-2GM/c2r)-1 - 1 = (1 2GM/c2r) - 1 = 2GM/c2r

        and not zero for the simple reason that when the term 2GM/c2r is much less than 1, higher powers of (2GM/c2r) can be neglected but not the first power or the term 2GM/c2r itself. This term itself will be zero only if the mass M=0, in which case there is no gravitational field.

        Jeff, I suggest for any further clarification of doubts on any of my papers referred in the subject essay, you may contact me by e-mail given in my essay. Let us use this forum for discussion of the contest essays only.

        I am also deleting some of the earlier posts which were truncated due to technical problems with some of the mathematical symbols.

        Regards

        G S Sandhu

        • [deleted]

        • Post #16

        I reread your essay.

        It is interesting to consider what is the strength of the relativity compared with the Poincaré theory, or Umov theory (I don't know this interesting story): what is the characteristic that help the human revolution? I think that your reasoning is right: the strength of the revolution is in the world of ideas because we have not maps (mathematical description) of the physic frontier.

        I think that the abstract mathematical construct like wave function (visible interference fringe) and four dimensional coordinate (perihelion precession of Mercury) have a direct observable measure but I think that your idea is more deep: I understand that now, in this age, we use a construct that must change in some thousand years (in an other mathematical frame), with a simpler description that is true like this (if it is so, that is interesting).

        When you say that the laws of Nature exist independently from the coordinate system, then you say an interesting thing (that I don't notice in the first reading): the laws are true for each system, considering all the transformation, and apparent forces.

        I have ever used a different synchronization, using the reflections time along AB, then I must to make some calculation to verify all (I understand that in [9] c+Uab is an approximation, because the velocity cannot be greater of c).

        I voted your essay some day ago, like all the other, but I make a quickly read: each essay merit a reading for the innovative idea, but my vote are not ever generous.

        Saluti

        Domenico

        Dear G S Sandhu

        Ron Hatch holds views quite similar to yours on inertial reference frames, Galilean velocity addition and a compressible ether with stress and strain.

        In his seventies now, Ron is a GPS consultant and is probably still part of the company he co-founded. He is an engineer with a string of accomplishments without an advanced degree.

        Ron had a website with his papers, but took it down after Gravity Probe B did not confirm a result he had predicted. As I recall it had to do with gyroscope precession. My impression was that his prediction was made rashly. From what little I understand, the effect would only be of second-order and should be unobservable.

        Ron is a proponent of an exponential metric which is the subject of my essay. By the way, I doubt if he believes a metric has any existence beyond mathematics any more than I do.

        Hatch presumes from the beginning an exponential "scale factor" which functionally replaces the metric in simple situations like free fall. The purpose of my essay is to derive the exponential metric from Newtonian potential energy and special relativity. Special relativity and the corresponding part of what Hatch calls Modified Lorentian Ether Theory (MLET) give the same result for the relevant quantities.

        Thank you very much for your comment on Ernst Fischer's essay. You exposed a problem with balancing the energy for Mach's principle. To me energy is of primary importance and I like to investigate possibilities - even if they might involve spooky action at a distance.

        All the best

        Colin

          • [deleted]

          • Post #18

          Dear Sandhu,

          Your work is interesting; mostly I agree with your critics. There are some points as well (on SR), on which I have some different view (particularly, I see M-r Minkowski more "guilty" than Einstein) Nevertheless, it seems just impossible to discuss it right here because the deal is about "so heavy" theme that requires pages and time.

          On W=mc^2. It is more important for me that Einstein have realized/interpreted right cognitive meaning of it (in mine opinion). Who have deduced it first - there are different views that I cannot exclude.

          Regards,

          George

          Dear Colin,

          Yes, I have glanced through a number of Ron Hatch's papers and agree that his views are quite similar to mine in many respects. However, he could not break off from the mesmerizing influence of Relativity and has been focusing on its modifications. I have particularly noted his remark, "While it is true that there is no measurement which can be used to distinguish the absolute ether frame from any other inertial frame,..". In this regard, I wonder if you could forward a copy of my contest essay, "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space" to Ron Hatch to show that I have proposed not one but two simple doable tests for detection of absolute reference frame.

          All the best

          G S Sandhu

          Hello G.S.

          Very good essay. Thanks.

          The one thing I like of A.E. is his approach to see the truth of more than one observer. To me SR is about that.

          It is an observer dilemma and not a physical dilemma.

          A problem to me in GR is C. The idea of a vacuum is false. It is just an assumption. Also in outer space (seen from off earth) there is no real vacuum.

          Another problem with SR, but also in other theories, like the one you mentioned, is C2. The squaring is derived from the calculation but not taken into account as number. Even when C is constant and absolute the final conclusion should be: C2 = C, like 1^2 equals 1. Because this is left out, C2 should be seen like a nominator of dimension, by which C2 is a field instead of a direction (Line).

          Well, enough. I think in coming time a lot more physicists will break down the holy grail of A.E and his SR. Your thesis is a good start.

          Congratulations.

          with warm regards

          Jos Hoebe