A discussion related to the uniqueness of the velocity of Light

European Journal of Physics, 2008

This work ends a trilogy devoted to a journey into the foundations of special relativity. The first paper debated the meaning of the constancy of the twoway speed of light and its close relation to the conceptualization of time. The second one addressed the question of the possible constancy of the oneway speed of light and the trivial-but, unfortunately, even now somewhat controversial-question of the compatibility between the assumption of a special system of reference and Einstein's special relativity. The present study deals with the principle of relativity. Its historical evolution is reviewed and a 'weak' formulation is defended. It is emphasized that many assertions usually associated with special relativity, such as the 'relativity of time dilation' and 'relativity of space contraction' are indeed philosophical statements, as it has been established already by several authors in the past. Nonetheless, most teachers and scientists still believe nowadays they are implied by the theory and by the group property of the Lorentz transformation. This is by no means so, as it is reviewed and elucidated with the simple example on space contraction. It is argued that the lack of knowledge of the true value of the one-way speed of light in empty space leaves the theory undetermined. Einstein's special relativity corresponds to a simple and very elegant solution to this problem, allowing the study of relative motion without any concern with the study of absolute motion, which is considered to be superfluous. However, its standard interpretation is minimalist and even misleading. A large number of researchers have discussed this question, mostly within the conventionality of simultaneity thesis. The typical formulation of this thesis provides some new physical insight and points out the problem, but does not solve it. In contrast, it often leads to a labyrinth of difficult language which is herein clarified.

Il Nuovo Cimento B, 1976

SSRN Electronic Journal

Humans need the entity of Space to perceive relative positions between objects. Humans also need the entities of Space and Time to calculate values that Humans attribute to Motions, such as Velocity or Acceleration. The entities of Space and Time are also the entities that compose the four-dimensional Interwoven Space/Time entity, introduced by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, which provided an explanation of the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies. However, although the notions of Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, do provide the significant explanation of the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies, via Einstein’s General Relativity theory, the notions of Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, are not sufficient for providing explanations to additional similar unanswered questions, such as : what is the origin of the attraction or the repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies? Or, why the velocity of Light, measured by Humans, always results in a constant value and the maximum velocity that Humans can measure? This paper presents the following prediction: Electric (or Magnetic) Fields are forms of Accelerations, like the Gravitational Field, which is already recognized as a form of Acceleration. This prediction also leads to the following thesis: Changes and Movements are the result of Interactions between Energies, and the entities of Space and Time are not entities that exist. The entities of Space and Time are notions (or entities), invented by Humans, because Humans need such notions to perceive Changes and Motions. For some Interactions between Energies, which result in Changes or Motions, Humans can attribute, to these Interactions, attributes of Space and Time, which will assist in providing explanations to why these Changes or Motions are the result of these Energies Interactions. However, this paper predicts, that different sets of Interactions between Energies, should be assigned separate and independent attributes of Space and Time, different and independent from the Space and the Time attributes, assigned to other sets of Interactions between Energies, to provide an explanation for the origin of motions which are yet unexplained, such as: what is the origin of the attraction or the repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies? 2 Because different and independent Space and Time attributes should be assigned to different sets of Interactions between Energies, then, Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, cannot exist, because the above implies, that there should be multiple, independent notions of Space, and multiple, independent notions of Time, and not just one universal Space entity, and just one universal Time entity, as Humans perceive the Space and the Time entities. By abandoning the conclusion that the entities of Space and Time exist, and by concluding that Changes and Motions are only the results of Interactions between Energies, the origin of attraction or repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies can be explained, in addition to the explanation, already provided by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, relating to the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies. Also, by abandoning the conclusion that the entities of Space and Time exist, and by concluding that Changes and Motions are only the results of Interactions between Energies, a possible partial, tentative explanation might be also provided to the question: why the velocity of Light, measured by Humans, always results in a constant value and the maximum velocity that Humans can measure? The prediction that the entities of Space and Time do not really exist sounds as an extraordinary, unbelievable, and out of line statement, at first. This is because, as presented above, the notions of Space and Time are crucial notions, which Humans need them, to perceive, understand and calculate Motions and Changes. However, this paper also proposes a relatively simple experiment, which if implemented, and its results will be successful, as this paper predicts, this will either validate or disprove, what is presented in this paper.

An extensive review of Einstein's theory of special relativity and his writings from today's scientific and philosophical perspectives found that at the turn of the 20th century, the scientific and philosophical views were not sufficiently developed to understand the problems that physicists faced and that Einstein tried to solve with his theory. Regardless how brilliant a scientist he was, in his pursuit, Einstein was guided by incorrect philosophical views; views prevalent at that time. These views misled him into an incorrect method and unrealistic theory with circular definitions, inconsistencies in the explanations and principles that contradict those developed from the empirical evidence. In particular, this study found that neither Einstein nor Poincaré expressed sufficiently the " inertial frames of reference " (coordinate systems) in their respective relativity principles. They expressed them in terms of the uniform movement of translation instead of absence of external forces. Because of that they both overlooked that fields generated in one frame of reference cause forces at a distance in the other frames of reference turning them into noninertial ones. Thus, their respective principles of relativity cannot be valid for field-based processes when field is generated outside of the frame of reference. Einstein's use of his relativity principle for conditions when it cannot be valid, in combination with an incorrect idealistic ontological view of the term " Law of Nature " and insufficient rationalistic understanding of the term " time, " misled him into an incorrect method of developing his theory and to incorrect inferences of the other principles and concepts of this theory. Thus, the foundations of Einstein's theory of special relativity, his two postulates (principle of relativity and the invariance of velocity of light) as well as the relativity of simultaneity cannot be any longer justified. With that, Einstein's attempt to unify light and electro-magnetism with mechanics, his concept of light, space, time and the whole theory of relativity with its other consequences cannot correctly represent the realities of the physical world. Apart from the philosophical, conceptual and logical problems of this theory, the invariance of velocity of light is in serious need for the experimental verification or refutation. Although the technology of Einstein's time was insufficient to carry out such test, it is technologically feasible to do so today. Therefore, it is recommended, and it should be of the utmost importance, for physicists to carry out such a test today. V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx. Résumé: Un examen approfondi de la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein et de ses e ´crits, réalisé au travers des connaissances scientifiques et philosophiques actuelles, montre qu'a ` l'orée du 20 ième siècle, les visions scientifiques et philosophiques n'e ´taient pas suffisamment développées pour comprendre les problèmes auxquels les physiciens faisaient face alors quand Einstein essayait de les résoudre avec sa théorie. Quand bien même il fut un brillant scientifique, Einstein e ´tait guidé par une approche philosophique incorrecte, approche qui e ´tait courante a ` l'e ´poque. L'environnement philosophique d'alors l'a amené a ` développer une méthode incorrecte et une théorie irréaliste basée sur des assertions, des explications inconsistantes et des principes qui contredisent ceux développés a ` partir de l'e ´vidence empirique. Cette e ´tude montre, en particulier que ni Albert Einstein ni Henri Poincaré n'ont suffisamment approfondi les " référentiels inertiels " dans leurs respectifs principes de la relativité. Ils les ont définis par le mouvement de translation uniforme au lieu de les définir par l'absence de forces extérieures. Pour cette raison, ils ont tous les deux négligé le fait que des champs générés dans un cadre de référence provoquent des forces a ` distance dans les autres cadres de référence les transformant en noninertiels. Ainsi leurs respectifs principes de la relativité ne peuvent e ˆtre valides pour des processus basés sur le champ quand le champ est généré en dehors du cadre de référence. L'utilisation par Einstein de ses principes de la relativité dans des conditions qui ne peuvent e ˆtre validées, en combinaison avec une vision ontologique incorrecte et idéaliste du terme " Loi de la Nature " et une compréhension rationnelle a) pkos40@gmail.com 0836-1398/2014/27(3)/411/37/$25.00 V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication 411 PHYSICS ESSAYS 27, 3 (2014) insuffisante du terme " Temps " , l'amenèrent a ` développer sa théorie au moyen d'une méthode incorrecte et tirer des conclusions erronées sur les autres principes et concepts de sa théorie. Ainsi, les bases de la théorie d'Einstein sur la relativité restreinte, ses deux postulats (principe de la relativité et l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière) ainsi que la relativité de la simultanéité ne peuvent plus e ˆtre justifiés. Avec cela, la tentative d'Einstein d'unifier lumière et e ´lectromagnétisme avec la mécanique, son concept sur la lumière, l'espace, le temps et toute la théorie sur la relativité y compris ses autres conséquences ne peuvent pas représenter les réalités du monde physique. Mis a ` part les problèmes philosophique, conceptuel et logique de sa théorie, l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière a un sérieux besoin d'une vérification ou réfutation expérimentale. Mais si la technologie au temps d'Einstein e ´tait insuffisante pour mener a ` bien un tel test, c'est techniquement faisable de nos jours. C'est pourquoi, il est conseillé aux physiciens, et c'est de la plus haute importance, de procéder a ` ce test aujourd'hui.

Applied Physics Research, 2018

In the thought experiment in this paper, we consider inertial frames M and A moving at constant velocity relative to each other. First, a light signal is emitted from inertial frame M toward inertial frame A when the time on a clock in inertial frame M is 1 (s). In the scenario of this paper, that light arrives at inertial frame A when time on the clock in A is 2 (s). Next, the situation is reversed, and a light signal is emitted from inertial frame A toward inertial frame M when the time in inertial frame A is 1 (s). That light arrives at inertial frame M when the time in M is 2 (s). According to the special theory of relativity (STR), the two inertial frames are equivalent, and thus it is not surprising that symmetric experiment results are obtained. However, it has already been pointed out that, among the coordinate systems regarded by Einstein as inertial frames, there are "classically stationary frames" where light propagates isotropically, and "classically moving frames" where light propagates anisotropically. If a classically stationary frame is incorporated into a thought experiment, it becomes easier to predict the experiment results. This paper elucidates a system whereby symmetrical experiment results can be obtained, even if the two coordinate systems are not equivalent. If one attempts to explain such experiment results from the standpoint of the STR, it ironically requires the use of logic that is unacceptable under the STR. Thus, this paper explains those experiment results by using logic different from the STR, and demonstrates the breakdown in the STR.

It is shown that Galileo's principle of relativity, after its generalization by Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein, essentially became the principle of indistinguishability of processes, preventing the study of their specifics. A theory of the power of real processes, called energy dynamics, is proposed, which does not need inertial reference systems (ISR) and proves the existence of a preferred (absolute) FR associated with the center of mass of the system with its uniform distribution. Energy dynamics is based on the principles of distinguishability of processes and the certainty of the state of the system and generalizes equilibrium and non-equilibrium thermodynamics to non-thermal machines and forms of energy, making it possible to study closed systems by introducing additional parameters of their spatial heterogeneity. Due to this, it allows to prove the fallacy of the substitution of momentum by inertial mass and statements about the dependence of mass on speed, about the equivalence of mass and energy, about the constancy of the speed of light and about the unity of space and time. Along with this, the inconsistency of the requirement for the invariance of all laws of physics in various IFRs, the need to measure any system parameters in absolute scales and the independence of space and time as parameters of the state of energy-dynamic systems are substantiated. Thus, the ground is prepared for the transition from the theory of relativity to the theory of absoluteness.

Draft of a reflection on Einstein's special theory of relativity, by a nonspecialist. Excerpted from a longer essay on modern physics.

Transactions on Science and Technology, 2017

All animals, including humans see the world in varying electromagnetic energy ranges. There is a possibility of doubting the principles of black and white (dark and bright). For the average readers, authors will start with a very basic argument in section two. The third section is the detail clarification of the second section, a logical conclusion of the third section (partial dark world) is unavoidable. While the core of this paper is in Section 4, it is about the hypothesis of light and all the supporting argument. If the hypothesis in Section 4.1 could be experimentally verified, it is anticipated that the light is merely Electromagnet (EM) energy as proposed has its basis, then its illumination property is residing in human mind could be true. Nevertheless, regardless Section 4.1, arguments support in Section 4.2 & 4.3 showed a strong inclination that the claim is most probably correct. This means biological creatures (human) make use the energy of EM (400700nm) to create the m...

Five topics: A rigid body does not exist in the special theory of relativity; distant simultaneity defined with respect to a given frame of reference without any reference to synchronized clocks; challenges on Einstein's connection of synchronization and contraction; a theory of relativity without light, composition of relative velocities and space of relative velocities

An experiment to test Einstein's special relativir [Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, 5th ed (Princeton UniversiOJ Press, 1956); H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, H. Weft, The Principle of Relativity, edited by HA. Lorentz (Oever, NE, 1923)] without involving ambiguities of the space-time concept and other theoretical bones of contention is proposed. It is an experiment well within present tedmoloy#. We also introduce an alternative theory of relativir [Phys. Essays 4, 68 (1991); 194; 532; 5, 159 (1992)], which is different from Einstein's special relativi(y, particularly on the foundational level, that is, the concept of space-time as well as the meaning of the relati~'tic transformation, and in its implications modifying classical force laws, for example, the electromagnetic force law. So far, no available experimental evidence can convincingly differentiate between Einstein's special relativi~ and the alternative theory. The proposed experimental test, however, will differentiate between these two theories of relativity.