Pinpointing a disastrous limitation of Special Relativity and Proposing a new explanation for Light Speed’s constancy

Slowing Down ◽

Straight Line ◽

Inertial Frames ◽

Light Signals ◽

Abstract This paper pinpoints a severe infirmity of the Lorentz Transformation in the Special Theory of Relativity. Even if it were true, its ambit is very much limited. Out of infinite events happening in the universe, it covers only the events of detecting light signals at the spatial points lying on a straight line in the direction of the relative velocity between the two inertial frames. This paper points out that the slowing down of moving clocks is not a prediction of Lorentz Transformation and hints at the possibility of attributing the observed slowing down of fast-moving clocks to the Relativistic Variation of Mass with Velocity. This paper concludes that from the fact that the same Reality is perceived differently by the observers in different inertial frames, we can draw a straightforward explanation for the constancy of light's speed in all inertial frames without any need for bringing in narrow-scoped and unrealistic Lorentz Transformation.

Special Relativity sans Lorentz Transformation (OR) Perceptional Relativity

10.21203/rs.3.rs-538885/v3 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

SEBASTIN PATRICK ASOKAN

Keyword(s):

Special Relativity ◽

Lorentz Transformation ◽

Fast Moving ◽

Inertial Frame ◽

Special Theory ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Speed Of Light ◽

Slowing Down ◽

Inertial Frames

Abstract This paper shows that from the fact that the same Reality is perceived differently by the observers in different inertial frames, we can draw a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of light's speed in all inertial frames without any need for bringing in paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper shows that the premise that each inertial frame has its unique time, which Lorentz Transformation introduced to explain the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames is incompatible with the interchangeability of the frames, an essential requisite of the First Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper hints at the possibility of attributing the observed slowing down of fast-moving clocks to the Relativistic Variation of Mass with Velocity instead of Time Dilation. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.

Special Relativity sans Lorentz Transformation (OR) Perceptional Relativity

10.21203/rs.3.rs-538885/v2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sebastin Patrick Asokan

Keyword(s):

Special Relativity ◽

Lorentz Transformation ◽

Special Theory ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Speed Of Light ◽

Inertial Frames ◽

Impossible Task

Abstract This paper shows that from the fact that the same Reality is perceived differently by the observers in different inertial frames, we can draw a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of light's speed in all inertial frames without any need for bringing in paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper also proves that Lorentz Transformation has failed in its attempt to do the impossible task of establishing t' ≠ t to explain the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames without contradicting the interchangeability of frames demanded by the First Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.

Special Relativity sans Lorentz Transformation (OR) Perceptional Relativity

10.21203/rs.3.rs-538885/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sebastin Patrick Asokan

Keyword(s):

Special Relativity ◽

Lorentz Transformation ◽

Special Theory ◽

Frames Of Reference ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Inertial Frames

Abstract This paper shows that if we accept that there is no absolute perception of Reality and the same Reality is perceived differently by different observers, then a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of Light's speed in all inertial frames of reference is possible without any need for paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper also proves that Lorentz Transformation, as incorporated in the Special Theory of Relativity, is conceptually flawed. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.

Proceedings of The Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences ◽

Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light

10.1098/rspa.2012.0340 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 468 (2148) ◽

pp. 4174-4192 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

James M. Hill ◽

Barry J. Cox

Keyword(s):

Special Relativity ◽

Lorentz Transformation ◽

Relative Velocity ◽

Special Theory ◽

Mathematical Framework ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Speed Of Light ◽

Inertial Frames ◽

Controversial Topic ◽

Energy Equations

We propose here two new transformations between inertial frames that apply for relative velocities greater than the speed of light, and that are complementary to the Lorentz transformation, giving rise to the Einstein special theory of relativity that applies to relative velocities less than the speed of light. The new transformations arise from the same mathematical framework as the Lorentz transformation, displaying singular behaviour when the relative velocity approaches the speed of light and generating the same addition law for velocities, but, most importantly, do not involve the need to introduce imaginary masses or complicated physics to provide well-defined expressions. Making use of the dependence on relative velocity of the Lorentz transformation, the paper provides an elementary derivation of the new transformations between inertial frames for relative velocities v in excess of the speed of light c , and further we suggest two possible criteria from which one might infer one set of transformations as physically more likely than the other. If the energy–momentum equations are to be invariant under the new transformations, then the mass and energy are given, respectively, by the formulae and where denotes the limiting momentum for infinite relative velocity. If, however, the requirement of invariance is removed, then we may propose new mass and energy equations, and an example having finite non-zero mass in the limit of infinite relative velocity is given. In this highly controversial topic, our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account of a new aspect of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which properly allows for faster than light motion.

The Ultimate Sophistication of Special Theory of Relativity

International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences ◽

10.14331/ijfps.2021.330148 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 43-49

Author(s):

Hamdoon A. Khan ◽

Keyword(s):

Special Relativity ◽

Special Theory ◽

Mathematical Approach ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

The Real ◽

The Past ◽

The One ◽

The Universe ◽

Faster Than Light

With the consideration of the light which carries the photon particles, the Lorentz transformation was constructed with an impressive mathematical approach. But the generalization of that equation for all the velocities of the universe is direct enforcement on other things not to travel faster than light. It has created serious issues in every scientific research that was done in the last century based on the special theory of relativity. This paper replaces the velocity of light with some other velocities and shows us the possible consequences and highlights the issues of special relativity. If I travel through my past or future and was able to see another me there, who would be the real Hamdoon I or the one I see there in the past or future! If the real one is only me, the one I saw, is not me, so, I could not travel through my or someone else's past or future. Therefore, no one can travel through time. If both of us are the same, can the key of personal identity be duplicated or be separated into two or more parts? These are some of the fundamental philosophical arguments that annihilate the concept of time travel which is one of the sequels of special relativity.

Albert Einstein’s Epistemic Virtues and Vices

Epistemology & Philosophy of Science ◽

10.5840/eps202158468 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 58 (4) ◽

pp. 175-195

Author(s):

Vladimir P. Vizgin ◽

Keyword(s):

Field Theory ◽

General Relativity ◽

General Theory ◽

Special Theory ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Mathematical Aspect ◽

General Theory Of Relativity ◽

Epistemic Virtues ◽

The article is based on the concepts of epistemic virtues and epistemic vices and explores A. Einstein’s contribution to the creation of fundamental physical theories, namely the special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity, as well as to the development of a unified field theory on the basis of the geometric field program, which never led to success. Among the main epistemic virtues that led Einstein to success in the construction of the special theory of relativity are the following: a unique physical intuition based on the method of thought experiment and the need for an experimental justification of space-time concepts; striving for simplicity and elegance of theory; scientific courage, rebelliousness, signifying the readiness to engage in confrontation with scientific conventional dogmas and authorities. In the creation of general theory of relativity, another intellectual virtue was added to these virtues: the belief in the heuristic power of the mathematical aspect of physics. At the same time, he had to overcome his initial underestimation of the H. Minkowski’s four-dimensional concept of space and time, which has manifested in a distinctive flexibility of thinking typical for Einstein in his early years. The creative role of Einstein’s mistakes on the way to general relativity was emphasized. These mistakes were mostly related to the difficulties of harmonizing the mathematical and physical aspects of theory, less so to epistemic vices. The ambivalence of the concept of epistemic virtues, which can be transformed into epistemic vices, is noted. This transformation happened in the second half of Einstein’s life, when he for more than thirty years unsuccessfully tried to build a unified geometric field theory and to find an alternative to quantum mechanics with their probabilistic and Copenhagen interpretation In this case, we can talk about the following epistemic vices: the revaluation of mathematical aspect and underestimation of experimentally – empirical aspect of the theory; adopting the concepts general relativity is based on (continualism, classical causality, geometric nature of fundamental interactions) as fundamental; unprecedented persistence in defending the GFP (geometrical field program), despite its failures, and a certain loss of the flexibility of thinking. A cosmological history that is associated both with the application of GTR (general theory of relativity) to the structure of the Universe, and with the missed possibility of discovering the theory of the expanding Universe is intermediate in relation to Einstein’s epistemic virtues and vices. This opportunity was realized by A.A. Friedmann, who defeated Einstein in the dispute about if the Universe was stationary or nonstationary. In this dispute some of Einstein’s vices were revealed, which Friedman did not have. The connection between epistemic virtues and the methodological principles of physics and also with the “fallibilist” concept of scientific knowledge development has been noted.

Go outside your realm of experience, on a hypercube

How to Free Your Inner Mathematician ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198843597.003.0044 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 259-264

Author(s):

Susan D'Agostino

Keyword(s):

String Theory ◽

Special Theory ◽

Three Dimensions ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Mathematics Students ◽

“Go outside your realm of experience, on a hypercube” explains how and why mathematicians conceive of cubes in many dimensions, including a four-dimensional hypercube. Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the mathematics of string theory—a subfield of physics that seeks to understand the structure of the universe—both require more than the three dimensions with which we are familiar. The discussion, which focuses on how to make a four-dimensional hypercube, is enhanced with numerous hand-drawn sketches. Mathematics students and enthusiasts are encouraged to go outside their realm of experience in both mathematical and life pursuits. At the chapter’s end, readers may check their understanding by working on a problem. A solution is provided.

An Elucidation of the Symmetry of Length Contraction Predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity

Applied Physics Research ◽

10.5539/apr.v9n3p31 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 31

Author(s):

Koshun Suto

Keyword(s):

Common Sense ◽

Constant Velocity ◽

Inertial Frame ◽

Special Theory ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Length Contraction ◽

Inertial Frames ◽

Objective State

In this paper, consider a rod A (inertial frame A) and rod B (inertial frame B) moving at constant velocity relative to each other. Assume that the lengths of two rods are equal when they are stationary. According to the STR, when length in the direction of motion of rod B, moving at constant velocity, is measured from inertial frame A, the rod contracts in the direction of motion. Also, the time which elapses on clock in inertial frame B is delayed compared to the time which elapses on clock in inertial frame A. If, conversely, inertial frame A is measured from inertial frame B, rod A contracts in the direction of motion, and the time which elapses on clock is delayed. However, according to classical common sense, if rod B contracts when measured from inertial frame A, then rod A measured from rod B must be longer than rod B. Thus, this paper discusses the symmetry of rod contraction, and elucidates this problem. It is found, based on the discussion in this paper, that the contraction of a rod includes true physical contraction, and relativistic contraction obtained due to measurement using the method indicated by Einstein. However, in the STR, any two inertial frames are equivalent, and therefore is not possible to accept points such as the fact that reasons for contraction are different. This paper concludes that STR is not a theory which describes the objective state of reality.

Replacing Special Relativity

Intellectual Archive ◽

10.32370/ia_2021_09_3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

Author(s):

John Hodge

Keyword(s):

Special Relativity ◽

Paradigm Shift ◽

Special Theory ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Scalar Theory ◽

Wide Range ◽

Theory Of Everything ◽

Standard Models ◽

The Special Theory of Relativity applies where gravitation is insignificant. There are many observations that remain poorly explained by the standard models of either the big of cosmology or the small of Quantum mechanics. The strength of the Scalar Theory Of Everything (STOE) is its ability to describe an extremely wide range of observations and to predict observations. Each of the STOE axioms has been used in the development of models of observations in the big and the small. The axioms that replace Special Relativity are: (1) Time is an abstraction of the duration between events causing events. (2) The diameter of the hods is the same throughout the universe. (3) The distance between hods is related to plenum density. Higher reduces the distance between hods. (4) The speed of photons and hods (light) is the greatest of any matter in a given environment. (5) The speed of the plenum wave is much faster than the speed of the hods. The STOE passes the tests of Special Relativity and does much more. The STOE is a major paradigm shift.

G.B. Itelson as a Prototype of Albert Lichtenberg. To the History of Writing the Story of Andrey Platonov’s Garbage Wind

Вопросы философии ◽

10.21146/0042-8744-2021-10-112-122 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 112-122

Author(s):

Konstantin A. Barsht ◽

Keyword(s):

Strong Influence ◽

Outer Space ◽

World History ◽

Special Theory ◽

Theory Of Relativity ◽

Way Of Life ◽

History Of ◽

Life Path ◽

The article analyzes the life path and tragic death of the philosopher Grigory Borisovich Itelson (1852–1926) emigrated from Russia. According to the assumption put forward in the article, he became the prototype of Albert Lichtenberg, the hero in the story of Andrey Platonov Garbage Wind (1933), which describes the fate of a lonely German scientist, “the physicist of outer space”, who was killed by the Nazis for protesting against fascism. The article analyzes a number of coincidences between the fate of G.B. Itelson and the philosopher Lichtenberg described in the story Garbage Wind, in particular, the way of life and the circumstances of death. The author of the article finds in the text of Platonov’s story some allusions to G.B. Itelson – features of the worldview, publication by the hero of the story of the book The Universe as a desolate space, burned in the square by the fascists, which is seen as a hint of the book by Felix Eberti Stars and World History. Thoughts about space, published by G.B. Itelson in 1923. The author analyzes the reason for Platonov’s appeal to the personality of Itelson, who was a personal friend of A. Einstein and the main translator of his books into Russian. Through these publications in the 1920s, A. Platonov got acquainted with the General and Special Theory of Relativity, which had a strong influence on the writer’s worldview and largely shaped the poetics of his works. The article argues for the possibility of Platonov’s acquaintance with the obituary of G.B. Itelson, written by A.A. Goldenweiser and published in the Berlin Russian newspaper Ruhl, which describes in detail the life and tragic death of the philosopher at the hands of the Nazis