Confusion of Light-as-Particle without Mass = Special Relativity

            Who is main responsible for the present crisis of modern physics initiated in 1905? 

The present crisis of modern physics witnessed by all prominent physicists originates from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR from 1905, which made Galilean invariant Newtonian mechanics incompatible with Lorentzian invariant propagation of light, with Lorentz winning the game replacing Newtonian mechanics by a new form of Lorentz invariant relativistic mechanics with new strange phenomena of space contraction and time dilation. SR thus made modern physics strange and irrational, 20 years later built in as key features of the new quantum mechanics, while the signum of classical physics is naturalness and rationality. 

SR shared these qualities with artistic expressions of modernity like cubism, dadaism, free form poetry and atonal music, where they had a role to serve, while not so well in science. 

SR thus appeared as a monumental sacrifice in science and it is natural to ask if it was necessary. We recall that Newtonian mechanics is material in the sense that it describes interaction of bodies with presence in space as presence of matter with positive mass, while light is immaterial in the sense of having zero mass without material presence.

This makes a difference as concerns choice of spatial coordinate system required for mathematical modeling. In the case of Newtonian mechanics it is natural to connect coordinate systems to spatial presence of matter, but this rationale is lacking for immaterial light. This was the dilemma Einstein faced in 1905 as a young patent clerk with ambition to become a physicist, which led him to SR. 

Einstein derived the Lorentz transformation as the basis of SR with a conception of physics as consisting of events recorded by a spatial Euclidean coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$ as the pair $(x,t)$. An event does not have any spatial extension because only a single $x$-coordinate is sufficient to describe the event. Einstein thus considered spatial presence as points without spatial extension. While in Newtonian mechanics matter in the form of point masses can be used as shorthand for a material objects with very small spatial extension, while for light it leads to a conception of light-as-particle, to be compared with light-as-wave with a wave having spatial extension.

Einstein thus derives the Lorentz transformation viewing light-as-particle without mass and we shall now see that this leads astray into non-physics because the notion of a particle without mass is non-physical.

The crucial aspect is that a particle-with-mass has an identity by occupying a unique point in space not available to another particle, while a particle-without-mass does not have such hegemony. In quantum mechanics this is expressed as unique spatial occupancy of fermions like electrons with mass, but not by bosons like photons as light-as-particle without mass. Unique occupancy of space is a prime objective of the national state. Or unique occupancy of a position in academics, like a chaired professorship.

Einstein considers two Euclidean coordinate systems (1d for simplicity) with coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ moving with velocity $v$ with respect to each other, with origins $x=0$ and $x^\prime =0$ coinciding when $t=0$ and $t^\prime =0$. 

Einstein's considers light-as-particle emitted at $x=0$ at time $t=0$ following as light ray the path $x=t$ with unit speed of light, and similarly light-as-particle emitted at $x^\prime =0$ at time $t^\prime =0$ following as light ray the path $x^\prime =t^\prime $ again with unit speed of light. 

Einstein then identifies the two light rays and then derives the Lorentz transformation imposing strange effects of space contraction and time dilation. 

The identification of the two light rays is the critical step towards SR, and this assumes light-as-particle, because with light-as-wave with spatial extension the emissions of the light rays will correspond to different physical processes and so the light rays will be different and the Lorentz transformation will have no role to play.

Einstein acted as a true magician deriving strange new effects from the simplest possible of assumption of a light ray following a straight line $x=t$ in a Euclidean $(x,t)$ system. To get anything strange out of this simple physics requires a strange assumption in addition, and that was to identify two different light rays to be the same as the essence of SR: Same physics in different physical systems = strange physics.

Summary: In Newtonian mechanics point particles with positive mass can be used as mathematical models without confusion since particles with mass have physical identity, but light-as-particle without mass lacks identity which causes all the confusion brought by SR. To view SR as real physics requires explaining the real physics of light-as-particle without mass and without physical identity. Nobody has done that. 

Possible way out of the crisis: Give up SR, keep Galilean invariant Newtonian mechanics and view propagation of light from a perspective of a many-aether theory as outlined in Many-Minds Relativity. 

Elastic vs Electromagnetic Waves

Einstein's Special Theory Relativity SR resulted from the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment seeking to identify a unique medium for the propagation of light named luminiferous aether, like air for the propagation of sound, arising with Maxwell's equations describing light as electromagnetic wave with a key aspect being the choice of Euclidean coordinate system. 

In the apparent absence of a unique aether, Einstein explored a no-aether-at-all option with observations in different coordinate systems necessarily being coordinated by Lorentz transformation which became SR. 

As Many-Minds Relativity MMR I have explored the possibility of many-aethers with different Euclidean coordinate systems connecting to different physical configurations. Light propagation is here viewed as an immaterial  resonance phenomenon between material emitter and receiver with the coordinate system locked to the material receiver. With many receivers this leads to many-aethers. 

We find the same situation in the setting of elastic waves in an elastic bar, which can be generated by hitting one end with a hammer as emitter and recording the reaction at the other end as receiver.  The elastic wave is then described in a coordinate system fixed to the bar acting as medium for propagation of elastic waves. We can then easily image a collection of elastic bars moving with constant velocity with respect to each other carrying a collection of coordinate systems as inertial systems.

We thus meet the same situation for light/electromagnetic waves as elastic waves in a collection of elastic bars with in both cases the coordinate system being locked to the material configuration as a many-aether system. 

This may help to remove the mystery of light propagation with the same speed in all inertial systems as the basic assumption of MMR by understanding that coordinate systems are "carried along" by material configurations.

Material vs Immaterial Physics: Out of the Crisis

A basic dilemma of modern theoretical physics is that it carries a contradiction between material physics well described by Galilean invariant Newtonian mechanics and immaterial physics of propagation of light in vaccum as an electromagnetic wave phenomena well described by Maxwell's equations, while formally Lorentzian invariant fundamentally different from Galilean. 

Is it possible to resolve this contradiction in a unified Newton-Maxwell theory? Maybe, since this is what effectively is used in engineering applications.  Maybe the contradiction of theory is the result of misconception of the nature of light propagation, as particle may be? Let us give it a try.

We start noting that mathematical description of physics requires the use of some coordinate system for spatial representation like a 3d Euclidean system with $x$-coordinates and also a time coordinate $t$. In material physics it is natural to fix the coordinate system to some part of a material system, e.g. the Earth or the Sun. The mathematical description of material physics will then take different forms depending on choice of coordinate system and it is possible to view the real physics to be independent of choice of coordinate system. Same physics described differently in different coordinate systems with possibility of coordinating descriptions  and observations in different systems to one coordinated picture of material reality. This is the setting of Newtonian mechanics being Galilean invariant under transformations between Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other (inertial systems) as an expression of the fact that Newton's 2nd Law literally takes the same form in all inertial systems. Newtonian mechanics thus satisfies Galilean relativity. 

Modern physics was initiated at the turn to the 20th century from a conception that light propagation is not described by Galilean relativity but requires another Lorentzian form of relativity, which Einstein coined as his Special Theory of Relativity SR. The trouble was that Newtonian mechanics satisfying Galilean relativity but not Lorenztian, then had to be modified to a new form of relativistic mechanics coming with strange new phenomena of space contraction and time dilation to become  trade marks of modern physics as strangeness. The more strange, the better.

SR thus created a contradiction between Newtonian material mechanics and immaterial light propagation fuelling the crisis of modern physics which ignited already at start.  

SR resulted from a fruitless search of a unique material medium named luminiferous aether for the propagation of light acting like air for propagation of sound, evidenced by the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment MME. This motivated Einstein to declare SR as a no-aether-at-all theory, which he retracted in 1919 admitting that a coordinate system is needed to express Maxwell's equations and that a coordinate system acts as a form of aether. 

But the null result of MME can as an alternative to a no-aether-at-all theory a la SR, be accommodated in a many-aether theory with Many-Minds Relative MMR as an alternative. MMR is compatible with both  Newton and Maxwell and thus represents a step out of the crisis towards unification.

While the choice of coordinate system has a clear connection to material mechanics, the connection to immaterial electromagnetics is less clear. The key point in MMR is that light propagation involves both emitter and receiver which both have material presence as charge oscillation, where it is natural to connect the coordinate system to the receiver allowing the emitter to move. Each emitter-receiver system thus establishes an aether in which light propagation appears as a resonance phenomenon. There are many possible such emitter-receiver systems representing a many-aether theory. 

MMR is a wave theory based on Maxwell's equations. Einstein based SR on his idea of light-as-particle which led him to strange physics. There is no good reason to maintain an idea of light-as-particle since a light-as-wave can explain all phenomena observed.  

Summary:

• MMR is a light-as-wave theory with propagation of light emitter-receiver as a physical resonance phenomenon.
• SR is based on light-as-particle theory which is non-physical. 

 

 

Instant Action by Local Differentiation vs Global Integration

                                     Local imbalance generating heat as instant local action.

Newton's Theory of Gravitation NTG is beautifully captured in the Poisson-Laplace differential equation

• $\Delta\phi (x,t) = \rho (x,t)$ for all $x$ in 3d space and  time $t$,          (G)

where $\phi (x,t)$ is gravitational potential, $\nabla\phi (x,t)$ is gravitational force and $\rho (x,t)$ mass density at $x$ and $t$.  

With $\rho (x,t)$ viewed as the source at $(x,t)$ and $\phi (y,t)$ for all $y$ as the effect, it appears that the presence of mass at $x$ at time $t$ without time delay creates gravitational potential at any other point $y$, as an expression of apparent instant action at distance. This was viewed as a mystery by Newton himself, but did not force him to give up his beautiful invention, which seemed to describe the whole world of gravitation in remarkably concise form as an ultimate expression of the power of mathematics.  

In search of modernity at the turn to the 20th century the mystery of apparent instant action at distance was chosen as target, which eventually led to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as a geometric theory supposedly without instant action at distance, as an improved version of NGT albeit at the cost of being immensely more complicated. 

It is natural to ask if apparent action at distance poses a real problem to physics? If not, maybe NTG can be retained because it is so simple and effective, and GR can be reserved for Einstein's devotees in our time. 

Let us then compare with the heat equation describing conduction of heat in a heat conducting medium, which takes the form:

• $\dot u(x,t)-\Delta u(x,t) = f(x,t)$ for all $x$ in 3d space and  time $t$,         (H)

where $u(x,t)$ is temperature, $f(x,t)$ heat source and the dot represents differentiation with respect to time $t$. Also in this case is there is apparent action at distance in the sense that the presence of a heat source at $x$ at time $t$ appears to have instant influence on the temperature at all other points $y$, even if the influence decays exponentially with the distance from $x$. Again the actual physics of such instant action at distance is a bit mysterious, but it is not viewed to be so serious that the heat equation must be given up for some new maybe geometric complex theory of heat conduction. The rationale is that since the action decays exponentially with distance, in reality the action is not infinitely quick.  

But there is another way of interpreting (H), which does not involve instant action at distance, which is to view (H) and correctly so as balance between two sources of heat, an exterior represented by the right hand side $f(x,t)$ and an interior represented by the left hand side involving the time derivative $\dot u (x,t)$ and the spatial derivative $\Delta u(x,t)$ which both can be viewed to result from instant local action by differentiation. 

It is thus possible to give the heat equation (H) an interpretation as local instant action by differentiation: If  $\dot u(x,t)-\Delta u(x,t)$ does not vanish, heat is produced according to $f(x,t)=\dot u(x,t)-\Delta u(x,t)$. With this interpretation there is no instant action at distance. 

Instant action as local differentiation replaces instant action as global integration. In the setting of the heat equation this can quite naturally be understood as local imbalance of interior state generating heat locally. An explosion can be viewed this way as shown above.

In the same way we can turn around the view on (G) and thus avoid the mystery of apparent instant action at distance. I have discussed this in many posts on New View on Newtonian Gravitation.

Compare with the opening statement of Gravitation in the Twilight of Classical Physics: An Introduction from Vol 3 of Genesis of General Relativity (eds Renn and Schemmel) from 2007: 

• The history of treatments of gravitation in the nineteenth century reflects the transition from an era in which mechanics constituted the undisputed fundamental discipline of physics to an era in which mechanics became a subdiscipline alongside electrodynamics and thermodynamics.
• From the time of its inception, the action-at-a-distance conception of Newtonian gravitation theory was alien to the rest of mechanics, according to which interaction always involved contact. This explains the early occurrence of attempts to interpret the gravitational force by means of collisions, for instance, by invoking the umbrella model described above. During these early days the comparison of the gravitational force to electric and magnetic forces had already been suggested as well. 
• However, the analogy with electricity and magnetism became viable only after theories on these subjects had been sufficiently elaborated. There were even attempts at thermal theories of gravitation after thermodynamics had developed into an independent sub-discipline of physics. 
• Besides providing new foundational resources for approaching the problem of gravitation, the establishment of independent subdisciplines and the questioning of the primacy of mechanics that resulted from it affected the development of the theoretical treatment of gravitation in yet another way, namely through the emergence of revisionist formulations of mechanics. This heretical mechanics, as we shall call it, consisted in attempts to revise the traditional formulation given to mechanics by Newton, Euler and others, and often amounted to questioning its very foundations.

Human Made Laws of Physics as Standards

Recent posts have analysed the basic Postulate of modern physics in the form of the Special Theory of Relativity SR, which can be formulated:

• The speed of light in all inertial systems is the same.   (P)  

(P) is put into practice in the 2019 SI Standard compelling every human observer to measure distance in the Euclidean coordinate system being used by the observer in terms of travel time of light with a preset speed of light of 299792458 meter/second with time measured by a standard caesium clock. It is assumed that the different coordinate systems being used move with constant velocity with respect to each other, i. e. that so called inertial systems are used. 

(P) can be viewed as a human made operational definition/standard: The length scale in each inertial system is determined by actually measuring travel time of light in the inertial system and then setting the spatial scale according to a preset speed of light, e.g. using a standard rangefinder.

All observers will then agree that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second as a consequence of a human made operational standard. It would be silly to ask why all observers agree, when it is simply an agreement to agree, like a form of conspiration if you like. 

The next question is how well the 2019 SI Standard will work in practice in the sense that observations in different inertial systems can be coordinated. 

The first thing to say is that it is reasonable to expect that the speed of light will be the same in all inertial systems under the assumption that the same Maxwell's equations for light propagation are valid in all inertial systems. This may appear reasonable if you envision a many-aether system with each inertial system representing an aether medium for propagation of light according to Maxwell's equations formulated in the inertial system at hand assuming the observer is not moving with respect to the system. This is the vision of Many-Minds Relativity. 

But the task of coordinating observations in different inertial systems following the 2019 SI Standard remains, and this is not completely obvious and so the subject of Many-Minds Relativity.

We thus come to the conclusion that (P) appears as a human made law of physics, which will have to be confronted with laws of real physics when seeking to coordinate observations in different inertial systems.

We may compare with Newton's 2nd Law $f=ma$ with $f$ force, $m$ mass and $a$ acceleration, which can be taken as definition of one of the variables in terms of the two other, and then will have the form of a human made law of physics and so will have to be confronted with real physics with independent specifications of the variables.   

More generally we may compare with laws of physics in the form of conservation laws, such as

• Conservation of mass.
• Conservation of momentum (Newton's 2nd Law).
• Conservation of energy.

It is natural to view these as laws of physics corresponding to observations of systems being persistent over time, which neither blow up to infinity nor vanish to zero and so contain conserved quantities. 

We recall that Newton's law of gravitational force is a consequence of conservation of a conservative force. 

But there is also room for an aspect of human made laws, in the sense that whatever appears to be missing is contributed as a new phenomenon. For example, the observed loss of kinetic energy in turbulent flow is viewed to show up as internal energy (of unspecified form) thus maintaining conservation of energy. 

Concepts of Space and Time over Two Millennia

The concepts of three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time are in modern physics viewed as elements of a deeply mysterious concept of combined four-dimensional space-time where space is time-like and time is space-like.

In classical physics 3d space of Euclidean geometry formed by Euclide as the great geometer of Greek mathematics 300 BC, is represented in Euclidean coordinate systems introduced by Descartes in the 17th century. 

Everybody can understand how Euclidean coordinates can be used to represent collections of points in space as spatial configurations in mathematical models of the world. No mystery!

In classical physics going back to Heraclitus, time is viewed as a change of configuration including change of spatial configuration. Leibniz viewed spatial configurations as cases of coexistence as spatial presence at a given time of bodies extended in space. 

The basic mathematical models of classical physics take the form of an initial value problem (IVP) for a quantity $u(x,t)$ depending on a 3d Euclidean space coordinate $x$ and a 1d time coordinate $t$ of the form envisioned by Heraclitus as expressed above:

• $\dot u(x,t) = f(u(x,t),x,t)$  for all $x$ and $t>0$
• $u(x,0)=u_0(x)$ for all $x$, 

where the dot signifies differentiation with respect to $t$, $f(u,x,t)$ is a given function depending on $(u,x,t)$ and $u_0(x)$ is a given initial value, which typically is extended in space. An (IVP) can be solved by time-stepping, starting at $t=0$ and computing $u(x,dt)$ after one small time step $dt>0$ for $t=dt$ by the update formula

• $u(x,dt)=u(x,0)+dt*f(u(x,0),x,0),$ for all $x$,

and so on for $t=2*dt$, $t=3*dt$ et cet. We note that in an (IVP) the space coordinates $x$ are clearly separated from the time coordinate $t$ as expressed by the initial value $u(x,0)=u_0(x)$ and update formula for all $x$ as coexistence. 

We can view $u(x,\bar t)$ for any given time $\bar t$ with $x$ variable as coexistence, while the variation of $u(\bar x,t)$ for any given $\bar x$ with $t$ variable as change. This is something everybody can understand. No mystery!

The central concepts are: 

• coexistence at given time (space),
• change of coexistence (time). 

We note that theses classical concepts of time, which are easy to understand, have essentially been the same over more than two millennia. 

But all this was thrown overboard when Einstein formed his Special Theory of Relativity SR in 1905 where no longer space and time are separate, but are mixed together into space-time without clear separation. This is the effect of the Lorentz transformation underlying SR where $x$ appears as time and $t$ as space formalised in 4d Minkowski coordinates, which has become the trade mark of modern physics.

Two millennia of solid understanding of the basic physics of space and time, was suddenly replaced by a concept of space-time without physics in an unfortunate misunderstanding by an unknown patent clerk in Bern in 1905, as exposed in the previous post. This ended the age of scientific understanding going back to the Greeks with perfection during the Enlightenment into 1905. After now soon 120 years the confusion from 1905 is now so solidly built into physics that escape to understanding is virtually impossible. See  yourself by asking a physicist of today anything about SR to get the response that everything is settled since long and so no discussion is needed nor any understanding of SR... 

Einstein's Misunderstanding vs Crisis of Modern Physics

The book The Physical and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Relativity by Romano and Furnari states the basic Postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR as follows:

• All inertial frames are optically isotropic.         (P)

The meaning is that propagation of light in any given Euclidean coordinate system, in a collection of Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other (inertial systems), is described by literally the same Maxwell's equations (optically isotropic). This is a more precise formulation of that used by Einstein:

• The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.    (P')

Many-Minds Relativity MMR is an alternative to SR also based on (P), yet fundamentally different from SR. 

SR is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics, which is a root cause of  the crisis of modern physics.

MMR is compatible with Newtonian mechanics and thus opens a window out of the crisis.

How can it be that MMR is fundamentally different from SR, when they both appear to be based on the same principle (P), which appears to be perfectly reasonable?

The answer is that Einstein in addition to (P) sets as objective to coordinate observations in different inertial systems of the same "event", which leads him to the Lorentz coordinate transformation as the essence of SR with all its strange effects of space contraction and time dilation (as root cause of the crisis). 

The basic case considered by Einstein is sending light signals from the origin $x=0$ of an $X$-system, and from the origin $x^\prime =0$ in an $X^\prime$-system moving with respect to $X$ assuming that the light signals are sent when the two origins coincide. 

Einstein assumes that the two light signals are the same, which requires coordination of descriptions in $X$ and $X^\prime$ according to the Lorentz transformation.  Einstein makes this identification based on an idea of an "event" as having no extension in space, which is unphysical in violation of Maxwell's equations.   

However, in MMR the two light signals are not considered to be the same, because 

• The physics of light propagation in $X$ (according to Maxwell) is different from the physics of light propagation in $X^\prime$ (according to Maxwell).

This was the topic of a previous post exhibiting connection emitter-receiver as a resonance phenomenon in a specific coordinate system according to Maxwell's equations.

We have now pinpointed exactly where Einstein leaves real physics and enters into "thought experiments" of "emitting light signals" in different coordinate systems while identifying them to be the same. 

SR is a very confusing subject, which modern physicists avoid discussing by simply referring to the vast (confusing) literature, which is of little help to the curious or scientific community. 

One way to handle this unhappy situation is to understand exactly where Einstein leaves the reasonable physics of (P) by posing an additional objective which is not reasonable from a physical point of view.  

If you as a student of physics can understand the above, which is not difficult, you will be able to focus on understandable real physics instead of non-understandable non-physics and so prepare for a career as post-modern physicist. For an established modern physicist it will be difficult to understand. OK?

Harmony vs Disharmony between Newton and Maxwell

Special Relativity: Disharmony Newton-Maxwell
Many-Minds Relativity: Harmony Newton-Maxwell  

Modern physics was formed in the late 19th century in an effort to harmonize classical Newtonian mechanics with the new electromagnetics described by Maxwell's equations, in particular there was a need to connect material as matter of positive mass with immaterial light of zero mass. Many established physicists/mathematicians took on the challenge including Lorentz and Poincare, but its was the young Einstein as patent clerk in Bern in 1905 who took the lead with his Special Theory of Relativity SR based on the Lorentz transformation.

Today SR is viewed to be a fundamental part of modern physics, but the trouble is that SR rather than harmonising Newtonian mechanics with electromagnetics, discriminates Newtonian mechanics and in its place puts in relativistic mechanics (with new strange effects as space contraction and time dilation). The resulting disharmony Newton-Maxwell has fed the crisis of modern physics. 

It is thus a great loss to sack Newton's mechanics, and it is natural to ask if this is really necessary and maybe after all it is possible to find a route to harmony Newton-Maxwell. This is the goal of Many-Minds Relativity MMR. 

As a basic instance of harmony according to MMR let us consider propagation of light from a light source S to a receiver R viewed as propagation of light in Euclidean $x$-coordinates with the receiver R fixed at the origin $x=0$. We follow the 2019 SI Standard and determine the spatial scale in the $x$-system by travel time of light according to Maxwell's equations expressed in $x$-coordinates assuming a preset speed of light of exactly 299792458 meter/second with time set by a standard caesium atomic clock. 

We may think of the source S as an oscillating material charge generating a standing immaterial electromagnetic wave which interacts with a material charge as the receiver R. This means that material at S connects to material at R through electromagnetic waves as a resonance phenomenon. 

Extension to a moving source is direct, which introduces a Doppler effect. 

We note that the speed of light is preset to a certain SI Standard value, which means that the speed of light for any connection between source and receiver is the same, by SI Standard definition. We understand that the wave physics for any connection source-receiver is the same in the sense that the same Maxwell's equations in a coordinate system fixed to the receiver is used, which gives a rationale for the standard. All source-receiver systems are alike in the sense that the spatial scale on a Euclidean coordinate system fixed to the source is determined by the same Maxwell's equations with a preset speed of light. 

We have now covered the case of many sources an one receiver at $x=0$ with Maxwell's equations expressed in a Euclidean $x$-coordinates with spatial scale determined by travel time of light with preset speed which is in full harmony with Newton's mechanics in $x$-coordinates.

We also have to consider the case of several receiver's moving with constant velocity with respect to each other and ask to what extent observations using different receivers can be made to agree, which means that full agreement is not possible and nor needed. This the subject of MMR.

Notice that the a connection between the material and immaterial world is established by the 2019 SI Standard where the geometry of the material world is determined by travel time of immaterial light. This was not the situation confronting Einstein in 1905 forcing geometry measured by material meter sticks to be subject to strange effects of space contraction according to SR.  

The 2019 SI Standard effectively pulls the carpet under SR, by imposing the same speed of light on all observers thus leaving the Lorentz transformation without any role. But this is shocking to a physicist of today trained to view the Lorentz transformation as the incarnation of modern physics as a core belief not to be given up easily. 

Summary: 

• In SR Newton does not fit with Maxwell and so Newton is modified to relativistic mechanics.
• In MMR Newton fits with Maxwell more or less and does not need modification.
• SR: disharmony Newton-Maxwell.
• MMR: harmony Newton-Maxwell.

And what about you, harmony or disharmony?

Unification of Light Propagation and Mechanics

Summary of recent posts:

In modern physics Maxwell's electromagnetics including propagation of light and classical Newton's mechanics are viewed to be fundamentally different because Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant (take the same form under Lorentz transformation of Euclidean coordinates), while Newton's equations are Galilean invariant (take the same form under Galilean transformation). This has prevented the formation of a unified theory, which is a major element of the crisis of modern physics.

Einstein formed the Special Theory of Relativity SR in 1905 by declaring that laws of physics have to be Lorentz invariant, thus declaring Maxwell's equations to represent laws of physics, while dismissing Newton's equations as being Galilean but not Lorentz invariant. Einstein then replaced Newton's mechanics by a new form of relativistic mechanics as SR exhibiting new strange physics of space contraction and time dilation, which today is viewed to be a fundamental part of modern physics. 

But Einstein's frank declaration that laws of physics must be Lorentz invariant appears as an ad hoc requirement without any real physical basis, and so it may be reasonable to seek to give Newton's mechanics under Galilean invariance a new chance. 

Doing so, we then face the fact that Maxwell's equations are not Galilean invariant, which means that the choice of Euclidean coordinate system for the expression of the equations comes into play.

Maxwell's equations in particular describe propagation of light as wave between a light emitter A and a receiver B as two points in Euclidean coordinate system E. It is natural to assume that the receiver does not move in E, while the emitter A is allowed to move (creating Doppler effect). 

We thus consider propagation of light from A to B described by Maxwell's wave equations expressed in a spatial Euclidean coordinate system in which the receiver B is stationary. Maxwell's wave equations contain a coefficient $c$ representing the speed of light as speed of wave propagation. 

It is assumed that $c$ is a constant which does not change with choice of Euclidean coordinate system. This conforms with the 2019 SI Standard where the length scale in any Euclidean coordinate system is determined by travel time of light with a preset value of the speed of light  $c$ equal to 299792458 meter/second and time measured by a caesium atomic clock. 

The propagation of light from A to B is thus described by Maxwell's equations expressed in a Euclidean coordinate system E fixed to the receiver with a preset speed of light. 

We now compare with propagation of sound in still air represented by E described by a wave equation similar to Maxwell's. Alternatively, we may compare with elastic waves in an elastic bar. 

The fundamental aspect here is that fixing E to the receiver makes propagation of light fully analogous to propagation of sound in still air or elastic waves in an elastic bar represented by E, as if E in both cases serves as a medium for wave propagation. In the case of sound waves/elastic waves the medium is material in the form of still air/elastic bar represented by E, while in the case of light the medium/aether is immaterial in the form of E. 

We thus face a situation where the medium/aether for wave propagation in the form of a Euclidean coordinate system is tied to the spatial configuration, more precisely to the receiver as if the medium/aether is "dragged along" with motion of the receiver, just like the medium of an elastic bar in motion will be moving.

We reach so a unification of immaterial light propagation and material mechanics by always connecting the coordinate system for Maxwell's equations to the receiver. This is fully compatible with Newtonian mechanics and the 2019 SI Standard and there is no place for SR since no Lorentz transformation is involved. 

There are still issues if several receivers are involved moving with different velocities, which is the subject of Many-Minds Relativity.

  

Propagation of Light as Resonance Phenomenon

Tuning fork resonance in still air as model of light propagation in an aether medium connecting emitter-receiver.

Modern physics was born in the search of an aether as a unique medium carrying electromagnetic waves in the same way as sound waves are carried by still air, as soon as Maxwell's wave equations describing all of electromagnetics had been experimentally confirmed by detection of radio waves by Hertz in 1888. 

But no such unique aether could be experimentally detected: The Michelson-Morley Experiment MME gave a null result indicating that aethers could be "dragged along" by different experimental setups. 

Formulation of Maxwell's equations require a spatial Euclidean coordinate system, but there is no unique such system. In particular there are many inertial systems as Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other and Maxwell's equations can be formulated in any of these systems then acting as an aether for propagation of electromagnetic waves such as radio waves and also light with smaller wave length. In other words, there are as many aethers as inertial systems. 

But this was not understood by Einstein at his desk in the patent office in Bern in 1905, when he took on the challenge of explaining the null result of MME and came up with his Special Theory of Relativity SR formulated on an an idea that there is no aether at all. Unfortunately, SR has come to serve a fundamental role in modern physics with strange effects of time dilation and space contraction as consequences of Einstein's no-aether theory. 

Many-Minds Relativity offers an alternative to SR based on the above idea of many-aethers. Let us here consider a basic element of such a theory, namely propagation of light as electromagnetic wave described by Maxwell's equations. We then consider sending light from a point A to a point B in a Euclidean coordinate system carried as electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell's equations in the given Euclidean coordinate system with B as stationary receiver and A as possibly moving emitter. We thus fix the coordinate system to B and assume to start that also A is fixed in the system. 

We may think of A and B fixed on an $x$-axis acting as a medium/aether for propagation of light. We now seek to describe in more detail sending light from A to B. We then view the emission at A to result from an oscillating charge at A as a source of given frequency fed into Maxwell's equations inducing an electromagnetic excitation in the aether inducing a response at B as receiver as an oscillating charge of the same frequency.

An oscillating charge as input at A thus is transferred to an oscillating charge at B as output as a resonance  phenomenon analysed as Computational Blackbody Radiation. We find the same phenomenon with two tuning forks in resonance in still air acting as an aether as shown in the very instructive video above.

We thus describe propagation of light from A to B along the following key points:

• Maxwell's equations in a Euclidean coordinate system fixed to B.
• Resonance phenomenon connecting oscillating charges by standing electromagnetic wave.
• Aether is fixed to B as being "dragged along" by B.

The speed of propagation is the coefficient $c$ in Maxwell's equations. 

If A is moving with velocity, then frequency changes with the factor $\frac{1}{1+\frac{w}{c}}$ as a Doppler effect. 

Observations in different inertial systems with different aethers bring differences scaling with $\frac{w}{c}$ or $\frac{w^2}{c^2}$ depending on set up as analysed in Many-Minds Relativity.

In short:

• Einstein invented SR as a "no-aether" theory coming with strange non-physical effects.
• MMR is a "many-aether" theory without strange non-physical effects.

Your choice.

PS1 Concerning Einstein vs Newton we note that 

• Einstein contradicted Newton's mechanics.
• Einstein accepted Newton's idea of "light particles" later named photons. 

In both cases Einstein missed true physics. It is possible that there is some very extreme physics which is not directly described by Newtonian mechanics, but then by no other known theory. Light as wave can describe all phenomena of light, including photoelectricity, while light as particle is very simplistic and misleading. 

PS2 When confronted with questions about SR, physicists refer the null results of MME in support of SR as no-aether theory, but then miss that the null results can alternatively be explained as many-aether theory. 

PS3 When confronted with criticism of the non-physics of a no-aether theory, Einstein changed position admitting in 1919:

• It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an æther velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the æther, for I can see that with the word æther we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities.

This is typical of the always ambiguous standpoints of Einstein on key aspects of SR as physicality of space contraction and time dilation.

Crisis of Modern Physics: Restart without Einstein

Modern physics as atom physics has opened entirely new technologies with the atomic bomb and the computer as undeniable strong demonstrations of the power of abstract thinking of modern theoretical physicists. Despite these amazing examples of progress offered to human civilisation, modern physics is today in a state of deep crisis as if the mind of a theoretical physicist now somehow is prevented from constructive development of new technologies. How can that be? 

I have been pursuing a line of thought putting the blame primarily on Einstein with his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity SR from 1905 and General Theory of Relativity GR from 1916. Both SR and GR were initially viewed with much skepticism (for good reasons), but then very slowly found roles as fundamentals of modern physics, which today is the ruling paradigm.  

The trouble with SR/GR is that it is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics, as an incompatibility of electromagnetics and Newtonian mechanics, which means that modern physics is founded on a contradiction, which is the root cause of the crisis. 

Since real physics cannot harbor a contradiction, there must be something fundamentally wrong with either electromagnetics or Newtonian mechanics.  More precisely, electromagnetics is Lorentz invariant while Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant and the question is which part to give up? 

Recent posts present evidence that Lorentz invariance is unphysical and so is then also SR which thus must be eliminated from modern physics. Here Many-Minds Relativity MMR appears to fill the gap after SR as a theory compatible with Newtonian mechanics. MMR thus shows an opening to get out of the crisis of modern physics.  Do you want to test this possibility?   

 

Speed of Light vs 2019 SI Standard

The 2019 SI Standard defines length scale in meter by travel time of light assuming a preset speed of light of exactly 299792458 meter/second with time measured by a standard caesium atomic clock.

The SI Standard thus views propagation of light along a spatial $x$-axis as an electromagnetic wave phenomenon governed by Maxwell's wave equations in a medium or aether identified with the $x$-axis thus with an aether which is stationary with respect to the $x$-axis. The distance between two stationary points A and B on the $x$-axis is measured by sending a light signal from A and measuring the time for the reflected signal at B to return to A and then translating to distance by the preset speed of light. 

This is how an instrument like a Rangefinder at A determines the distance to a point B assuming that A and B are stationary on an $x$-axis joining A and B. A radar works the same way.

If the distance between A and B is large, it may be difficult to identify a reflected signal, and in this case the source may be equipped with a clock and emit a light signal with time of emission encoded, which when received by A with a synchronised clock will record travel time and so distance. This allows B to move with respect the $x$-axis, while the instrument is always stationary, which effectively means that the $x$-axis is tied to the instrument receiving the light signal. 

Consider now an $x^\prime$-axis gliding on top of the $x$-axis with constant speed $w$ as an inertial system with the length scale along the $x^\prime$-axis determined in the same way, that is via a Rangefinder tied to the $x^\prime$-axis. This means that the length scales on the $x$-axis and the $x^\prime$-axis are determined in the same way and thus will be the same if 

• The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.              (P)

Let us now check if this is the case in the light of the 2019 SI Standard, by inspecting the physics of a Rangefinder tied to an $x$-axis, which is the physics described by Maxwell's equations expressed in $x$-coordinates, which describes propagation of waves in a medium/aether identified with the $x$-axis. This is the physics explored in Many-Minds Relativity MMR.

Note that (P) is the same as the main postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR, which Einstein does not motivate but assumes as a Postulate from which he then concludes many strange effects like time dilation and space contraction forced by the Lorentz transformation.

The main difference between SR and MMR is that (P) in SR is a postulate with strange consequences, while (P) in MMR is simply an adopted SI Standard, which has no strange consequences and which can be motivated on physical grounds as indicated below. We now proceed to see how SR and MMR differ.   

We will then compare with propagation of sound in still air represented by an $x$-axis described by the same form of wave equation. We consider the relation between an emitter B and receiver A of sound waves, which can be viewed as a resonance phenomenon in a stationary medium where an oscillator at B interacts with the medium and so puts an oscillator at A in motion, just like two tuning forks at distance interacting by resonance in still air as medium. 

We similarly view interaction by a light source and a receiver as a resonance phenomenon carried by electromagnetic waves along an $x$-axis or aether tied to the receiver. We then face the possibility of different inertial systems or different aethers. MMR thus describes propagation of light in a many-aether system to be be compared with sound waves in a single-aether system as still air. 

To see the key difference between SR and MMR consider a light signal emitted at time $t=0$ at $x=0$ on a $x$-axis, and a light signal emitted at the same time at $x^\prime =0$ on a $x^\prime$-axis gliding on top of the $x$-axis and coinciding at $t=0$.  

In MMR the signals are different because they are carried by resonance in two different aethers, one connected to the $x$-axis and the other to the $x^\prime$-axis, and (P) is fulfilled thanks to the SI Standard. 

In SR these two light signals are identified to be the same, which lacks physics and so requires time dilation and space contraction to fulfil (P) according to the Lorentz transformation. 

MMR relies on the SI Standard expressing (P), which can be motivated as a resonance phenomenon in different inertial systems/aethers.  

SR has no reference to the SI Standard and so must seek satisfaction of (P) through unphysical Lorentz transformation. 

Conclusion: SR/Lorentz transformation is obsolete after 2019. Physics no longer has to be strange to satisfy needs of SR. The key is resonance between emitter and receiver of light carried by an aether identified with an $x$-axis at rest with the receiver as the essence of MMR in full agreement with the 2019 SI Standard. Eliminating SR/Lorentz transformation from modern physics may open to progress which has been blocked by the incompatibility between Newtonian mechanics and the Lorentz transformation. 

Modern Physics Education vs Understanding

The fundamentals of modern physics as compared to classical Newtonian physics are (i) special and general theory of relativity and (ii) quantum mechanics.

A basic goal of higher education is understanding, as something beyond mere parroting. While classical physics through a long tradition has been made understandable to students with the help of teachers who understand the subject, education in modern physics has to struggle with the fact that teachers do not understand what they are supposed to teach, as expressed by the famous physicist Richard Feynman: 

• Nobody understands quantum mechanics.

And by Einstein:

• Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.

Higher education in modern physics thus faces a situation where the teacher is not able to give the student the impression of understanding the subject, which will effectively put the same limit also to students: If the teacher cannot understand, how can students? 

To make education in modern physics meaningful thus requires a reformation into science understandable to both students and teachers. This is the mission of Many-Minds Relativity and Real Quantum Mechanics.

2019 SI Standard: Back to Classical Physics

Newton, forgive me! (Einstein)

The first step from classical to modern physics was taken by Einstein in 1905 in his Special Theory of Relativity SR replacing classical Galilean invariance satisfied by Newton's equations, by Lorentz invariance satisfied by Maxwell's wave equations for propagation of light. 

Einstein argued that laws of physics must be Lorentz invariant, which required a reformulation of Newton's mechanics into a new relativistic mechanics taking without gravitation the form of SR. 

In SR length and time were supposed to be measured with meter sticks and mechanical clocks, which by Lorentz invariance were subject to new strange effects of space contraction and time dilation.  

In 2019 (preceded in 1983) a new SI Standard was introduced with the length scale along any given $x$-coordinate axis measured in terms of travel time of light with a preset speed of light of 299792458 meter/second,  and time measured by a standard caesium atomic clock. This means that any given $x$-axis acts like an aether for propagation of light at given fixed speed. 

Consider a similar $x^\prime$-coordinate axis sliding on top of the $x$-axis with constant velocity $w$ as inertial motion with shared time $t$, like a different aether with shared time "carried along" with the sliding $x^\prime$-axis. Assuming that the origins of the axes coincide for $t=0$, the spatial coordinates will then following the 2019 SI Standard be connected by

• $x^\prime = x-wt$ 

which is a Galilean transformation. We can alternatively view the meter scale to be set by a meter-stick which does not change under inertial motion as if the meter stick is carried along by any given spatial axis without change of size. We are thus led to a many-aether theory, which in particular explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment showing non-existence of a single unique aether. 

A basic feature is a connection established through resonance between emitter and absorber of light carried by an aether/coordinate system tied to the absorber, as explored in Computational Black Body Radiation.    

The 2019 SI Standard is in full agreement with Galilean invariant Newtonian mechanics. This means that after an interlude of 114 years Newtonian mechanics is back again, thus replacing relativistic mechanics with its strange space contraction and time dilation and Lorentz invariance. 

Light propagation is in the 2019 SI Standard carried by different aethers as different $x$-axes with basic question:

• To what extent is propagation of light Galilean invariant?  (Q) 

This question is addressed in Many-Minds Relativity as an observer version of a many-aethers theory.

Recall that the step from classical to modern physics was motivated by an argument claiming that Newtonian physics required an "absolute space" as a preferred Euclidean coordinate system, which however could not be identified. But Newtonian physics is Galilean invariant and so works equally well in all inertial systems and so does not need any absolute space. On the other hand, an absolute time rate can be set by a caesium clock unaffected by inertial motion. The rush to modernity thus was not founded on real physics.  

Summary: The 2019 SI Standard with the same preset speed of light in every inertial system effectively brings back classical Galilean invariance into physics, leaving Lorentz invariance/SR as a curiosity without physical meaning along with the original conception of Lorentz. This removes the main obstacle to a unified theory of mechanics and electromagnetics by letting real experimental physics/SI Standard take the lead before Einstein's ad hoc theory based on "thought experiments".

How to Follow the 2019 SI Standard of Measuring Distance

Recent posts have pointed to the fact that according the 2019 SI Standard, distances shall be measured in terms of travel time of light under the specification that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second. 

The perfect way to follow the SI Standard is to use the LiDAR instrument for optical distance measurement:

• The distance measurement by means of time-of-flight measurement of laser light (LiDAR, light detection and ranging) is the method we use most frequently. In the range of a few centimeters up to several hundred meters it is the method of choice when high accuracy and measuring speed have to be achieved even under difficult and changing environmental conditions. To measure distances, light is emitted and reflected by the object. The distance between the measuring device and the target object can be determined on the basis of the speed of light and the measured time-of-flight of the light from the light source (emitter) to the object and back to the detector.t

The measurement of distance in meter to an object is based on Maxwell' equations for propagation of light as electromagnetic wave in a Euclidean coordinate system with the instrument/observer stationary in the coordinate system setting the speed of light to exactly $c=299792458$ meter/second. The travel time of a light signal emitted by the instrument and reflected back from the object is measured by a standard caesium clock, which is then translated to a distance by the specified speed of light. 

The key question is to what extent different observers moving with constant velocity $v$ with respect to each other obeying to the SI Standard using e g LiDAR, will be able to agree on distances and velocities. 

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has no information to offer, since it was formed under the old meter stick standard, while Many-Minds Relativity has. Depending on the communication between different observers, first or second order effects in $\frac{v}{c}$ arise. For human observers $\frac{v}{c}$ is very small and so agreement to high precision is guaranteed.  

The 2019 SI Standard has effectively eliminated SR from physics. This is a major step forward since SR has been blocking unification of mechanics and electromagnetics for 114 years.

PS LiDAR can also measure velocities using the Doppler effect.

 

The Role of the Lorentz Transformation in Modern Physics

The trade mark of modern physics as relativistic physics is the Lorentz Transformation LT connecting observations in two Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant velocity $v$ with respect to each other (inertial systems), to be compared with the Galilean transformation of classical Newtonian physics, with difference scaling with $\vert v\vert ^2$, assuming normalisation of the speed of light to 1. 

In most cases $\vert v\vert <<1$ and then the relativistic effects are very very small, yet they serve as prime evidence of major advancement brought by modern physics in the sense that the effects are of an entirely new kind including time dilation and space contraction resulting from the fact that LT mixes space and time, which is not seen in classical physics. 

The relativistic effects of modern physics are thus presented as being very very small, except possibly in very very extreme cases like "colliding black holes", yet very very important by opening to a whole new world of strange relativistic effects all based on LT.

Recent posts have pointed to the following facts: 

1. LT was introduced by Lorentz to accommodate observations indicating that the speed of light is the same in all inertial Euclidean coordinate systems.
2. The meter length  scale in each Euclidean coordinate system is according to the 2019 SI Standard  to be determined in terms of travel time of light with the speed of light specified to be exactly 299792458 meter/second, with second defined by standard caesium clock.  

We understand that with the 2019 SI Standard the speed of light is the same in all Euclidean coordinate systems by definition/standard: The length scale in each Euclidean coordinate system is determined so that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second.

This means that the original mission of LT has been taken over by the 2019 SI Standard, and the real question is now to what extent observations in different inertial systems can be made to agree. There is full agreement on the speed of light by definition/standard but not on velocities and distances in general. This is the objective of Many-Minds Relativity.

Summary: LT has no longer any role to play under the 2019 SI Standard. The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems by definition/standard. There are no effects of time dilation since a caesium clock cannot be affected by inertial motion. Physics without LT may open to a unified theory viewed to be impossible with LT.

 

Summary of Special Relativity after 2019 = 0

The Lorentz transformation as the essence of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR was motivated by an observation indicating that different observers moving with constant velocity with respect to each other (inertial motion) can have the same perception of the speed of light. 

In the 2019 SI Standard this is made into a definition/specification to follow by all observers to measure length/distance as travel time of light with a certain specification of the speed of light the same for all observers independent of inertial motion. 

This means that by definition/specification according to 2019 SI Standard, all observers have the same perception of the speed of light. 

This means that the original role of the Lorentz transformation has been taken over by the 2019 SI Standard. This means that the original mission for the Lorentz transformation has vanished along with SR. 

Recall that the Lorentz transformation was an ad hoc transformation introduced by Lorentz to formally give different observers the same perception of the speed of light. Lorentz pointed out that his transformation did not represent any physics. With the 2019 SI Standard there is thus no reason whatsoever to keep the Lorentz transformation as a basic element of modern physics. 

If this could be accepted by modern physicists the science of physics would be greatly simplified. 

Special Relativity Void of Physics after 2019

The recent series of posts on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR points to the fact that with the 2019 SI International Standard of Units, SR is no longer relevant, if it ever was. This should come as a relief to all students of physics. 

In the 2019 SI Standard meter as the the unit of length is defined in terms of travel time of light assuming that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second, where second as the unit of time is determined by a standard caesium clock. 

The SI Standard dictates that an observer X equipped with a Euclidean spatial $x$-axis must define distance along the $x$-axis by measuring travel time of light to different points along the axis using a standard caesium clock under the dictate that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second. In other words, the $x$-axis serves as an aether for the propagation of light with given standard speed.

Another observer X' equipped with an $x^\prime$-axis moving with constant velocity with respect to the $x$-axis (inertial motion), will have to follow the same SI Standard. The $x^\prime$-axis then serves as another aether for the propagation of light with given standard speed.

This means that under the SI Standard X and X' agree (have to accept) that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second. The $x$-axis and $x^\prime$-axis serve as different aethers for light propagation at standard speed.

In particular this means that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is just what can be expected under the SI Standard. Each observer is connected to an individual aether which is "dragged along", and there are different aethers all with the same speed of light.    

The real question is now:

• To what extent will X and X' be able to agree on distances and velocities?  (Q)

This is the question addressed in Many-Minds Relativity. The observers will not not agree on everything, and the extent depends what means of communication/physics are used. In particular they all use the same standard caesium clock with clock rate independent of inertial motion, thus without time dilation.

The key point is that SR has nothing to say about (Q). This is because SR is based on a postulate (P) stating that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Einstein viewed this postulate to say something about how measures of space and time changes with observer motion leading to (strange) effects of time dilation and space contraction.  But with the SI Standard (P) is simply a definition/prescription of how to measure space and time, which does not include anything of underlying physics. In short, (P) is empty of physics and so must SR be. The Lorentz transformation of SR does not describe physics.

SR has nothing to say about (Q) and so nothing to say after 2019. Since modern physics is based on SR, modern physics is not the same after 2019 and has to be rewritten into post-modern physics.  

It is maybe ironic that SR by theoretical physicists worshipped as a fundamental element of modern physics, effectively was cancelled by modern experimental physicists forming the 2019 SI Standard for high-precision measurement of length/distance and time. This can be viewed as a form of self-correction of theory by observation, which is however not accepted by theoretical physicists who do not understand the practice of  the 2019 SI Standard.This unfortunate situation is part of the crisis of modern physics with theory no longer in contact with observation.

Discussion is complicated since theoretical physicist do not care about/understand measuring technique, and experimental physicists do not care about/understand theory. My experience so far is that nobody is interested in a discussion about theory with observation and observation with theory, which after all is the objective of physics as science.

Recall that Einstein in 1905 used unspecified "meter sticks" and "clocks" in extreme "thought experiments" with human "observers" moving with speeds close to the speed of light, and so could draw sensational conclusions. 

 

The Catch of Special Relativity

Modern physics is deeply troubled by in particular Einstein's Special Relativity SR based on the Lorentz transformation exhibiting strange effects of time dilation and space contraction including a wealth of contradictions. 

SR arises from an attempt to unify observations of the same physics in two different Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. 

The set up is a human observer X equipped with a Euclidean one-dimensional $x$-axis with distance marked in terms of lightseconds according to the 2019 SI Standard specifying the speed of light to be exactly 299792458 meter/second with second measured by a standard caesium clock, thus with a speed of light equal to exactly 1 lightsecond/second. The observer X is stationary with respect the $x$-axis and makes observations assuming that light propagates with speed 1 along the $x$-axis independent of the motion of the source with receiver always stationary. 

X is thus stationary in a Euclidean $(x,t)$-system allowing observations of effects of both Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetics following the 2019 SI Standard. This allows X to observe all of classical physics and there is no need to ask for anything more.  

But let us anyway introduce another fully similar observer X' stationary in a $x^\prime$-axis which moves with constant speed $v$ with respect to the $x$-axis and using the same standard caesium clock unaffected by inertial motion, with thus the following space coordinate connection:

• $x^\prime =x+vt$        (G)

Both space axes act as aethers for propagation of light with speed 1, and we thus have two aethers/space axes moving with respect to each other with speed $v$ expressing Galilean invariance by (G).

We thus have two observers X and X' both capable of surveying all of classical physics, but from different view points. One may ask to what extent X and X' can agree as a function of the size of $v$. This is the subject of Many-Minds Relativity. 

In SR the connection between observations by X in $(x,t)$-coordinates and by X' in a $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-coordinates is dictated by the Lorentz transformation:

• $x^\prime =\gamma (x-vt)$, $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$,  $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$ (L) 

expressing Lorentz invariance. We see that $x=t$ (as the trajectory of a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the view of X) if and only if $x^\prime =t^\prime$ (as the trajectory of a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the view of X'). 

On the other hand, (G) states that if $x=t$ (as the trajectory of a light signal in the view of X) then $x^\prime =t+vt=(1+v)t$ appearing to correspond to a light speed of $1+v>1$ in the view of X'. 

Einstein was led to SR by dismissing (G) and favouring (L). 

The catch is now the following: A light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the view of X, and a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the X' system, are distinct light signals propagated in distinct aethers/coordinate systems. The light signal emitted in the $x$-system at $t=0$ following the trajectory $x=t$ is not the same as the light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ system. This is because a light signal has an extension in space and is not emitted from a point-like source as shown in the previous post.

This means that there is no mission of SR to explain how different inertial observers can agree on a common speed of light is, since there is no light signal propagating with the speed $1+v$ in the view of X', only a light signal with speed 1 in the view of X, and a light signal with speed 1 in the view of X'. 

SR seeks to describe the same physics in different coordinate systems in a case were the physics is not the same. In other words, SR has no mission after the 2019 SI Standard requiring each observer to be stationary in a coordinate system/aether of choice in which light propagates with speed 1. Einstein's SR of 1905 is thus not the same as SR after 2019 as a remarkable result of self-correction demanded by logic.

In particular, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be understood from the fact that both observers X and X' can be viewed to "drag along" their respective aether. Recall that Einstein interpreted the MM null result indicating that "there is no single unique aether", as "there is no aether at all", while I have followed the other possibility namely "there are many different aethers".

Non-Physical Lorentz Transformation

This is a follow up of the previous post with another aspect of the non-physicality of the Lorentz transformation. 

Lorentz invariance is a holy feature of modern physics coming to expression for a wave equation:

• $\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}=0$                 (W)

with solution $u(x,t)$ depending on a 1d Euclidean coordinate $x$ and time coordinate $t$. As shown in this post, the function $u^\prime (x^\prime ,t^\prime )=u(x,t)$ expressed in the Lorentz transformed coordinates $(x^\prime ,t^\prime)$ stated in the previous post, satisfies the wave equation

$\frac{\partial u^\prime}{\partial t^\prime}-\frac{\partial u^\prime}{\partial x^\prime}=0$  (W'),

which is viewed to express Lorentz invariance: The function $u(x,t)$ satisfying the wave equation (W), in transformed coordinates $u^\prime (x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ satisfies the wave equation (W') which reads exactly the same way as (W). 

The current wisdom is thus to say that the wave equation being invariant under Lorentz transformation, expresses a physical law which takes the same form in different coordinate systems connected by the Lorentz transformation. Invariance!

After having noted that the wave equation is Lorentz invariant, Einstein bravely proclaimed that all (true) laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, which immediately forced him to throw out Newtonian mechanics since Newton's 2n Law is not Lorentz invariant, and proceed to form a new relativistic mechanics unfortunately creating lots of trouble for modern physicists.

To someone with a bit of schooling in mathematics the wave equation (W) needs a qualification into an initial value problem with $t>0$, and $u(x,0)$ as an initial value as a function with spatial extension for all $x$, thus as co-existence in space for $t=0$. 

Now comes the catch: The initial value is not Lorentz invariant, since $t=0$ and $t^\prime =0$ do not say the same. In fact, $u(x,0)=u^\prime (\gamma x, \gamma vx)$, which is not an initial value for $u^\prime (x^\prime ,0)$. 

Co-existence as extended existence in space at a specific time is fundamental. Without co-existence the world collapses into point-like isolated events in space without cohesion and meaning.  

In other words, not even the wave equation (W) is Lorentz invariant, and so the whole idea of modern physics to consider laws of physics which are Lorentz invariant, collapses. This should be a relief for all students of physics for which exams in relativistic mechanics appear as road-block.

Why SR/Lorentz Transformation is Non-Physical

Recent posts have pointed to the fact that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR is empty of physics and thus says nothing about the physical world, and so serves no scientific purpose. 

How can this be understood? We have put forward the argument that the basic postulate P of SR (with P stating that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers moving with constant velocity with respect to each other), with the 2019 SI meter Standard is no longer a statement about physics but instead a prescription/standard/definition to follow by every observer to measure distance in lightseconds so that by definition the speed of light is the same for all observers, namely exactly 299792458 meter/second.

The basic postulate of SR is thus not a statement about physics, but a dictate to measure distance so that the speed of light is the same for every observer. 

The real question is then how well the 2019 SI Standard will work, that is to what extent different observers will agree on physics beyond the speed of light. SR has no information to offer, while Many-Minds Relativity has. 

Let us here understand the non-physical aspect of SR by inspecting the Lorentz transformation LT which Einstein in his 1905 article introducing SR derived from the basic postulate P.  

LT connects two 1d Euclidean space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ by the non-singular linear transformation

• $x^\prime =\gamma (x-vt)$, $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$        

where $v$ with $\vert v\vert <1 $ is a given constant and $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$. 

We see that $x=vt$ in transformed coordinates reads $x^\prime =0$, which states the the origin $x^\prime =0$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system moves along the trajectory $x=vt$ in the $(x,t)$-system.

We see that $x=t$ if $x^\prime =t^\prime$ and vice versa. So far LT is simply a coordinate transformation without physics. 

Physics is introduced by assuming that a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the $(x,t)$-system follows the trajectory $x=t$ for $t>0$, thus with speed $\frac{dx}{dt}=1$. 

Likewise a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system follows the trajectory $x^\prime =t^\prime $ for $t^\prime >0$, again with speed 1. 

In Einstein's SR these two light signals are viewed to be the same physical light signal, since they are both initiated from $(0,0)$. Einstein thus views the same physics being expressed in two different coordinate systems connected by the Lorentz transformation, which establishes a connection between the two systems coming with strange physical effects of time dilation and space contraction.

But a closer inspection shows that the two light signals are not the same, because emission of a light signal at $t=0$ in the $(x,t)$-system requires extension in $x$ of the emitting source to be physical. Similarly, emission of a  light signal at $t^\prime =0$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system requires extension in $x^\prime$ of the emitting source to be physical. 

The catch is now that the emitting sources extended in $x$ at $t=0$ and extended in $x^\prime$ at $t^\prime =0$, are not same, and hence neither are the emitted light signals. It means that the two systems are not connected by a common light signal and so the Lorentz transformation is non-physical and so SR is non-physical and so serves no purpose in physics. Connecting to the previous post, co-existence is not the same and so the physics is different in the two systems.

Einstein is misled to believe the light signals to be the same because a distinction between $(x,0)=(0,0)$ and $(x^\prime ,0)=(0,0)$ cannot be made. 

Einstein's big mistake to give meaning to events labeled by $(x,t)$-coordinates as something without extension in space happening at the point $x$ at time $t$, thus with events being non-physical, because physical events have extension in space. 

We have now seen two arguments showing that SR is non-physical or void of physics:

1. Non-physicality of basic postulate P with 2019 SI Standard made into a prescription/definition. 
2. Non-physicality of LT as describing events without extension in space. 

   

What Role Does Simultaneity Serve in Physics?

Einstein starts out his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity SR by an analysis of simultaneity similar to that presented in 1898 by the mathematician Poincaré, showing that different human observers may have different conceptions of simultaneity.

It is natural to ask what role simultaneity may serve in a World without human observers with possibly different conceptions. Let us then in the foot steps of Leibniz connect space to co-existence connecting to simultaneity, and then connect time to change. 

The basic case concerns two point-like particles A and B which meet/collide at a specific point in space and time and then part. At collision A and B share simultaneity and coexistence, since collision requires both A and B to be at the same place and time. 

Is it then necessary for A and B to keep track of position in space and time, in order to prepare for collision? Like when docking into the space station for a rocket? Of course not, the collision takes place at some position in space and time which A and B happen to share which automatically satisfies simultaneity. Collision involves both particles as a simultaneous event. If you come too late to the party, you will miss it.

More generally, simultaneity is not an issue in physics, since all interaction ultimately is established by contact/collision. For an extended body co-existence as extended simultaneity is established by contact. For a very large body delay effects may arise.

We conclude that simultaneity is only an issue for human observers seeking to synchronise clocks in order to set up a system of global time for communication, travel and business/stock exchange, and for GPS. The moon does not need a clock or GPS to find its path around the Earth. 

In Einstein's SR, simultaneity is essential, while in physics it is not essential. This means that SR is not a theory about physics, only about human observers in SR equipped with old meter sticks and mechanical clocks. Unfortunately, this is not understood by modern physicists trained to view SR as a theory about physics, which is behind the present crisis of modern physics.

Many-Minds Relativity offers an alternative to SR as a theory about conceptions of human observers. 

Einstein's Happiest Thought made him Unhappy

Why was the later Einstein so unhappy?

It started with a young Einstein expressing that "his happiest thought" was the following:

• The gravitational field has only a relative existence... Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.

It was the pivotal thought to allow Einstein to take the step from his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity SR without gravitation, to his 1916 General Theory of Relativity GR including gravitation. 

Einstein's happy thought was to view free fall of a (small) object as a state without internal forces (stress free) with all parts of the body accelerating the same way subject to a gravitational force being constant over the body, and then draw the conclusion in the absence of internal forces that the body was not subject to any force at all. This brought GR with gravitation back to SR without gravitation. 

Recall that a body in free fall is subject to gravitational force, which is constant for an infinitesimally small body, but for a body with extension gives rise to internal tidal forces, like the gravitational force from the Moon creating tidal waves in the oceans of the Earth. To view free fall as inertial motion without gravitational force lacks reason. 

In any case, Einstein considered a (small) observer O1 with closed eyes under 

• inertial motion (SR)
• free fall (GR)

Einstein noted that in both cases O1 would feel to be stress free without internal forces, and so it would be impossible for O1 to distinguish between inertial motion and free fall from the presence of internal forces, since they would be zero in both cases. But to a stationary observer O2 in a Euclidean coordinate system following the motion of O1, there would be a clear difference between inertial motion as motion with zero acceleration and free fall as accelerated motion. This would also be clear to O1 when opening the eyes.

But Einstein did not take the position of O2 or O1 with open eyes, but instead made a distinction between inertial motion as motion in flat space-time and free fall as motion in curved space-time, which led him to GR. 

So far so good, but Einstein's goal was to form a unified field theory including both gravitation and electromagnetics, which required electromagnetics to also be expressed in curved space-time. Einstein worked on this problem incessantly since 1916 to his death in 1955, however without any success. 

This was the reason Einstein was so unhappy during his later life. 

Is it also the destiny of a modern physicist in quest for a unified field theory including GR, to be unhappy?

Not necessarily, since it is possible to form a unified field theory including Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetics because this possibility was opened with the 2019 SI meter Standard, as exposed in recent posts. Would you be interested in exploring this possibility, and get happy? Then send me a note and I will help to get started, to the best of my knowledge. Ok?

Einstein, the loneliest man in town as smart as a man can be but: He ain't got rythm.

Travel Faster than Light!

Recent posts show that with the 2019 SI Standard, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR no longer is a theory about physics, since the main postulate of SR stating that the speed of light is the same for all observers as a physical fact, which may be true or false, is turned into simply an agreement, which has no truth value. 

This means that SR has no real physical content and so can be dismissed without losing any real physics. In particular the main result of SR that nothing can travel faster light, no longer is supported by theory (nor by observation see PS1).

We are thus back to the end of the 19th century facing the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment signifying that there is no unique aether for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Instead of following Einstein claiming that the MM experiment shows that (i) there is no aether at all then leading to SR, we follow the other possibility that (ii) there are many different aethers leading to Many-Minds Relativity MMR.

Let us now see what Newtonian Mechanics NM and MMR have to say about travel faster than light. Let us then consider an $x$-axis with distances marked according to the 2019 SI Standard thus distance in terms of travel time of light with an agreed speed of light equal to 1. Consider a rocket of unit mass traveling through vacuum starting from rest at $x=0$ at time $t=0$ propelled by a rocket engine delivering a thrust $F=1$. 

Newton would say that the rocket velocity $v(t)$ at time $t>0$ is given by $v=t$, thus faster than light for $t>1$.

MMR is different from NM by measuring velocity in terms of Doppler shift, which gives the different rocket velocity $v(t)=\exp(t)-1$, even faster than light for $t>1$.

We conclude that a rocket moving through vacuum subject to a thrust $F=1$ will eventually reach a velocity which is larger than the speed of light. This gives new perspective on the feasibility of human space travel. Maybe it is possible to reach the star closest to Earth (Proxima Centauri) in much less than 4.3 years...if only thrust can be maintained...  

PS1 Recall that there are observations of distant galaxies appearing (from red shift) to recede with a speed more than 10 times the speed of light, in direct contradiction to SR.

PS2 To a mathematician the distinction between definition and theorem is clear. A theorem can (be proven to) be true or false, while trying to prove or disprove a definition would be viewed to be silly. It is also possible to view a theorem as a statement which can be proved to be true, and use the term conjecture as a statement which may be proved to be true or false. But to a physicist educated by Einstein the distinction between theorem/conjecture and definition is muddeled. That the speed of light is the same to all observers, is by Einstein's followers viewed to be both a statement about a physical fact (theorem/conjecture), which can be true or false, and an agreement (definition), which has no value as true or false. By shifting between physical fact/theorem and agreement/definition,  Einstein has confused generations of physicists. It is time to return to use basic principles of mathematical reasoning and make a clear distinction between fact and agreement. Then there is no place for SR after 2019.