Einstein vs Lorentz, Planck and Bohr: Tragedy

Modern physics as relativity theory + quantum mechanics was born out of two misconceptions formed in the mind of the young Einstein as patent clerk in Bern in 1905 with little scientific training, but strong ambition to contribute to the emerging modern physics of  

1. Blackbody radiation.
2. Photoelectricity. 
3. Apparent absence of a unique aether carrying electromagnetic waves.  

In 1900 Planck had derived Planck's Law of blackbody radiation based on a smallest quantum of energy $h\nu$ connected to radiation/light of frequency $\nu$ with $h=6.55\times 10^{-34}$ Jouleseconds named Planck's constant. Planck did not assign any physical meaning to the smallest quantum $h\nu$ and viewed it simply as a "mathematical trick" used to derive Planck 's Law. 

In one of Einstein's 5 articles from the "miraculous year" 1905, Einstein assigns the quantum $h\nu$ a physical meaning as the energy of a "photon" as a "light particle" in a heuristic explanation of 2. Einstein thus did what Planck had said does not make any sense. In 1926 the mysterious quantum $h\nu$ appeared in Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom as the basic mathematical model of quantum mechanics.

In another 1905 article Einstein assigned the Lorentz transformation a physical meaning, which Lorentz had said would not make any sense, and so formed his Special Theory of Relativity SR.

Einstein thus contributed to the formation of modern physics in 1905 by attributing physical meanings to both Planck's quantum $h\nu$ and the Lorentz transformation, in direct contradiction to both Planck and Lorentz.  

As time went on and the authority of Planck and Lorentz faded, Einstein's ideas about physicality of photons and the Lorentz transformation slowly gained support, but when they became the standard of the new Quantum Mechanics of Bohr-Born-Heisenberg-Dirac in the 1930s, then Einstein said: Stop, QM is no longer real physics!  Only Schrödinger said the same thing, but both were efficiently cancelled by Bohr. 

Einstein thus started out and ended as a tragic figure. First he genuinely misunderstood Planck and

Lorentz about physical reality and so contributed the development of a new form of physics, which he on good grounds criticised for lacking physicality. The irony was that physicists listened when he was wrong but not when he was right.   

Tribute to Einstein as Icon of Modern Physics

After his death Einstein was chosen as the icon of modern physics as the creator of both the Special Theory of Relativity SR (1905) and the General Theory of Relativity GR (1915) forming the foundation of modern physics together with Quantum Mechanics QM in the form of Schrödinger's Equation SE (1925) without SR/GR. 

This looks great, but looking closer we find that (i) GR and QM are incompatible, and (ii) SR and QM/SE do not connect, which is a root cause to the present crisis of modern physics. 

To at least save something Dirac (1928) invented an SR relativistic model to replace SE named Dirac's Equation DE.  

Both SE and DE are multi-dimensional models without physical meaning invented on formalistic grounds and are uncomputable without drastic dimensional reduction with unknown effects. In any case SE/DE are the basic models of QM. 

As a tribute to Einstein and to create some form of unity between SR/GR and QM, physicist have decided to attribute relativistic effects not only to fast moving trains but also to the inner workings of an atom although nothing there is actually moving. 

So it is claimed that: 

• The single electron of a Hydrogen atom has an effective velocity $v\approx 0.0073\times c\approx 2.19\times 10^3$ km/s.
• A first shell electron of Gold has a effective velocity $v\approx 0.58\times c\approx 1.73\times 10^5$ km/s with $c$ the speed of light $c$. Very fast indeed! Relativistic effects must be added!

The very high speed of the 1st shell electrons of Gold is then used to explain observed electron structure of Gold, which does not fit with SE without SR. Very useful.

But how is it possible that the inner electrons of Gold move with a speed close to the speed of light, when in fact the electron charge distribution does not move at all?

Of course this does not make sense and let us then seek the origin of this strange idea. It comes from the formalistic derivation of SE where classical kinetic energy $m\frac{v^2}{2}=\frac{p^2}{2m}$ with $p=mv$ momentum, $m$ mass and $v$ velocity is formally replaced by

• $KE=\frac{1}{2m}\int\vert\nabla\psi (x)\vert^2dx$  

where $\psi (x)$ is a wave function depending on a 3d space variable $x$. The formal connection is thus:

1. Replace momentum $p=mv$ by the operator $i\nabla$.
2. Connect KE to $\frac{1}{2m}p^2=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$ thus connect KE to "effective velocity" $v$. 
3. Claim that the effective velocity of inner electrons of Gold is close to the speed of light.
4. Conclude that Gold carries large relativistic effects and explain observations as the result of increase of relativistic mass of inner electrons.

Here 1 is the key: Pure formalism as a form of voodoo physics is used to attribute relativistic effects in the inner working of an atom as if charges are moving with speed close to the speed of light with then a time scale of about $10^{-21}$ s or frequency $10^{21}$ in the range of gamma rays. It is hard to believe this to be any reality at all.

You may compare with RealQM directly based on real physics without relativity including an analysis of weak reactivity of Gold.

The big trouble with SE is that a derivation based on physics is missing. The derivation is based on identification of classical momentum $p=mv$ with the operator $i\nabla$ as pure formalism without physics. 

The further step to attribute relativistic effects also comes from this identification connecting $\nabla\psi (x)$ to velocity $v$ coming out as being very large suggesting presence of relativistic effects inside atoms. 

So all this can be seen as a tribute to an Einstein, who never accepted QM in its standard multi-dimensional non-physical form as one of the many paradoxes of modern physics behind the crisis.

Lorentz long before 1905 noted the fact that a wave equation in space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ formally reads the same under a certain simple linear transformation into new coordinates $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ later named Lorentz transformation LT. Lorentz very carefully remarked that there was no underlying physics for this invariance and that accordingly the new primed coordinates $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ had no physical meaning as space-time coordinates. 

Einstein as patent clerk in Bern must have met this idea and picked it up to rebrand it as Lorentz invariance now giving the transformed primed coordinates $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ a physical meaning in direct confrontation with Lorentz, which became the trade mark of SR identified with LT with physicial meaning. 

Relativistic velocities in atoms thus have a doubly questionable physical nature: (i) SE is formally without physics connected to SR by connecting $p=mv$ to $i\nabla$, and (ii) SR is born from Lorentz invariance without physics. 

Modern Physics as Strange Physics as Crisis Physics

Modern physics is in a state of crisis, and we conclude from Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason that the crisis must have some background. Modern physics can be described as being strange as compared to classical physics being rational with the shift taking place in the beginning of the 20th century.  

Strangeness was first introduced into modern physics by Einstein in 1905 in his Special Theory of Relativity SR presenting strange effects of time dilation, space contraction and relativistic mass leaving classical physicists aghast from solid experience of Newton's and Maxwell's physics.

Einstein based SR on the following Postulates

• Physical laws take the same form in all inertial coordinate systems.
• The speed of light is the same in all inertial coordinate systems. 

From these two Postulates Einstein derived the Lorentz transformation between space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ of two inertial coordinate systems moving with respect to each other. Einstein then derived the strange effects of time dilation, space contraction and relativistic form of Newton's Law with relativistic mass.

To derive the Lorentz transformation (already derived by Lorentz without giving it any physical meaning) Einstein's started considering the following "thought experiment":

• Two light pulses are emitted by two light sources flashing at coordinate $(0,0)$ of two moving inertial systems in which the resulting light pulses are described by $x=t$ and $x^\prime =t^\prime $ in each system.  (TE) 

In this experiment Einstein thought of a "flash" to be an event described by the coordinates $(0,0)$ without any real physics attached to the event. The idea of "event" without physics uniquely described by a space-time coordinate like $(0,0)$ was new as subject of the "thought experiment".

Having formulated TE in his thought, Einstein then argued:

1. The two light pulses are the same light pulse since the "flash event" = $(0,0)$ is the same in both systems.
2. Since the light pulses are the same light pulse, only viewed in two different inertial systems, there must be a relation between the coordinates, which shows to be the Lorentz transformation.     

The key is here 1. Is it correct to conclude that the pulses are the same because the light sources happen to coincide in space when they flash? If they happened to flash at different points nobody would expect them to be the same.

Of course not, if you replace "thought experiment" by physical experiment. A physical flash has duration in space and time in a coordinate system attached to the flashing device. If two flashing devices moving with respects to each other happen to both flash when they meet, it does not mean that they give the same flash and so cannot be connected by a Lorentz transformation.

Einstein's conclusion that the light signals are the same light signal described in two different coordinate systems, is thus without physical meaning. It is then not strange at all that Einstein can derive strange new effects which are "thought effects" and not "physical effects".

A correct conclusion of Einstein's experiment as real experiment can be inspected as Many-Minds Relativity which is not strange at all.

The strangeness of modern physics as root to its crisis was thus introduced by Einstein in SR as a thought experiment without real physics only strange physics. Of course all sorts of "strange thoughts" should be viewed with suspicion in particular in science. A reasonable thought is not strange. Physics must reasonable to exist. The step from black magic to science was taken using reason as guiding principle. There is no reason to go back to strange magic fostered by strange thoughts.

But the strangeness of SR was soon overpowered by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into strange physics "nobody understands" according to famous leading modern physicist Richard Feynman.

 

Non-Physics of Lorentz Transformation

This post directly connects to the previous post Physics Illusion: Lorentz Transformation to which we refer for clarifying figures. 

The basic postulate of Einstein's Special theory of Relativity SR is the Lorentz transformation connecting the coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ by 

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

where $v$ with $\vert v\vert \lt 1$ is a given constant and $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$. This is a very simple linear transformation, which by the chain rule satisfies

• $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}=\gamma (\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\prime}-v\frac{1}{\partial t^\prime})$
• $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}= \gamma (\frac{\partial}{\partial t^\prime}-v\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\prime})$

which leaves a wave equation invariant in the sense that if the function $u(x,t)$ satisfies 

• $\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}=0$,         (1)

then the function $u^\prime (x^\prime ,t^\prime )=u(x,t)$ satisfies an equation of the same form:

• $\frac{\partial u^\prime}{\partial t^\prime}-\frac{\partial u^\prime}{\partial x^\prime}=0$.  (2)

This is very simple mathematics, of the same complexity as 1+1 = 2. Here $(x,t)$ may be viewed to represent Euclidean space-time coordinates with (1) expressing propagation of a wave with unit speed, while according to Lorentz $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ does not represent any physical reality.    

This is were Einstein stepped in with SR declaring:    

1. (L) connects the coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ in two Euclidean coordinate  systems moving with respect to each other, both with the same physical meaning.
2. True physical laws must take same form in coordinate systems connected by Lorentz transformation (be Lorentz invariant)  = Principle of Relativity. 

Einstein then accepted the wave equation as a true physical law, but not Newton's 2nd Law because it is not Lorentz invariant, and so modified Newton's mechanics into a new form of relativistic mechanics with all sorts of strange effects including space contraction and time dilation by the coupling of space with time in (L).

In 2 Einstein decides over physics. In 1 Einstein contradicts Lorentz and so we ask who was right? 

An answer is given by recalling from the previous post the concept of coexistence or simultaneity, as the presence in space of a spatially extended body B represented by a range of coordinates $x$ like $0<x<1$ for which the time coordinate is the same e.g. $t=0$. If we plug in $t=0$ into (L) we get

•  $x^\prime =\gamma x$, $t^\prime =-\gamma vx$ or $x^\prime = -\frac{1}{v}t^\prime$ 

which represents a trajectory in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system without coexistence. This is contradictory and so shows that SR is non-physics.

The bottom line is that SR does not make sense for extended bodies. But a Universe without extended bodies with coexistence is not a real Universe, only a fantasy. The consequences for modern physics based on SR are far-reaching.

Or is it possible to save SR by insisting that the Universe consists of bodies without spatial extension somehow interacting under Lorentz invariance? We are thne led to ask how different such point-like bodies may interact? So we image two point-like objects with space coordinates $x_1$ and $x_2$ in the $(x,t)$ system, and we ask about the corresponding time coordinates $t_1$ and $t_2$? With $t_1=t_2$ the interaction is instant as an expression of coexistence,  while if $t_1>t_2$ or $t_2>t_1$ there is delay excluding true interaction. We are thus led to expect that true interaction between bodies requires coexistence and so would not satisfy Lorentz invariance. 

The case for SR is weak.  

More on the non-physics of (L): Three Major Inconsistencies of the Lorentz Transformation.

      

Perihelion Precession of Mercury vs Modern Physics vs Pataphysics

Science of Imaginary Solutions: Pataphysics

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR (1915) is viewed to be a crown jewel of modern physics replacing classical concepts of space, time and motion under gravitational force expressed in Newtonian mechanics, by an entirely new geometric world of "curved space-time" without gravitational force. 

Newton's mechanics fostered the scientific revolution in the 18th century, while GR opened to the revolution of modern physics of the 20th century. 

At least, this is what (most) modern physicists tell us: Newton's world of mechanics has to be replaced by Einstein's GR world of geometry. More precisely, Newton's mechanics has to be replaced by GR only for extreme speeds or gravitational force/curvature, while GR and Newton agree in most cases. 

The acceptance of GR has grown only slowly over the 20th century, since evidence of superiority of GR over Newton has shown to be evasive, as expressed by fact that the first Nobel Prize directly connected to GR was given only in 2020 to Roger Penrose:

•  for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity. 

The Prize is thus given to the "discovery that GR predicts" the existence black holes, which however cannot be verified. Is that evidence that GR is correct? That GR gives a prediction, the correctness of which cannot be tested? So the Prize in Physics has been awarded to the discovery of an aspect of GR as mathematical fiction regardless of any actual real truth value of GR.  It is like discovering that a certain mythological tradition admits the existence of Unicorns, regardless of the existence of any real ones. This looks like a Nobel Prize in Pataphysics as a branch of philosophy or science that examines imaginary phenomena that exist in a world beyond metaphysics. 

The first evidence of GR was presented by Einstein in a computation using GR to correct a Newton prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (very slow rotation of the elliptic orbit around the Sun) to exactly fit with observation. But the Newton prediction was made without a computer and so could not account for the full complexity of the problem involving all other planets and unknown inner motion of the Sun and more. 

So it is not clear that Newton fails as concerns Mercury. An example of the correction brought by viewing Sun-Mercury as a true two-body problem still within Newtonian mechanics, with Mercury influencing the motion of the Sun, instead of a one-body problem with fixed Sun, is given in

• The secret of planets’ perihelion between Newton and Einstein by Christian Corda. 

This shows that the correction captured by GR can also be captured by Newton. This is not surprising since the orbit of Mercury is not extreme at all, and so Newton and GR should agree. 

If then Mercury can be taken off the list of evidence of superiority of GR, what remains are extreme cases, so extreme that not even GR can be expected to work, such as black holes, so extreme that they cannot be observed, or even predicted by GR to be honest?  

Why is it important to normalise modern physics back to Newton's mechanics? Because, Newton's mechanics works very well together with quantum mechanics, where speeds are low and gravitation weak. Hopefully this can take modern physics out of its permanent crisis since 100 years caused by an unresolvable conflict between Einstein's mechanics and quantum mechanics: From pataphysics to real physics! In particular, quantum mechanics can be relieved of relativistic mechanics since speeds are low. 

PS1 The Nobel Prize to Penrose/GR is more precisely motivated as follows:

• A black hole is a supermassive compact object with a gravitational force so large that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. 
• In 1964, Roger Penrose proposed critical mathematical tools to describe black holes. 
• He showed that Einstein’s general theory of relativity means the formation of black holes must be seen as a natural process in the development of the universe. 
• He was also able to describe black holes in detail: at their farthest depths is a singularity where all known laws of nature dissolve.

Every word here triggers questions: Supermassive? Nothing can escape? Proposed? Critical mathematical tools? Must be seen? Natural process? In detail? Farthest depths? Singularity? All known laws of nature dissolve? 

Compare with Ethan Siegel: 

• This Is Why Scientists Will Never Exactly Solve General Relativity

Returning to Newton could offer a great relief from a 100 year spell. 

It is illuminating to inspect the picture presented by the Nobel Committee in its description of the scientific work of Penrose as concerns the nature of the interior of a black hole: 

Sometimes a picture tells more than 1000 words...

PS2 GR was initially met with deepest skepticism and was counted down and out by the 1950s. Then miraculously GR was revived in the 1960s and on, until the great triumph of detection in 2015 of utterly faint gravitational waves emitted by the most violent event thinkable in the from of collision of two black holes 1.3 billion years ago. Credible?  How much of the present crisis of physics can be blamed on GR?

On Scientific Stupidity

Peter McCullough recalls that in 1943, the Lutheran pastor and member of the German resistance Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested and incarcerated in Tegel Prison: 

• There he meditated on the question of why the German people—in spite of their vast education, culture, and intellectual achievements—had fallen so far from reason and morality. He concluded that they, as a people, had been afflicted with collective Stupidity (German: Dummheit). 
• The events in Germany between 1933 and 1943 had shown him that perfectly intelligent people were, under the pressure of political power and propaganda, rendered stupid—that is, incapable of critical reasoning. 

This is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer concluded from his analysis in his Letters and Papers from Prison: 

• Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction, as it makes people, at the least, uncomfortable. Against folly we have no defence. 
• Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use; facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved - indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. 
• So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. 
• A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel; we shall never again try to convince a fool by reason, for it is both useless and dangerous.
• But there is some consolation in these thoughts on folly: they in no way justify us in thinking that most people are fools in all circumstances. What will really matter is whether those in power expect more from people’s folly than from their wisdom and independence of mind.
• There are people who are mentally agile but: foolish, and people who are mentally slow but very far from foolish - a discovery that we make to our surprise as a result of particular situations. 
• We thus get the impression that folly is likely to be, not a congenital defect, but one that is acquired in certain circumstances where people make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. 
• We notice further that this defect is less common in the unsociable and solitary than in individuals or groups that are inclined or condemned to sociability. It seems, then, that folly is a sociological rather than a psychological problem, and that it is a special form of the operation of historical circumstances: on people, a psychological by-product of definite external factors. 
• If we look more closely, we see that any violent display of power, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind...

We know very well that there are many expressions of foolishness in the history of both politics and science and it is natural to ask if we are less stupid today than 100 years ago when preparing for WWII. Since we now seem to be actively preparing for WWIII the answer must be no, at least as concerns politics. But what then about science? It seems that science and stupidity do not blend well, but is it really true that the stupidity in science is less today than 100 or 200 years ago? 

With the amazing advances in many areas of technology (and warfare), it would seem that stupidity is no longer a problem in science, only in politics, but is it true? Let us listen to what some famous leading modern physicists say, stupid or not:

• Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. (Niels Bohr)
• Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job (interpreting quantum theory) was done 50 years ago. (Murray GellMann)
• Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. (Roger Penrose)
• If quantum mechanics is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. (Alfred Einstein)
• I do not like quantum mechanics, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger)
• If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. (John Wheeler)
• There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. (Richard Feynman)
• I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. (Richard Feynman)
• Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore. (Einstein)
• No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to fail. (Brian Greene)

So we learn from highest scientific authority that modern physics based on the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity are not understood. Does it mean that physicists are stupid, or only that the theory is stupid?

Credibility Gap of Exact Prediction from Theory

Precession of Mercury 0.001 degrees per century.

Suppose you have a theory about a complex physical system, like our Solar system or atom physics or global climate,  which you want to sell to the World by showing that it gives predictions in exact agreement with observations. Not in fair agreement with observation, but exact agreement. 

Then you have a problem because observation is subject to error and you cannot expect that your theory about a complex system, which is not known in detail, can be in exact agreement with observations subject to error. This problem can be handled if the observation is known to you before you make your "prediction" from theory, in which case you can fix your model parameters and computation so that your theoretical model appears to agree exactly with observation. Not only in fair agreement, but in exact agreement. But this would not be real theoretical science, just data fitting.

So you should be cautious when you meet predictions from theory which exactly agree with observations (which cannot be exact), and ask yourself if the exact agreement is the result of a posteriori data fitting, or if the prediction was made without prior knowledge of the observation.

Here is a key example: As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 arc seconds per century (one arc second=1/3600 degrees). Newtonian gravity, taking into account all the effects from the other planets and the Sun predicts a precession of 5557 arc seconds per century. There is a (very small discrepancy) of 43 seconds of arc per century. Newtonian gravity thus showed to be in very good agreement with observation for the complex System system not known in exact detail.  

When Einstein came up with his General Theory of Relativity GR as an improvement of Newtonian gravity, he made a simple computation which exactly delivered the missing 43 arc seconds. Exactly. Einstein then started from the Newtonian prediction of 5557 and added a contribution from GR by a back-of-the-envelope computation and arrived at exactly the missing 43 arc seconds. Einstein did not compute 5600 by applying GR to the complex Solar system, which is impossible because GR is so complicated, but used GR only to make a simple adjustment of Newtonian gravity doing the main job of predicting 5557. 

In any case Einstein managed to sell that GR predicts/computes the precession of Mercury in exact agreement with observation, which Newtonian gravity does not, and so GR has to replace Newtonian gravity. This has become the fundamental pillar of modern physics. Convincing?

The story is the same with Einstein's GR prediction of the aberration of light in exact agreement with  Eddington's 1919 Solar Eclipse observation. 

Another key example is the prediction of the fine structure constant of Quantum ElectroDynamics QED in exact agreement with measurement (up to 0.000000001), used to claim that QED is the most accurate physical theory even more precise than Quantum Mechanics, which is always in exact agreement with observation, although computations in both cases are exceedingly difficult even for simple systems.   

But the gravitational constant is not known better than 0.0003 and there is no theoretical prediction, unless it boils down to data-fitting.   

Nobel Prize 2022 for Proving that Einstein was Wrong?

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded to experimental work supposedly finally closing the fierce debate between Bohr and Einstein on the physical meaning of the Wave Function $\Psi$ of Quantum Mechanics QM, with the sounding conclusion:

• Einstein Was Wrong.   (*)

Bohr represented the Copenhagen Interpretation CI with $\Psi$ representing a probability or possibility of atomic states, while Einstein insisted that fundamental physics as actuality cannot build on playing dice. Bohr said that CI had found its final complete form in the 1920s, while Einstein claimed that something essential named hidden variables was missing. Bohr was younger and more vigorous and won the debate, but Einstein never gave in and his criticism never died. 

A new element was introduced in the 1960s by the young physicist John Bell who showed that outcomes of a CI complemented by any sort of hidden variables must satisfy a certain arithmetic inequality named Bell's Inequality. 

The 2022 Prize is awarded to experiments violating Bell's Inequality, which is taken as evidence that CI cannot be complemented by any hidden variables thus supporting (*). 

But if Einstein was alive today he would still not give in. He could argue: There is a distinction between QM as a general atomistic theory not yet fully formed, and CI as one version of such a theory. Ok, it may be that CI cannot be complemented by hidden variables making it a theory about actuality/reality, but it does not say that this limitation holds for any form of QM. 

The bottom line is that (*) is still open to debate. Get prepared.

You can start listening to Tim Maudlin:

• What Bell Did.
• Corrects the 2022 Nobel Physics Committee About Bell's Inequality

Maudlin points to a misunderstanding by Prize Committee believing that the experiments show (*) in the sense that no "hidden variable" extension of QM is possible, while in fact what the experiments (appear to) show is non-locality or in Einsteins words "spooky action at distance". 

This connects to the earlier discussion about the connection between mass density and gravitational force in Newtonian gravitational theory with last post: Gravitation vs Mass boiling down to view the gravitational potential as primary physical quantity and mass a secondary locally derived quantity.

  

Corruption of Modern Physics 2: Special Theory of Relativity

•  I neglected mathematics...because my intuition was not strong enough to differentiate the fundamentally important from the dispensable erudition. (Einstein 1900)
• The question whether the Lorentz contraction does or does not exist is confusing. It does not really exist in so far as it does not exist for an observer who moves (with the rod); it really exists, however, in the sense that it can as a matter of principle be demonstrated by a resting observer. (Einstein 1911).

Continuing the recent posts on Einstein's mistaken idea of light of frequency $\nu$ as a stream of particles named photons, each photon carrying an energy of $h\nu$ with $h$ Plank's constant, let us recall the analysis of Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity SR  presented in the book Many-Minds Relativity and blog posts on special theory of relativity, showing that SR is not a theory about physics. This was admitted by Einstein, who quickly gave up SR to turn to General Theory of Relativity in an even deeper state of confusion, see above quote. With Einstein's theories of relativity modern physics was misled away from the reality of Enlightenment into the fiction of Modernity, from real to fake.       

Einstein describes the set up of SR as two observers $O$ and $O^\prime$ moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, each observer being equipped with a measuring rod to measure distance in space and a clock to measure time, with sticks and clocks of the same fabrication. 

The essence of SR is a coordinate transformation between an Euclidean space-time coordinate system $(x,t)$ used by $O$ and a $(x^\prime ,t^\prime)$-system used by $O^\prime$ connected by the Lorentz (simple linear coordinate) transformation with $x$ and $x^\prime$ one dimensional space coordinates and $t$ and $t^\prime$ time coordinates, taking the form

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

where $\vert v\vert <1$ is viewed to be express that the two systems are moving with respect to each other with constant speed $\vert v\vert <1$. The Lorentz transformation has the property that a $x = t$ is transformed into $x^\prime  = t^\prime$,  which Einstein viewed to express the same speed of light = 1 in both systems, as the basic postulate of SR. 

In particular, a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ from a stationary source in the $(x,t)$-system is supposed to follow the trajectory $x=t$ for $t>0$ in the $(x,t)$-system, and similarly a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ by a stationary source in the $(x^\prime,t^\prime )$-system is supposed to follow the trajectory $x^\prime =t^\prime $ for $t^\prime>0$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system. 

Lorentz had introduced his transformation well before Einstein took it up, but Lorentz had been careful to note that his transformation was not to be interpreted as a transformation between physical coordinates. 

Unfortunately this was not understood by the young Einstein (with little training in physics), who instead came to believe that both systems must represent physical coordinates, because no system seemed to have any preference before the other as an expression of relativity. 

This led Einstein to consider the light signals emitted at $(0,0)$ in the two systems described above to be the same light signal, and then described by coordinates in the two systems connected by the Lorentz transformation, thus subject to strange effects of space contraction and time dilation. But a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the $(x,t)$ system, is not the same as a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system, because the light sources are moving with respect to each other. 

More precisely, a light source consists of a collection of atoms extended in space emitting electromagnetic waves over some period of time, and the physics of two such light sources moving with respect to each other is different even if overlapping at $(0,0)$. Einstein missed this completely crucial aspect by considering space time events supposedly identified by specific isolated space-time coordinates, but then events without physics.

The only reasonable set up from physical point of view is to require the observer/observational equipment to be stationary in the space coordinate system used, as explored in Many-Minds Relativity. A light source can be moving (then generating a Doppler effect), but the observer/observational equipment cannot be allowed to move in the coordinate system being used. To insist that this restriction must be broken, asking $O$ to make observations in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system and vice versa, as Einstein did in his confused state, is to ask for mysteries/paradoxes, which cannot be resolved. Asking the speed of light to be independent of both source and observer is the same as introducing an ether medium common to all observers, which has never been found.  

The unavoidable conclusion is that SR does not describe any real physics and so the strange effects of space contraction and time dilation of SR are not real but only fiction. This should come as a relief for all students of modern physics struggling without success to understand what is only confusion, while teachers of modern physics are expected to claim that they understand that SR for sure is a correct physical theory always agreeing perfectly with observation.    

To take home:

• The rate of a clock whether mechanical or atomic cannot be influenced by inertial motion. 
• With light second as new (1983) SI unit of space or measuring rod, the speed of light by definition is constant = 1 to all observers, and so Einstein's basic postulate is an agreement (matter of principle) without real physics. A theory based on postulates without real physics cannot say anything about real physics. The Lorentz coordinate transformation as the essence of SR, does not describe any real physics, because its basic postulate is rather an agreement than physical necessity.

Corruption of Modern Physics 1: Light as Particles

Photon/Energy Quanta Corrupters of Modern Physics

Modern Physics identified by quantum mechanics/atom mechanics as a revolution of classical non-atomistic continuum wave mechanics, was initiated by Planck in 1900 with his mathematical derivation of the spectrum of blackbody radiation based on a concept of energy quanta $hf$ (Joule) as discrete packets of energy with $h=6,62607015·10^{-34}$ Planck's constant and a $f$ a natural number (1,2,3,...) representing a frequency. 

Planck described his long struggle to motivate a high-frequency cut-off needed to avoid an  ultra-violet catastrophe with energies tending to infinity from frequencies without upper bound, as follows:   

• the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be...

Frequencies can range from $10^{12}$ for infrared light to $10^{19}$ for gamma rays with corresponding energy quanta $hf$ ranging from $10^{-20}$ to $10^{-14}$ Joule, thus macroscopically very small. Planck did not view his energy quanta to represent real physics, because atom physics was not yet born, and then only as a mathematical trick to achieve high-frequency cut-off from a statistical argument.  

The next step towards quantum mechanics was taken in 1905 by the young Einstein in his "heuristic derivation" of the law of photoelectricity (already formulated by Hertz in 1887 on the basis of experiments), where Einstein picked up the idea of energy quanta $hf$ from Planck, to motivate why shining light on a metal surface releases electrons from the surface only if the light frequency is large enough, as if an energy quanta $hf$ of sufficient strength is needed to release one electron. Einstein's basic "heuristic idea" was thus that exactly one energy quantum later named photon ejects exactly one electron.

Einstein thus suggested to view light as a stream of photons/energy quanta each one if large enough capable of ejecting one electron. But this was only "heuristics" without real physics as admitted by Einstein in 1951:

• All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, "What are light quanta"? Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.

A decisive step towards quantum mechanics was taken by the Nobel Prize Committee awarding the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics to Planck for "his discovery of energy quanta" (in his derivation of black body spectrum), and the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics to Einstein for "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect", thus sending the World a message of light as a stream of particles/photons/energy quanta. This work by Planck and Einstein is still the main "evidence" presented for the "particle nature of light", while all real physics evidence shows "wave nature" expressed in Maxwell's equations for electromagnetics and Schrödinger's equation for quantum mechanics. 

This is where modern physics stands today 100 years later coming to expression as the firm belief of a physicist (whether Nobel Laureate or not) that every material body as real physics is emitting an unstoppable shower of light particles/photons depending on its temperature, but not on the medium surrounding the body. This connects to the discussion with Will Happer still without conclusion.

Planck and Einstein viewed energy quanta/photons/light particles as a "heuristic" concept, which could be useful in certain types of theoretical arguments (statistics or cut-off), but which lacked real physics. Unfortunately this is forgotten by physicists of today, who do not object to an alarm of CO2 Warming caused by Downwelling Long Wave Radiation as stream/shower of energy quanta/photons emitted by the atmosphere and being absorbed by the Earth surface. 

It is important to distinguish between real physics and phantom physics. In phantom physics you are allowed to use concepts without physical meaning if it serves your objectives. In phantom physics you  can view the radiative exchange of heat energy between two bodies as a two-stream flow of photon particles transferring massive heat energy back-and-forth even if the bodies have the same temperature.

It is the same as believing your bank account to be connected to all other bank accounts with a massive one billion dollar transfer back and forth every moment. Or that you are connected to all other people on the web with a constant exchange back and forth of the same one Gbyte message every moment. 

This type of belief lacks real physics because it involves massive transfer back-and-forth, which is unstable and so cannot persist over time. To rely on unstable processes is dangerous and will result in misfortune. 

Corruption involves massive back-and-forth transfer of services/commodities. Corrupted physics involves massive back-and-forth transfer of heat energy. 

For a derivation of the laws of black body radiation and photoelectricity based on real physics carried by electromagnetic waves, see Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.  For quantum mechanics without particles, see Real Quantum Mechanics.

      

Nobel Prize in Physics for Discovery of Singularity without Physics

The mathematician Roger Penrose receives half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics

• for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity

with the following further motivation:

• In January 1965, ten years after Einstein’s death, Roger Penrose proved that black holes really can form and described them in detail; at their heart, black holes hide a singularity in which all the known laws of nature cease. His ground-breaking article is still regarded as the most important contribution to the general theory of relativity since Einstein.

So Penrose receives the Prize/2 for proving: in a singularity all the known laws of nature cease. Here is an illuminating illustration from the deep scientific text underlying the motivation (watch and get enlightened):

To give perspective on this perplexing message, recall that Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics with the explicit mention that it was not for his theories of relativity. The 1921 Nobel Committee did not consider Einstein's relativity theories to be physics, only mathematics closed into its own box. It is logical that the 2020 Nobel Committee gives the Prize/2 to a mathematician. 

Maybe it can be seen as a little compensation for the lack of Nobel Prize in Mathematics. The 2020 Nobel Committee concludes the theoretical presentation with the following reservation in the spirit of the 1921 Committee: 

• The extent to which the structure of a black hole surrounded by an event horizon actually match the predictions of general relativity is still an open question. Nature may still have surprises in store.

For 100 years the Nobel Physics Committee stubbornly resisted giving the Prize to Einstein's Theories of Relativity, despite its proclaimed fundamental role in modern physics. What made the Committee change mind? Was it this (criticised) picture:

Below you find the Nobel Diploma to Einstein with the explicit mention on the first page that the Prize is 

• independent of the value, after eventual confirmation, which can be given to relativity/gravitation theory. 

It is certainly unique in the history of the Nobel Prize to  explicitly state for which landmark contribution to science the Prize is not given!

For more juice, see Ant Elzinga's interesting book Einstein's Nobel Prize, A Glimpse Behind Closed Doors.

Special Relativity as Unphysical Views on Views

The conclusion of the last sequence of posts on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR is:

• SR is an unphysical theory about views on views, not a physical theory about views on physics.

In SR the views of two different observers, $X$ using a $(x,t)$-space-time system and $X^\prime$ a $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system, are demanded to be related by the Lorentz transformation connecting the coordinates in the two systems.  Through the Lorentz transformation the view of $X^\prime$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system is coordinated with the view of $X$ in the $(x,t)$ on a light signal propagating in the $(x,t)$ system with speed 1. 

SR thus prescribes the view of $X^\prime$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system on the view of $X$ on a light signal in the $(x,t)$-system, under the condition that $X^\prime$ is denied the possibility to directly observe the light signal in the $(x,t)$-system, while $X$ can view it to travel with speed 1 (and $X^\prime$ views an independent light signal in the $x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system to travel with speed 1).

SR is a theory about the view of $X^\prime$ on the view of $X$ on physics in the form of a light signal traveling with speed 1 in the $(x,t)$-system, and vice versa!

SR is a theory about views on views on physics, where the views on physics are reduced to a light signal traveling with speed 1. 

SR with one observer with one view on physics is Galilean physics of light traveling with speed 1.

SR with several observers is non-physics of views on views. All the paradoxes of SR result from confusing non-physics with physics. 

The physics of SR is simple and clear in the form of light signals propagating with speed 1 in all inertial systems. The non-physics of SR with views on views is confusing and paradoxical from physical point of view, since it leads to an infinite loop of views on views on views ... into a nightmare of repeated space contractions and time dilations without physical meaning. 

The insight that SR is epistemology without ontology of physics was clear to the physics community when Einstein presented SR in 1905. This was the reason Einstein abandoned SR in 1907 to never return.

Recall that Lorentz said that the view of $X^\prime$ on the view of $X$ on physics, is not physics.
In particular the transformed time $t^\prime$ is not real time only "local time", and that it was Einstein who took the step to proclaim the local time = real time, against Lorentz.

Recall that SR boils down to the Lorentz transformation supposedly derived by identifying two different light signals in two different systems to be the same light signal, which is unphysical and the origin to all the physics paradoxes carried by SR.

The confusion of two signals into one was made possible with the invention by Einstein of the new concept of event as "something" which can be labeled with coordinates $(\bar x,\bar t)$ in an $(x,t)$-system, however without any physics specified. This made it possible for Einstein to remove the physics of launching two different light signals in two $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-systems into two events with the same coordinates $(0,0)$ in the two systems, and identify the two events without physics to be the same event without physics, and then finally reintroducing physics by claiming the two different light signals are one and the same light signal since the originate from what is viewed to be one and the same event. Thus from physics to events without physics and then back to physics. Einstein was a master of this form of deceitful unscientific reasoning switching between ill-defined concepts and so created a new standard of modern physics.    

It is a mystery that SR has survived into our time as a foundation of modern physics, although SR is no longer part of the education of a modern physicist because there are no longer any professors in SR able to teach the subject.

PS The get perspective on the above concept of "a view on a view" as non-physics, consider the following examples:

• $X$ viewing/experiencing a definite pain in the neck goes to doctor $X^\prime$, who takes a view on this view of $X$. Even if $X^\prime$ is capable of some empathy, does it mean that $X^\prime$ also experiences pain in the neck, or can it even be that $X$ views the view of $X^\prime$ to be a simulation and not real pain?
• View your arm when lifting it in front of a mirror, and then view the same thing when looking into the mirror and note that the person in the mirror lifts her/his right arm.          

Einstein Did Not Understand the Idea of Relativity

Continuing the previous post on the unphysical nature of the Lorentz transformation as derived by Einstein based on unclear physics of light signals, let us seek some clarification, because from shoddy waters muddy fish can be drawn.

We start noting that a light signal needs both a source for emission and an observer for receiving/recording. In the simplest model the signal propagates in time $t$ (as measured by a standard clock) with velocity 1 along a spatial 1d $x$-axis from a source and is recorded by an omni-present observer $X$, who is stationary with respect to the $x$-axis, which then acts as an "aether" for propagation of light with $(x,t)$ a corresponding space-time system. The source can be moving with (constant) velocity $v$ with respect to the $x$-axis with a corresponding Doppler shift of $\frac{1}{1+v}$ of the signal received by a stationary observer, assuming $\vert v\vert \lt 1$.

This is the set-up in Many-Minds Relativity MMR with several observers $X$ with spatial $x$-axes moving with respect to each other with constant velocity, each observer $X$ establishing a source-receiver relation on the $x$-axis in which $X$ is stationary, all observers using the same standard clock for measuring time $t$.

Each observer $X$ thus uses a $(x,t)$-system with $X$ stationary with respect to the $x$-axis together with a standard clock for measuring time $t$.  The basic question in MMR is then to what degree different observers can agree on the physics of light propagation (or more generally on other aspects).

Note that MMR directly reflects the 1983 SI meter standard as a certain fraction of a lightsecond which can be used to separately establish the length standard in each inertial system, using a standard cesium clock to set the time scale.

Note as a key point that it is natural to assume an observer $X$ to be stationary at whatever point on the observers $x$-axis signal reception is made, rather than making the source stationary.  This is because it is the reception of a signal which can recorded, but not in the same way the sending of a signal. We shall see below that allowing $X$ to move is the source of confusion in SR, and so in MMR we stay away from this option without real loss of generality.

In MMR there are thus as many "aethers" as spatial coordinate axes, with each coordinate axis "dragging" its own "aether" along with light signals propagating with velocity 1. This can be seen as an expression of a maximal form of relativity with no privileged observer or $x$-axis. It is compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment supposed to give evidence that "there is no unique aether", by offering the possibility of "there are many non-unique aethers" (as an alternative to Einstein's "there is no aether at all").

But Einstein was not happy with (maximal) relativity without any privileged observer, and so set out to find a common ground for any two observers $X$ and $X^\prime$ with $X$ using a $(x,t)$-system and $X^\prime$ using a $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system supposed to move with constant velocity $v$ with respect to each other. The common ground showed to take the form of a coordinate transformation, the Lorentz transformation, which Einstein established by asking for the view of $X^\prime$ on light propagation in $(x,t)$ in addition to $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$.

To form the common ground Einstein started by introducing the origin $x^\prime =0$ in the $x^\prime$-system into the $(x,t)$-system to follow the trajectory $x=vt$ reflecting that the  $x^\prime$-axis is supposed to move with velocity $v$ with respect to the $x$-axis, or at least its origin $x^\prime =0$.

The $(x,t)$ system would then carry two types of motion: light signals propagating with speed 1 following $x=t$ and the origin $x^\prime =0$ moving with speed $v$ following $x=vt$. Einstein then established a connection between the coordinates in the $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-systems through the following steps:

1. Make the Ansatz $x^\prime =\gamma (x-vt)$ with $\gamma$ a positive constant, to account for the motion of the origin $x^\prime =0$ in the $(x,t)$-system. 
2. Send a light signal in the $(x,t)$ system from $x=0$ at $t=0$ to be observed by $X$ as following the trajectory $x=t$. 
3. Identify this signal with a light signal in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system sent from $x^\prime =0$ at $t^\prime =0$ to be observed by $X^\prime$ as following the trajectory $x^\prime =t^\prime$.  
4. From the identification connect $x=t$ to $x^\prime =t^\prime$ and conclude that $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$ and then that $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$ as the Lorentz transformation $x^\prime =\gamma (x-vt)$ and $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$, or the other way around as $x =\gamma (x^\prime +vt^\prime )$ and $t =\gamma (t^\prime +vx^\prime )$,

The Lorentz transformation connects the $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-coordinates through a simple linear transformation by making an identification of two light signals in the two systems. According to Einstein (but not Lorentz) the transformation expresses space contraction and time dilation as true physical phenomena.

In the previous post we questioned the identification on physical grounds, and so also the Lorentz transformation and so the very essence of Einstein's special theory of relativity SR. The questioning thus concerns the capability of $X^\prime$ to properly record the light signal in the $(x,t)$-system although $X^\prime$ has not established a sender-receiver relation along the $x$-axis, because $X^\prime$ is moving with respect to this axis.

This is the key point noted above. The crucial point is thus the perception by $X^\prime$ of a light signal along the $x$-axis traveling with velocity 1, while $X^\prime$ is moving along the $x$-axis with velocity $v$, thus with relativity velocity $1-v$. How can this perception be harmonised with the postulate that light travels with velocity 1 with respect to all observers/inertial systems?

Einstein's answer is: Deny $X^\prime$ the possibility of making direct observations of the light signal in the $(x,t)$-system with manifest relative velocity is $1-v$, because that would be in conflict with light velocity 1,  and instead refer $X^\prime$ to follow the same light signal by identifying it with a light signal in the $x^\prime$ system traveling with velocity 1, which boils down to the Lorentz transformation with its change of space and time scales. The conflict between light velocity 1 and relative velocity $1-v$ of $X^\prime$ in the $(x,t)$-system, is thus circumvented by referring $X^\prime$ to make observations only in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system with then a change of scale of space and time handling the conflict.

Let me give further perspective: The only physics expressed in the Postulates of SR is that light signals propagates with constant velocity 1 in all inertial systems. From this sole physics input a connection between coordinates in different inertial systems in the form of the Lorentz transformation is established, a connection which Einstein took as evidence of deep new physics of space and time, not only light signals. We thus go from simple input in the form of light signals propagating with velocity 1 in different inertial systems without connection, to a very precise connection between coordinates in different systems including completely new physical phenomena of space contraction and time dilation. This is viewed to be a result of the genius of Einstein as the ability like nobody else (e.g. Lorentz) to derive mind-boggling (but contradictory) conclusions about the deep real physics of space and time from almost no physics assumptions at all. This puts further doubt on the key step of identifying two light signals in two different inertial systems to be one and the same light signal. It is an unphysical assumption which leads to unphysical consequences.

It is a tragedy that modern physicists have closed their minds to questioning anything Einstein said about relativity, even when it is contradictory, including his derivation of the Lorentz transformation. Note that it is up to anyone believing that the space contraction and time dilation of the Lorentz transformation represent true physics, to show that its derivation is correct including the identification of the two light signals.

The above Einstein quote shows that Einstein himself had little confidence that his mathematical derivation of the Lorentz transformation was correct. So how confident can then followers to Einstein be?

With the Lorentz transformation as a travesty SR is reduces to nil, and what remains is then MMR. Try it out!

SR was by Einstein described as a "no-aether"-theory with the Lorentz transformation acting to unite observations of of different observers into one (privileged) common ground without relativity, to be compared with the full relativity of the "many-aethers"-theory of MMR with no privileged view.

As must be obvious to any physicist with connection to any physics reality, a "no aether"-theory is absurd by not offering any coordinate system for the expression of Maxwell's equations for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the form of light.

PS1 Ian McCausland writes in The Dingle Affair: An Unresolved Scientific Controversy (1977);

• If scientists are content to turn a blind eye to illogical arguments, and are concerned only that the "right" conclusion is reached but do not care how it is reached, then they are subscribing to dogma instead of searching for truth.
• As we approach the centenary of Einstein's birth (March 14, 1979) there is a new motivation to assess the value of his life's work, a value that would still be enormous even if the special theory had to be abandoned. If the scientific world commemorates this centenary without expressing any concern about the unsatisfactory way in which criticisms of special relativity have been treated, then I think it will be fair to suggest that the scientific world is more interested in hero-worship than in the objective pursuit of truth.

40 years later the controversy is still unresolved, and the dogma has an even tighter grip on the physics community.

PS2 Recall the Einstein introduced the concept of event as some unspecified physics which can be labeled with a space-time coordinate $(x,t)$. The two light signals in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation thus were labeled $(0,0)$ in both the $(x,t)$ and the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-systems, which was taken as evidence that the light signals could be identified.  But with the physics unspecified identifying two events lacks rationale.

It connects to the claimed experimental recording of gravitational waves in the LIGO experiment where an event in the form of a blip on a computer screen is claimed to be the recording of a gravitational wave created by the merger of two black holes, which is subject to increasing questioning.

PS3 The Postulates of SR speaks about the velocity/speed of light but says nothing about the nature of light e.g. as electromagnetic wave according to Maxwell's equations.  This is not helpful to the discussion because it opens to free speculation.

PS4 Of course I am not the first to say that the derivation of the Lorentz transformation is unphysical. It is made very clear in the talk by Thim Hartwig.

PS5 Recall Nikola Tesla (NYT 1935):

• Einstein’s theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense... a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.

PS6 SR based on the postulates of (i) relativity and (ii) constancy of the speed of light, can be identified with the Lorentz transformation connecting coordinates in two inertial systems, which appears to express space contraction and time dilation.  Only (ii) contains an element of physics, and so the question comes up if space contraction and time dilation are real physical effects or only illusion without reality. Lorentz said illusion and Einstein reality. To Lorentz space contraction and time dilation are forms of illusion similar to that of seeing the apparent size an object decreasing with distance, which to Einstein would mean an actual shrinking like that of the head shrinking practiced by certain tribes. 

Einstein's Unphysical? Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation

Einstein's special theory of relativity SR boils down to the Lorentz transformation connecting the space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ in two (1d space) inertial systems with parallel space-axes moving with constant velocity $v$ with respect to each other:

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

where $\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$ assuming the speed of light is 1 and $\vert v\vert \lt 1$. See that the origin $x^\prime =0$ of the $x^\prime$-axis follows the trajectory $x=vt$ in the $(x,t)$-system, and vice versa.

Let us now analyse Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation. Recall that Lorentz, who presented his transformation before Einstein picked it up, did not view the two coordinate systems, the unprimed and the primed systems, to have the same physical significance. If the unprimed coordinate system had a physical meaning, the primed did not according to Lorentz concern real physics of space and time, only some form of fictitious or apparent ”local” space and time. It was Einstein who took the brave step to give both systems the same physical significance as an expression of full symmetry between the systems or complete relativity with no system more physical than another,  and so Einstein gave birth to SR as a fundamental pillar of modern physics.

Einstein's special ability was to derive far-reaching conclusions about concrete physics from some general assumption concerning mathematical form. Einstein thus formulated the following Postulates of SR:

• Laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems. (Relativity)
• The speed of light (normalised to 1) is the same in all inertial systems. (Constant Light Speed)

We see that the Postulate of Relativity is an assumption about mathematical form and not about any concrete physics. Despite the very limited physics input in the form of Constant Speed of Light, Einstein was able to uncover deep truths about the very nature of space and time, including space contraction and time dilation,  as most surprising consequences of the simplest possible form of motion as translation with constant velocity. Amazing, but was it too good to be true? Let's see.

Note the important difference between the view of Lorentz (see PS below), as the inventor of the Lorentz transformation, with the primed coordinates expressing apparent physics with space contraction and time dilation as fiction, and the view of Einstein with the primed coordinates as real physics with space contraction and time dilation as real physics.

The difference is expressed  in the twin paradox with different rates of ageing only apparent according to Lorentz but most real according to Einstein. The question is then: Lorentz or Einstein?  

To seek an answer let us recall Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation:

1. Consider two (1d) inertial systems $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ with the $x^\prime$-axis sliding on top of the $x$-axis with velocity $v$ with its origin $x^\prime =0$ at position $x=vt$ at time $t$ thus establishing a connection between the systems.

2. Consider a light signal $L$ emitted from a stationary source at $x=0$ on the $x$-axis at $t=0$ viewing the emission to be an event with coordinates $(0,0)$ in the $(x,t)$-system. Conclude that $L$ follows the trajectory $x=t$ in the $(x,t)$-system, because the speed of light is assumed to be equal to 1 in the $(x,t)$ system.

3. Consider similarly another light signal $L^\prime$ emitted from a stationary source at $x^\prime =0$ on the $x^\prime$-axis at $t^\prime =0$ viewing the emission to be an event with coordinates $(0,0)$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system. Conclude that $L^\prime$ follows the trajectory $x^\prime=t^\prime$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system, because the speed of light is assumed to be equal to 1 in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ system. So far we have two light signals $L$ and $L^\prime$ in two systems moving with respect to each other.

4. Now take the step to identify $L$ with $L^\prime$ on the ground that their emission event coordinates $(0,0)$ agree, and conclude that $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ describe the trajectories of one and the same light signal, so that $x=t$ if and only if $x^\prime =t^\prime$.

5. Make the Ansatz $x^\prime =\gamma (x-vt)$ with $\gamma$ a positive constant recalling that $x^\prime =0$ follows the trajectory $x=vt$. Conclude by identifying $x=t$ with $x^\prime = t^\prime$ according to 4. that $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$ and $\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$, which gives the Lorentz transformation. Recall that new strange effects in the form of space contraction and time dilation are consequences of the Lorentz transformation.

Let us now take a closer look at Einstein's argument.

The crucial step is the identification in step 4. Before identification there are two independent light signals, one emitted in the unprimed system and another emitted in the primed system from stationary sources at the origins, two light signals without any connection. But after the identification the primed signal can be viewed according to 1. to have  presence in the unprimed system as a signal emitted by a source at $(x,t)=(0,0)$ moving with velocity $v$. There are thus in total four light signals, two in each system with one emitted from a stationary source and the other from a moving source, all identified to be one and the same light signal.  The key question is now if from physical point of view it is correct to identify:

• (i) two signals in the two systems on the ground that their emission events have the same coordinates? 
• (ii) two signals in the unprimed system, one from a stationary source and the other from a moving source, and vice versa for the primed system?  

Concerning (i), one may ask from where the need arises to introduce two systems and then seek a connection between the two? For the description of propagation of light signals, it is enough to consider just one spatial coordinate system with the source fixed at the origin. But this was not enough for Einstein, who wanted to uncover deep secrets of space and time by comparing descriptions in different systems of what Einstein considered to be one and the same light signal.

Concerning (ii) we ask if a stationary source emits the same light signal as a moving source? The answer is no, since the frequency changes according to the Doppler effect, so the signals cannot be the same. Moreover, since a light signal is extended in space, the initialisation of the primed signal as viewed in the unprimed system is different from that of the unprimed signal, because the Lorentz transformation mixes space into time so that initialisation at $t=0$ and $t^\prime =0$ do not have the same spatial form.

We conclude that the two signals in the unprimed/primed system cannot be identified if frequency and initial wave form counts, and without this identification the two signals in the two systems cannot be made either and so the connection by the Lorentz transformation cannot be made.

Summary: Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation between the coordinates in two inertial systems is based on an identification of two different signals, which can be questioned on physical grounds. Einstein's conclusion that the Lorentz transformation connects coordinates in two systems with the same real physical significance, thus can be questioned. For Lorentz the question does not have the same weight, since if only appearance is sought, the argument can be weaker. 

So what do you think: Is the identification anyway correct in some sense, if not concerning frequency and initial wave form, so that anyway the Lorentz transformation gives correct information about deep stunning secrets of real space and time, and not only appearances?

Or do you say that there is no reason to spend effort on a question like this, since all professional physicists know that the Lorentz transformation correctly describes real physics and thus does not require any justification a la Einstein or anyone?

If the view of Lorentz is the one that is correct, then much of modern physics qualifies as fiction.
In order for Einstein to be correct, a physically correct derivation of the Lorentz transformation is needed. Is there any?

PS1 Lorentz expressed his view on his transformation:

• ...a transformation of the time was necessary, so I introduced the conception of local time which is different for different frames of reference which are in motion relative to each other. But I never thought that this had anything to do with real time. This real time for me was still represented by the older classical notion of an absolute time, which is independent of any reference to special frames of coordinates. There existed for me only one true time. I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis, so the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein's work.

We read that Lorentz takes his hands off from Einstein's relativity theory based on misunderstanding Lorentz local time to be real time. Lorentz or Einstein?

PS2 From physical point of view with the $x^\prime$-axis gliding on top of the $x$-axis with constant velocity $v$, the only possible connection between the coordinates is that of a Galilean transformation:

• $x^\prime = x- vt$. 

It is unthinkable that there mere translation with constant velocity of  the $x^\prime$-axis on top of an $x$-axis, can change the scale of the $x^\prime$-axis vs that of the $x$-axis in any real sense. Unthinkable.

PS3 Recall that the Postulates of SR can as well serve as the postulates of Many-Minds Relativity MMR in which there is no need of the Lorentz transformation, and all the mysteries of SR resulting from Einstein's misinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation simply evaporate.

PS4 Recall that Einstein in his 1905 article introducing his special theory of relativity started by admitting that his Postulates appear to be contradictory:

• ...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

It was not a good start..

PS5 The Constant Light Speed Postulate was in Einstein's 1905 article formulated as follows:

• The speed of light in empty space is always 1 independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Einstein viewed this postulate to be in apparent contradiction to the Postulate of Relativity.  Why? Because the  notion of "empty space" and the qualification "state of motion of the emitting body" appear to give "empty space" the role of a "stationary aether" to which a "state of motion" can be related, which would be in conflict with the Postulate of Relativity interpreted as stating non-existence of any preferred (inertial) system.

On the contrary, the Constant Light Speed Postulate can be viewed to be a consequence of the Relativity Postulate, and as such carrying no contradiction.

PS6 Einstein (but not Lorentz) got hooked up by the idea of a necessity to describe propagation of a light signal in different inertial systems moving with respect to each other. But why not be content with one description, a description where the source or the receiver/observer is stationary? This is the set-up in MMR, where each observer is stationary in his/her chosen inertial system, while the source may be moving. If there are more than one observer, then the question is to what extent different observers will agree, which is analysed in MMR. There is then no need to ask about a description from the point of view of a moving observer required to be in full harmony with that of a stationary observer, as the (unreachable) objective of SR. There is then no need to go into SR with all its contradictions, and modern physics can be liberated to focus on realities instead of shadows.

PS7 SR can be described as follows: 

• All inertial systems are equally valid and there is a common description (of light signals) mediated by the Lorentz transformation.

MMR can be described as follows:

• All inertial systems are equally valid and there is no common description. 

MMR naturally connects to an idea that "all is relative", but not so for the idea in SR of a common description (of a light signal). MMR is like a many-gods religion (polytheism) without common god in harmony with full relativity, while SR is like a common-god religion (monotheism) in contradiction to full relativity. 

The True Paradox: The Twins Have the Same Age at Reunion

The twin paradox has been haunting physics for 108 years without any resolution in sight.

Let us approach the paradox using the basic physics of a clock in the form of a harmonic oscillator as the most basic model of all of physics. Consider two twins A and B at rest in a Euclidean $(x,y,z)$-system both equipped with identical clocks in the form of harmonic oscillators acting along the $y$-axis initiated in exactly the same way.

Let B take off into a journey along the $x$-axis to a distant point and back again.

Let A and B compare the readings of their clocks when B returns home. What will they find?

1. Einstein's (special/general) theory of relativity predicts that B will be younger that A. Since ageing is measured by clocks, this means that B's clock lags behind A's clock at reunion. B's clock may show 1 year while A's clock shows 2 years, if B's has aged 1 year and A 2 years during B's roundtrip. That's Einstein's prediction!

2. According to basic physics the performance of a harmonic oscillator acting along the $y$-axis cannot be affected by motion along the $x$-axis, not by uniform translation nor by acceleration/retardation. This means that B's clock during B's roundtrip will work exactly the same way as A's clock and therefore will show exactly the same time when B comes home. This means that A and B will have exactly the same age at reunion.

So, basic physics of clocks as harmonic oscillators shows, without any possible doubt, that A and B will have the same age, while Einsteins theory of relativity predicts that B will be younger.

This is a true contradiction or paradox, which shows that Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be correct. A correct theory about physics cannot give a prediction which contradicts the completely basic uncontroversial physics of a harmonic oscillator.

The twin paradox of unequal ageing thus is only an illusion (of Lorentz "time dilation").  This "resolves" the twin paradox, but the consequence is that Einstein's theory of relativity is also only an illusion.

It is a true paradox that this illusion has come to form the basis of modern physics.

PS1 When I ask a group of physicists to comment on my twin paradox posts, I do not get the reaction that what I am saying is wrong, but instead an excuse that they are too busy with other aspects of physics to comment, while admitting that the question is of fundamental importance to physics of today, and instead kick the ball back by saying that if I myself try a little harder, I will find a resolution.

PS2 The marine chronometer constructed by John Harrison in the mid 18th century working at a steady rate independent of travel over sea allowed for the first time precise determination of longitude. The key was to keep away from time dilation.

Einstein's Biggest Blunder: Mixing of Space into Time

Einstein "biggest scientific blunder" in his own view was the introduction of a zero-order term with coefficient $\Lambda$ named the cosmological constant in his cosmological field equations as a fix to get a stationary universe.

But an even bigger mistake/blunder was to change the view of the mixing of space into time expressed in the Lorentz transformation from that of Lorentz as a formality without true physical meaning, into a reality of space-time with space and time on equal footing in his 1905 article presenting his special theory of relativity SR to the world. Einstein took this step in sharp contradiction with the view of Leibniz with

• space = order of coexistence
• time = order of succession.

Einstein had a poor understanding of mathematics, which apparently allowed him to believe that just because (1d) space can be ordered along a spatial coordinate axis with space coordinate $x$ as a real number, and time can be ordered along a temporal coordinate axis with time coordinate $t$ as a real number, and the coordinate axes of real numbers for $x$ and $t$ superficially look the same, (1d) space cannot be distinguished from time. Einstein expressed this revelation as

• Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live.
• Space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind union of the two will preserve an independent reality.

Einstein thereby left the physics of Leibniz with a sharp distinction between space and time, into a world of imagination without distinction and thus physics. This was Einstein's biggest mistake!

It led Einstein to work with "events" without spatial extension for which the essential aspect of coexistence had no meaning and physics was lost. In particular, it led Einstein to a special theory of relativity without physics based on a confused derivation of the Lorentz transformation incorrectly assuming that two different light pulses with spatial extension emitted in two different systems are one and the same light pulse without spatial extension.

What is so completely amazing is that Einstein's mistake of mixing space and time has become a religion for modern physicists. The twin paradox shows that this is confusing fake physics. No wonder  that modern physics is in state of deep crisis, caused by Einstein in particular.