Crisis of Modern Physics: Split Realism vs Formalism

The crisis of modern physics witnessed by many manifests itself in a split between academic departments:

• Physics: Instrumentalism/formalism/epistemology (what we can say).
• Philosophy: Realism (what is).

A realist philosopher is not welcome at a physics department, and what would an instrumentalist physicist do at a philosophy department?

A split between physics and philosophy of physics indicates that something is fundamentally wrong, and that comes out as a crisis. What is then fundamentally wrong?

Let us search the root of trouble in the formation of modern physics in the beginning of the 20th century in the new fields of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR and Quantum Mechanics QM. 

Both SR and QM express instrumentalism and formalism as being focussed on measurement assuming a certain formal structure (Lorentz invariance and Hilbert space structure) where the real nature of physics is left open because it is believed to be hidden to inspection. The focus is thus on epistemology as what a physicist can measure and report (to motivate public funding). This is the physics performed at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva. Very expensive with real physics hidden in a blip on a screen. 

But the question of what physics is as ontology of reality remains, and paradoxically that is what philosophers of physics outside physics departments focus on (Reichenbach, Bell, Maudlin, Brown).  

So is there any hope to get out of the crisis by joining departments of physics and philosophy of physics into one?

Can SR and QM be reformulated into theories about reality, which start from real physics instead of formalism? 

Any theory about reality must start from some fundamental reality expressed in Postulates of the theory. If the Postulates carry no physics, a theory based on the Postulates using logic cannot carry any physics. 

The Postulates of SR are 

1. Physical laws are Lorentz invariant.
2. Speed of light is to be measured by physicists according to SI standard to give exactly the value 299,792,458 metres per second.
   

We see that the Postulates of SR are like commands to be followed by physicists but say nothing precise about any physics. Therefore SR does not say anything about physics, unless physics somehow is added to the Postulates. And that is what Einstein did by using a "thought experiment" to conclude that two light signals viewed by two observers in fact are the same and so must connect by a Lorentz transformation. But the conclusion of the same had no physical basis and so was picked from the sky suddenly adding physics to the Postulates, but then physics without reality. 

The Postulates of QM were formalised by the mathematician von Neumann into a set of abstract axioms:

1. State space: A system corresponds to a Hilbert space. States are rays (or density operators) in it.
2. Observables: Physical quantities are self-adjoint operators on the Hilbert space.
3. Measurements: Outcomes are eigenvalues; probabilities are given by the Born rule.
4. Dynamics: Time evolution is unitary, governed by the Schrödinger equation.

We see that 1-3 are like commands to quantum physicists, without concern to real physics. Von Neumann did this during the heydays of Hilbert's formalism in the 1930s, which however soon died because of Gödel.

Altogether, we see that SR and QM are not realist theories starting from what is as ontology, but have clear qualities of formalism/epistemology as what we can say. The trouble with formalism is that there is no reality to decide and so the discussion can continue forever like in medieval scholastics. 

My contributions to a realist restart are: 

• Many-Minds Relativity MMR 
• Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM

MMR starts from a reality where different observers use different coordinate systems and seeks what agreement can reached. 

RealQM starts from a classical realist continuum model of systems of charge densities in shared 3d Euclidean space interacting by Coulomb potentials as a new type of Schrödinger equation. 

Both MMR and RealQM represent realism as what is and so express unification of physics and philosophy of physics.  

Here are three steps to formalism away from realism:

• Planck introduces smallest quanta $h\nu$ in 1900.
• Einstein introduces photon as quanta of light $h\nu$ in 1905.
• Heisenberg introduces QM as matrix mechanics in 1925.

In 1927 Schrödinger left QM because realism or "Anschaulichkeit" was lacking. Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom is a realist model, but for atoms with more than one electron it is a formalist model without physics. 

The development in mathematics was the opposite with constructive computational mathematics taking over when Hilbert's formalism collapsed in the 1930s. RealQM and MMR follows the constructive path.

 

Free Fall is Not Fall in Zero-Gravity Space

Einstein presented in 1905 his Special Theory of Relativity SR as a theory about inertial motion as motion without presence of force/acceleration, in particular without gravitation coming with gravitational force. This was a theory of extremely limited scope, which was met by skepticism or indifference by the physics community 

As patent clerk at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, Einstein had lots of time for "thought experiments" and one day in 1907 he had the "happiest thought in his life" imagining himself in a seemingly "weightless state" trapped inside an elevator in free fall. Forgetting that this state would not prevail for long, with certainly an unhappy ending, Einstein concluded:

• A body in free fall is the same as a body in zero-gravity space.      (E)

Armed with this insight Einstein was ready in 1915 to extend SR without gravitational force to his General Theory of Gravitation GR as a theory including gravitation without gravitational force. Bingo!

We now connect to the last sequence of posts about a Universe with Newtonian gravitation consisting of bodies with mass all under free fall, like planetary systems, binary stars, galaxies and super-clusters of galaxies as expressions of large structure determined by gravitational forces alone.

We are thus led to question the physics of (E): A body in free fall is not a body isolated from gravitational force, but instead a body free of other forces than gravitational force.  

To make sense of (E) Einstein was driven to an idea of "curved space-time" where a body in free fall without presence of gravitational force would follow "geodesics in curved space-time" as shortest paths, which would correspond to the curved trajectories in Euclidean space followed by bodies in free fall under gravitational force.  

GR was also met with skepticism, which however miraculously disappeared after Einstein's death in 1955, and today is viewed as the greatest triumph ever of modern physics over classical physics. But (E) has no more reason today than in 1915, and so gives a major contribution to the present crisis of modern physics.  

In Newtonian mechanics the mass of a body is gravitational mass, which is classically measured by a balance scale vs a reference mass. This captures the additive aspect of mass with the mass of a body as the sum of the masses of the parts of the body. This is clear and simple. 

In GR without gravitational force the concept of mass is very complicated and so unclear. Einstein is often portrayed as very unhappy in his later life, as the true final consequence of his "happiest thought"  from 1907.

Poincare vs Relativity Theory

A recent post points to the fundamental difference between material objects with positive mass and immaterial objects with zero mass such as light with connection to the concept of luminiferous aether as immaterial medium for propagation of light under intense discussion as a puzzle of the modern physics emerging at the turn to the 20th century with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR as one solution attempt.  

The mathematician Poincare played a key role with main idea described as follows in Einstein 1905-2005 (eds Darrigol et al):

• Poincare actually never abandoned the ether. But he refused to regard it as an ordinary kind of matter whose motion could affect observed phenomena.
• In his lectures of 1899 on Lorentz’s theory, he wrote: I consider it very probable that optical phenomena depend only on the relative motion of the material bodies present –light sources and apparatus– and this not only to first or second order but exactly.

This is precisely the idea I have pursued in Many-Minds Relativity describing propagation of light from emitter to receiver by Maxwell's equations in a coordinate system locked to the receiver, keeping full compatibility with Newtonian mechanics. 

It is natural to compare with propagation of elastic waves in an elastic (material) bar oriented along an $x$-axis of a Euclidean $xyz$-coordinate system together with a similar bar oriented along an $x^\prime$-axis moving with velocity $v$ with respect to the $x$-axis with coordinates connected by the Galilean transformation $x^\prime = x-vt$. Each bar acts as a (material) medium for wave propagation or ether with the same wave speed, and we thus have two ethers represented by the $x$-axis and the $x^\prime$-axis moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, and so being connected by a classical Galilean transformation expressing relativity.      

We can turn this into a similar situation for propagation of light by assuming that the two elastic bars now represent two (immaterial) aethers or coordinate axes connecting emitter to receiver, with the same light speed 

We understand that in both cases aethers locked to coordinate systems act like media or "universa" for wave propagation, which thus are "carried along" with the motion, which is compatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment triggering SR.

The bottom line is that there is no role for the Lorentz transformation of SR to serve to guarantee the same speed of light in different coordinate systems, since this is already the case if the medium for light propagation is carried along with the motion under Galilean transformation. Therefore SR is not needed and so can be dismissed as a curiosity, as acknowledged by Lorentz. It seems to me that this must have been the position of also Poincare, even if not clearly being spoken out under the intense pressure to come up with something spectacular at the birth of modernity. In this regard Poincare could not compete with Einstein.

More by Poincare:

• Experiment has revealed a multitude of facts which can be summed up in the following statement: It is impossible to detect the absolute motion of matter, or rather the relative motion of ponderable matter with respect to the ether; all that one can exhibit is the motion of ponderable matter with respect to ponderable matter. (1895) Compare this post.
• Laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not, and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion. Compare this post.
• Indeed, experience has taken on itself to ruin this interpretation of the principle of relativity; all attempts to measure the velocity of the earth in relation to the ether have led to negative results. This time experimental physics has been more faithful to the principle than mathematical physics; ... but experiment has been stubborn in confirming it And finally Michelson has pushed precision to its limit: nothing has come of it.

Newton Back! Einstein Out?

Modern physics has developed from classical physics in three steps each viewed as revolutionary:

1. Maxwell's equations 1867 describing all of electro-magnetics including light-as-wave.
2. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR 1905 replacing Newton's mechanics without gravitation by relativistic mechanics.
3. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR 1916 replacing Newton's mechanics with gravitation by curved space-time geometry. 
4. Schrödinger's equation for atom physics.  

The present view is that a unified theory including all of mechanics + electro-magnetics + atom physics, is impossible because of severe incompatibilities between 1- 4, primarily because of SR and GR.  There is really no incompatibility between Newton, Maxwell and Schrödinger, if you do not seek incompatibility to boost your own favourite substitute.

Let us search the main reason why Newton was dismissed by Einstein and then all his followers. Newton's theory of gravitation as the main jewel of the infinitesimal Calculus created by Newton and Leibniz, describes the motion of all celestial bodies from the inverse-square law. But Newton's theory seemed to require instant-action-at-distance, which was exhibited by Newton's critics as a mystery/physical impossibility, even acknowledged by Newton himself, from a prevailing understanding that forces only can act by instant direct contact, with the history described in Newtonian Studies by Koyre. 

In GR the inverse-square-law is replaced by curved space-time geometry without instant-action-at-distance (from an ad hoc assumption that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light9,  thus circumventing the mystery, but at the price of an even more mysterious concept of curved space-time.

But there is a way to get around instant-action-at-distance even in Newton's theory, which is explored in posts on New View on Gravitation. The basic idea is that gravitational potential is primordial with mass secondary as the result of local instant differentiation. 

We may thus see a return of Newton, and let us then recall that Newton's world can be constructed starting with free fall of a small test particle of unit mass with velocity $v$ in a given gravitational field $\phi (x)$ depending on a Euclidean spatial coordinate $x$ described by:

•   $\dot v=-\nabla\phi$,                     (N0)

where $\dot v$ as the time derivative of $v$ is the acceleration of the test particle under the gravitational force $-\nabla \phi$. Accordingly the time of Newtonian success was named "the dot-age". 

(N0) is then generalised to small material bodies of mass $m$ as collections of $m$ particles of unit mass expressing that all small bodies fall freely the same way in a given gravitational field according to

• $m\dot v =-m\nabla\phi$.               (N1) 

We here assume the material body to be small so that $\nabla\phi$ is the same for all parts of the body. 

The next step is to transfer gravitational force $\nabla\phi$ to mechanical force $f=-\nabla\phi$ e g  hanging a unit mass in a unit linear spring and measuring its elongation under gravitation. This makes it possible to generalise (N1) to Newton's 2nd Law for a body of mass $m$ 

• $m\dot v= mf=F$                           (N2)                        

where $F$ can be gravitational or mechanical force. 

The final step is to express Newton's law of gravitation in the form given by the mathematician Laplace as the differential equation

• $\Delta\phi (x) =\rho (x)$ for all $x$,          (NG1)

where $\rho (x)$ is mass density and $\Delta$ is the Laplace differential operator, which thus connects to gravitational potential to mass density. 

The common view is that presence of a unit point mass at $\bar x$ generates a contribution $-\frac{4\Pi}{\vert x-\bar x\vert}$ to $\phi (x)$ as an apparent instant-action-at-distance. But it is possible to turn the connection around and view instead $\rho (x)$ as being generated as

• $\rho (x)=\Delta\phi (x)$       (NG2)

where the process of differentiation is local and as such can an be instant in the same way as a contact force.

It is thus not necessary to dismiss Newton's theory of gravitation as requiring mysterious instant-action-at-distance, and thus combine with Maxwell's and Schrödinger's equations into a unified model of the world as outlined in Many-Minds Relativity, Real Quantum Mechanics, Computational Thermodynamics, Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow and Computational Black-Body Radiation.

This means that Newton, as the greatest physicist all times, is welcome come back again to constructively contribute to a unified model of the world without fundamental incompatibilities and so leave SR and GR without mission and open a way out of the current crisis of modern physics. This has been a main theme of this blog with more details to come.

In particular, with the gravitational potential as primordial with everywhere presence there is no vacuum or complete emptiness of mysterious nature.  Moreover, it opens to connect regions in space where the gravitational potential is smooth with derivatives of only moderate size, to dark matter. Further, (NG2) opens to negative mass being created subject to repulsion from positive mass as a possible source of dark energy,

After all, the world must be rational to exist at all and so must be possible to describe in rational mathematical terms like (N2) + (NG) without incompatibilities. It is impossible that the world is incompatible with itself. Only models of the world can be incompatible if incorrect is some way.

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. 

 

 

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.

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.

 

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. 

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.   

Relativity Theory after 2019: Many-Minds Relativity.

Recent posts show that adoption of the 2019 SI meter Standard makes Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR void of physics, since its basic postulate of the same speed of light for all (inertial) observers, after 2019 simply is an agreement or standard to be followed by all (inertial) observers and not a statement about physics. 

The version of relativity theory, which makes sense as a theory about physics under the 2019 SI meter standard, is Many-Minds Relativity MMR.

In MMR Newton's 2nd Law takes the following form for a stationary observer O following the 2019 SI Standard assuming normalisation to unit speed of light: 

• $\frac{m}{1+v}a=F$       (N2)

where $v(t)=\frac{dx}{dt}$ is velocity with $x(t)$ position, $a(t)=\frac{dv}{dt}$ is acceleration, $m$ is mass, $F(t)$ force and $t$ time (measured by a 2019 SI Standard caesium clock). This describes the motion along an $x$-axis of a body of mass $m$ subject to a force $F(t)$, receding from O if $v>0$ and approaching O if $v<0$ with $v>-1$. 

We see that (N2) appears, compared to the usual 2nd Law $ma=F$, with smaller mass $\frac{m}{1+v}$ if $v>0$ and bigger mass if $-1<v<0$. 

Under a constant force $F=1$, this allows a recession velocity $v(t)$ to increase exponentially with $t$ eventually attaining a speed (much) bigger than the speed of light, while in approach with $F=-1$, $v(t)>-1$. The recession case connects to the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe".

If now since 2019 SR is void of physics, this makes the element of SR present in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR also void of physics. What remains of GR is then the Equivalence Principle which GR shares with Newtonian Mechanics NM. Maybe then NM + MMR is enough? Since both SR and GR are very difficult to understand for most people, this could be greeted as a relief?

The shift to 2019 SI Standard appears to give fundamentally new perspectives on modern physics. 

PS1 Recall that the SR version of Newton's 2nd Law takes the form 

• $\frac{m}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}a=F$ 

which has the same form in recession and approach and in particular keeps $v<1$ as if the speed of light cannot be surpassed, which is not what is observed for far away galaxies receding with $v>10$.

PS2 Recall that GR is incompatible with quantum mechanics, which is a main trouble of modern physics, while NM+MMR is compatible with quantum mechanics.

    

How Do We Know the Names of the Stars?

Recent posts have exhibited a fundamental confusion or ambiguity concerning the basic Postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR stating: 

• The speed of light is the same for all (inertial) observers.     (P)

The question is if this is an analytic statement or definition/convention/agreement/stipulation made by human minds and as such has no value as true or false, or if it is a synthetic statement about some physical reality which may be true or false. 

We may compare with the following innocent question, which can be posed by an innocent child when looking into the night sky:

• How can we know the names of the stars (when they are so silent and far away)?

The natural answer from an adult is that the stars have been given names by human minds and so represent definition/convention/agreement/stipulation as analytic statement. 

But in the mind of the child it may also appear to be possible that somehow the names of the stars have been assigned by some Creator as synthetic statement and that it is up to human minds to try to somehow figure out the names. To a child it would be like asking the name of a new person unknown to the child. Of course the idea that somehow stars have names on their own independent of human name-giving appears arcane to an adult, but the idea is possible. Of course, a child would not direct a question about name to a dog. The question (to an adult) would instead be: What is the dog called?

Let us now return to (P): 

1. As analytic statement as definition/convention/agreement/stipulation, it corresponds to the SI standard defining meter in terms of travel time of light. This corresponds to stars being given names by human minds.  
2. As synthetic statement it means that somehow light propagates with its own speed independent of human minds.  This corresponds to stars somehow having names independent of human name-giving.   

We understand that 2 is strange and can only reflect a very innocent childish mind. Nevertheless, this is the interpretation as basic postulate of SR following Einstein: The constancy of the speed of light for all observers is not simply an agreement as 1, but a physical fact which Einstein assumes to be true. 

Einstein thus views (P) to both be analytic and synthetic. But this is contradictory since analytic and synthetics statements have different nature as concerns being true or false. This is the root to all the confusion and mystery surrounding SR.

Recall that with the 2019 SI meter standard, (P) is definitely analytic and not synthetic. To Einstein in 1905, (P) was synthetic. Things have changed. SR is no longer needed after 2019. Physics has become simpler. Einstein can rest in peace.

A Contrafactual History of Modern Physics

An early Rangefinder from 1900.

This connects to the recent posts on the 2019 SI unit standard of second and meter.

Suppose the 2019 SI standard had been implemented already say in 1900. This means that from 1900 on length was measured in terms of travel time of light assuming a speed of light of exactly 299792458 meter per second. 

This is how a rangefinder of today works: Send a signal towards an object and measure the time for the reflected signal to come back, assuming a certain speed of light. This would have been possible in 1900. 

Using the SI standard a null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment is to be expected. Each observer "drags along an aether" linked to the observer and defines length from travel time of light under the assumption that light propagates with exactly 299792458 meter per second. 

With an expected MM null result using the SI standard, there would be no reason to invent the new physics of Einstein's Special Relativity SR, because it was motivated by the MM null result seeming to be  inexplicable using the meter sticks/measuring rods envisioned by Einstein. More precisely, what motivated Lorentz to introduce the Lorentz transformation in 1904 (first formulated by Voigt in 1887), was to explain the MM null result as an effect of space contraction in the direction of motion. Einstein picked up the Lorentz transformation in 1905, without reference to Lorentz or Voigt. 

Modern physics as a physics under a SI standard adopted in 1900, would thus be free of SR. Modern physics would thus consist of quantum mechanics added to Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetics as a fully compatible combination. This would be a modern physics without the incompatibility of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, as a main trouble behind the present crisis of modern physics.

  

 

Physics as Agreement is Not Real Physics

This is a further clarification of recent posts on units of time and length. 

The International System of Units SI defines 7 base units starting with time (seconds) and length (meter) as a universal system to be used in science and technology. 

The second (s) is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the cesium frequency, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to be exactly 9192631770.

The meter (m) is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299792458 meter per second.

This system can be used at any place of the Universe, as long as there is light in vacuum and caesium-133 atoms to set the units. Very handy and completely universal! 

But there is a caveat: How can we know that the speed of light or frequency of caesium-133 is the same everywhere? Maybe there is light but no vacuum, and maybe the frequency of the caesium-133 atom varies with temperature, pressure and gravitation? 

We must thus be prepared that different observers setting up their equipment under different conditions to set their specific time and length scales, will not agree to the last decimal on measuring something of common interest. This is the same as expecting that different traditional craftsmen may have had a bit different ideas of thumb, feet and yard.

The key question with physics as agreement according to SI, is to what extent different observers using this standard will agree outside the SI standard. In particular, we may ask to what extent different observers moving with different velocities will agree on distances? A partial answer is given in Many-Minds Relativity. As long as velocity differences are small compared to the speed of light, there will be little disagreement on distance, but not so in general.

Summary: It is possible to make an agreement to define length by travel time of light agreeing on a specific speed of light. If you think that this agreement is more than an agreement, that it is in fact real physics established by agreement, then you are fooling yourself. This is what Einstein did with his Special Theory of Relativity. You may test if you have understood by answering the following question: Is it possible that the speed of light in fact is 299792457.99?

With all observers using the same type of caesium clock for which a dependence of inertial motion is unthinkable, there can be no time dilation between inertial observers, which shows that the Lorentz transformation is not physics,  as very well understood by Lorentz, but misunderstood by Einstein. SR is clearly non-physics since 2019, which should have been understood by everybody from the beginning. But Einstein was very smart and fooled a whole world.