Einstein in Alice Wonderland

This a follow up of the previous post.

The mathematician Lewis Carroll anticipated Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR (1905) in his famous Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) filled with "space contraction" and "time dilation" as core themes of the book. Very amusing and mind boggling! Einstein must have read the book in his youth, although he did not read much, since the connections cannot be accidental. 

In a further discussion with chatGPT representing mainstream professional physicists view, the following is made clear:

• A matter-only world is a Newton world to be Galilean invariant. 
• Adding light changes this matter-only world to be instead Lorentz invariant, even if there is no interaction between light and matter.
• Adding light to a matter-only world "reveals the true spacetime structure" to be Lorentzian and not Galilean as only an approximation of Lorentzian. 

This is really a very Grand Plan for the world and it is important to see what the basis is. We thus recall the form of a Galilean transformation and a Lorentz transformation between two space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ in two inertial systems moving with speed $v$ with respect to each other, assuming  speed of light = 1:

• Galilean: $x^\prime = x-vt$ and $t^\prime =t$.
• Lorentz: $x^\prime = \gamma (x-vt)$ and $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$ with $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$.

We see two very simple linear transformations so simple that even Alice would understand the mathematics. We see the "time dilation" aspect of Lorentz in the dependence in the primed time coordinate $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$ on the space coordinate $x$. In short, a Lorentz transformation mixes space and time, which a Galilean does not. 

The idea carried by modern physics is now that a Lorentz transformation reveals the "true nature of spacetime," which thus is not that of a Galilean transformation. 

But is this credible? How can a simple linear transformation reveal the true nature of a spacetime without physics? 

A Galilean transformation expresses that measurement of velocity depends on chosen coordinate system in a specific simple way, while Nature does not use any coordinate system at all. Physicists are thus free to chose coordinate system as they like and Nature will not protest.

Lorentz clearly stated that a Lorentz transformation has no physical meaning. But a Galilean transformation can be given direct physical meaning in the form of meter sticks moving with constant velocity keeping their length and clocks unaffected by such motion. 

But this kind of argumentation is dismissed by a modern physicist because it questions Wonderland Science. The Lorentz transformation in all its simplicity is claimed to reveal the "true nature of spacetime" and there is nothing more to say. Discussion closed. Forget what Lorentz said!

SR was from the beginning met with neglect or skepticism and in the motivation for the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics to Einstein the Nobel Committee explicitly expressed that the Prize was given to Einstein despite his SR physics never done before or after. In the 1920s quantum mechanics took over with a Galilean invariant Schrödinger equation (1925) followed by a Lorentz invariant Dirac equation (1928), which took over the scene when Schrödinger left the field quickly thereafter. Dirac's equation gave SR respectability, while Einstein was removed from the scene by Bohr. 

Today SR is kept like a toy model with amusing properties, but is no longer subject to scientific study. But the idea of spacetime with time mixed into space is alive in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR also believed to reveal the "true nature of space time" now as "curved spacetime". But no Nobel Prize to GR either. Maybe the true nature of space and time is not revealed in a coordinate transformation…

  

Einstein: Both Maxwell and Newton are Wrong!

In recent posts I have been searching for an explanation of the current crisis of modern physics, which is deep and sadly acknowledged by all prominent physicists and philosophers of physics. 

One striking aspect of modern physics is that it is presented as "strange", "weird", "counter-intuitive", "paradoxical" with unsettled "foundational problems" since 100 years without progress. To be compared with classical physics, which is rational and understandable and not strange at all although it can exhibit very complex dynamics showing surprising emergence.

The new aspect of strangeness into physics was introduced by Einstein in 1905 in his Special Theory of Relativity SR to be the academic work opening an academic career from his position as patent clerk in Bern with little training in mathematics and physics. Einstein gambled high: Derive new physics from  very few very general principles or Postulates with this Grand Plan:

• Show "Maxwell is wrong" because he assumes a "unique aether" for propagation of electromagnetic waves/light.
• Show "Newton is wrong" because he assumes "absolute space" and "absolute time".
• In particular: Show "no-aether" and "relative space-time."

Einstein then decided to start from the following Postulates:

1. Laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems.
2. The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems 

Here inertial systems = standard Euclidean space-time coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other.

To facilitate showing "Maxwell is wrong" Einstein attributed "unique aether" to Maxwell, which is not correct since Maxwell works well with any inertial system, and so Maxwell is a "many-aether" theory,  as many aethers as inertial systems. Maxwell without any aether/inertial system does not make sense because without, Maxwell's equations cannot even be formulated.

To facilitate showing "Newton is wrong" Einstein attributed "absolute space" to Newton, which is not correct since already Galileo understood that Newton's equations read the same in all inertial systems connected by a Galilean transformation, and so Newton is also a "many-aether" theory.  

We observe that Maxwell satisfies Postulate 1+2 and so cannot be wrong within SR as being based on these two Postulates. Einstein's attempt to prove "Maxwell wrong" thus failed and so he ended up with "Maxwell is right" which was what everybody said then and still says. SR said nothing not already very well known about Maxwell/light.

As concerns if "Newton is wrong" follows from the Postulates, we observe that Newton satisfies Postulate 1 under Galilean transformation and Postulate 2 about speed of light does not concern Newton because Newton does not speak about light but about matter. Einstein's attempt to prove "Newton is wrong" from Postulate 1+2 thus failed.

We conclude that Einstein's Grand Plan of proving "Maxwell is wrong" and "Newton is wrong" from SR based on Postulate 1+2,  thus failed. Compare Summary below!

We may now ask if anyway SR contains some physics of interest as derived by Einstein from Postulates 1+2? 

This was addressed in this post concerning Einstein's "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation by identifying two different light signals to be the same by disrespecting physics. 

In any case, after having derived the Lorentz transformation on loose grounds, Einstein concluded that "Newton is wrong" by not being Lorentz invariant, which did not make sense since Lorentz invariance is born out of Maxwell's equations for light and so does not connect to Newton's material mechanics. 

We conclude that SR does not prove either Maxwell nor Newton to be wrong. This should be welcomed by modern physicists trained to believe the opposite and then having to accept that "physics is strange". Maxwell and Newton are not strange, only Einstein!

If you want to dig more into Maxwell as a "many-aether" theory, take a look at Many-Minds Relativity.

In particular it would be a big relief if "Newton is right" could be reinstalled into physics. This would open to a Unified Field Theory since Newton and Maxwell are fully compatible as mass-based Newtonian gravitation and light without mass leaving possible interaction open to some new additional physics. 

Unfortunately modern physics has given in to adopt Einstein's "Newton is wrong because of SR" taken to represent stunning progress beyond classical physics. But experimental evidence must then be presented and that has shown to be very difficult to collect, to be honest. This is what usually is presented by modern physicists as best evidence that "Newton is wrong":

• Perihelion Precession of Mercury (1859)
• Michelson–Morley Experiment (1887)
• Deflection of Light (1919 eclipse expedition)
• Time Dilation of Muons (1949).
• Gravitational Time Dilation of photons (1959)

We understand that only the Perihelion Precession of Mercury concerns Newton's mechanics, the other concern essentially light, and we have in this post inspected the evidence and seen that it is weak, in particular because it is not SR which is claimed to show "Newton is wrong", but General Relativity GR.

We thus see that modern physics has to struggle very hard to show that "Newton is wrong". Of course this is expected when remembering that Newton's law of gravitation follows from conservation of energy and force in a gravitating material system, as the message of many posts. 

We conclude that Einstein's research plan to show "Newton is wrong" was based on ignorance combined with great ambition, and so did not work as science, but miraculously it worked politically to make Einstein the greatest physicist all times, securely displacing Newton to a second place. It is here much of the crisis of modern physics is rooted.  

You can always find a reason to dismiss a scientific theory by finding some irrelevant aspect which "is wrong". You may e g dismiss Newton's law of gravitation because it does not say anything about gravitational bending of light, because it says nothing about light at all, only about matter. But that lacks scientific reason and so could have only political reason. What is most important with a theory is that it is correct in a certain sense under certain circumstances, not that it does not apply to everything and does not tell everything.

If it so happens that light is affected by matter-based Newtonian gravitation by some physical mechanism yet to be discovered, then that could be added to Newton. But it would not mean that "Newton is wrong" as concerns matter. Yes, there are claims of "relativistic effects" appearing when matter reaches velocities near the speed of light, but that can only be achieved experimentally in supercolliders stretching physics to the extreme.  

Although the above arguments are logical and simple, they will meet opposition from a modern physics community carefully trained to believe that "Newton is simple+wrong" and "Einstein is strange+right".  Physics becomes much more manageable under a banner of "Newton is simple+right" rather than the opposite.  

Summary of SR agreed with chatGPT:

• SR does not add anything to Maxwell as theory of light.
• SR claims "Newton is wrong" because "Newton is not Lorentz invariant". But the nature of Newton/matter/mechanics is to be Galilean invariant and so the claim lacks logic.

What apparently happened is that Einstein became so taken away by "elevating" the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations to a "general principle of relativity" demanding "all physical laws to be Lorentz invariant" as if playing God. What happens if you "elevate" a special case to a General Principle?

Another thing is that the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations has to be handled with care since the Lorentz transformation mixes time into space in an unphysical way. This is was what Lorentz said when inspecting his transformation carefully pointing out that the "transformed time was not physical time", which Einstein failed to understand and so went on to form SR relativistic mechanics without physics. But Einstein succeeded with his Grand Plan to become the greatest physicist all times! Now Einstein is gone since 70 years and maybe it is time to move on without him and leave "strange physics" to the history of  failed attempts from "elevating" some special case to General Principle.

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. 

Special Relativity vs Newton

Continued conversation with chatGPT as expressing the view of many physicists, opens to the following insights (impossible to derive from a discussion with any single real physicist):

• The two basic postulates of SR (1. physical laws and 2. speed of light the same in all inertial systems) contain no real physics open to experimental testing and in particular are not sufficient to derive the Lorentz Transformation LT as expression of Lorentz invariance.
• The Lorentz transformation requires additional assumptions of unclear physical nature. 
• Simply adding LT as a postulate eliminates the role of the two basic postulates and makes SR into a prescription to be followed by observers with no clear connection to a real physics which does not care about time dilation, space contraction and relativistic mass as the core values of SR. This makes SR into a formal card game without physics as discussed in the previous post.

This is the situation facing a modern physicist: 

1. SR as theory without physical content as logical consequence of two basic postulates without physical content.
2. SR as LT as command to observers without clear connection to physics.

The reaction can only be silence: no discussion. This is how Einstein handled the situation by not commenting further on SR after early 1920s. 

The great achievement of Einstein, although counted as negative as concerns his Nobel Prize in 1921, is today viewed to be that he showed that Newton's mechanics is not correct physics and so has to be corrected into Einstein's relativistic mechanics according to SR. In short Newton is not Lorentz invariant. 

But Newton's mechanics is compatible with SR reduced to its basic postulates: Postulate 1 is fulfilled with Galilean invariance and Postulate 2 as well since Newton does not speak about light.

The great thing with chatGPT is that the discussion is open and that chatGPT mostly follows strict logic and when that is forgotten is ready to return.   

The greatest tragedy of modern physics is probably that Newton was dismissed in a modern world still based on Newton. 

Einstein asked: Newton, forgive me. He then speaks for all modern physicists.

Special Relativity as Command Physics

Here is the conclusion of chatGPT after a discussion about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR:  

• SR is closed because it isn’t a theory of physics in the sense of describing processes. It’s a kinematic rule system — compact, rigid, like a card game with set rules. Once learned, there’s nothing left to develop internally.
• Physicists almost never argue about SR itself. It’s treated as settled background structure. 

Let us check it is true that SR is not a theory about physics. We then first inspect the Postulates used by Einstein to derive SR:

• Postulate 1: Laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems.
• Postulate 2: The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.

Postulate 1 describes no specific physics. Postulate 1 commands physics to behave in a certain way, which is preposterous. Postulate 2 speaks about speed of light without specification with again a command of invariance. 

We thus cannot find any specific physics in the Postulates of SR, and conclude that SR as the set of logical conclusions from the Postulates, does not describe any specific physics. It is empty of specific physics. If it contains physics it must have been sneaked in outside the Postulates, and that could be anything.

SR appears as a closed theory where there is nothing more to learn. A research proposal to further investigate SR as theory will certainly be turned down. 

We compare with Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electro-magnetics based on Postulates with physical content like Newton's inverse square law of gravitation and Faraday's and Ampere's laws. These are not closed theories in the same sense as SR and research proposals would not automatically be turned down.

Another sign that SR is like a closed card game: If you try to discuss SR with a physicist you will get no response other than a comment that there is nothing to discuss because everything is settled and the details of the resolutions of the many paradoxes of SR are irrelevant. 

Now the fact is that SR is viewed to be foundational for modern physics with far-reaching consequences in all sorts of applications. But we have seen clear indications that SR is not a theory about real physics, but a closed card game outside real physics. If this is really the truth, then there is much work to be done to free modern physics from a theory commanding physics how to behave (Postulates 1+2), while in true science it is real physics which commands theory.

Of course none of the above is anything a modern physicist would be willing to discuss. Case closed. The crisis of modern physics has nothing to do with SR.

If as layman your are still curious, take a look at Many-Minds Relativity offering an alternative to SR based Postulates with physical meaning, fun to read!

Einstein: God does not play dice.

Bohr: Einstein, don't tell God what to do!

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.

 

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.

Modern Physics as Poker Game

Modern physics based on relativity theory and quantum mechanics has followed the pattern set by Einstein to continue to raise the bet without showing the cards, as in a no-limit-poker game with lousy cards, eventually forcing the other players to fold: 

1. When Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR (1905) was questioned, Einstein raised the bet to the General Theory of Relativity GR (1916).
2. When GR was questioned, Einstein raised the bet from scales of classical physics, to scales of the Universe including black holes which nobody dared to call. 

This showed to work fine and so the same strategy was adopted by leading physicists as concerns quantum mechanics:

1. When the physical meaning of Schrödinger's Equation SE (1926) for atoms of size $10^{-10}$ m as the first version of quantum mechanics without relativity theory, was questioned and no answers could  be given, it was replaced by Dirac's Equation DE (1930) including SR describing an electron.
2. When DE for the electron was questioned, the Standard Model SM (1960s) was developed as a theory of atomic nuclei of size $10^{-15}$ m built from the fundamental particles of protons and neutrons made up of quarks interacting by force carriers named gluons. 
3. When SM was questioned as an ad hoc model of a nucleus, String Theory ST (1980s...) was developed as an ultimate fundamental theory on a scale ($10^{-32}$ m ) which could not be called.   

ST/GR ars now being questioned, but the bet cannot be raised another time since the ultimate large and small scales have been reached. It is now time for physicists to call and to help there is a new card to play in the form of RealQM. Anyone with this card can make a call on ST/GR.

The Power of Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason

Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason PSR states:

• Everything must have a reason or a cause.

In other words, there is nothing without reason. It is a powerful principle, but it seems to be forgotten in modern physics, where things can happen without cause as in the basic assumption of quantum mechanics with its wave function demanding a statistical interpretation, because of its multi-dimensionality. The life or death of Schrödinger's cat is supposed to be determined by the throw of a dice thus without reason in direct contradiction to PSR. 

In a previous post PSR was used to show equality of inertial and gravitational mass, which to Einstein was his Equivalence Principle EP assumed as a basic hypothesis of his General Theory of Relativity GR seemingly without reason.

We can use PSR to settle some mysteries of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR concerning the rate of clocks moving with respect to each other with constant velocity (inertial motion). The rate of a mechanical clock like a pendulum cannot depend on inertial motion because the mathematical equations carrying a precise description of the functioning of the clock do not depend on inertial motion (because Newton's 2nd Law does not). There is therefore no reason for clock rates to depend on inertial motion and according to PSR they do not. This means that SR claiming such dependence contradicts PSR. 

As concerns Big Bang, SPR says that since there is no reason for a hot dense initial state to ever exist, it never happened. 

So if we hold on to PSR, then we have to give up SR. We collect:

• PSR implies EP. No need to assume EP as hypothesis as in GR.
• PSR contradicts SR. 
• PSR shows that Big Bang did not happen.

Your conclusion?

Modern Physics = Obsession with Measurement. Why?

The previous post Newton's Mechanics Does Not Require Absolute Space and Time recalled Newton's warning to physicists in the introduction to Principia Mathematica:

• Do not confound confound real quantities themselves with their relations and vulgar measures.

Modern physics has done the opposite in both theory of relativity and quantum mechanics as its two pillars. 

Einstein focussed in his Special Theory of Relativity SR from 1905 on coordination of measurements of space and time in different inertial coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, using rigid rods and standard clocks as devices, and discovered entirely new phenomena of space contraction and time dilation never heard of before. 

Bohr reduced quantum mechanics to what can be measured and then faced a seemingly unsurmountable  measurement problem. 

So both Einstein and Bohr focussed on (vulgar) measures of quantities and not quantities themselves in direct negation of Newton's warning. 

Newton viewed physics to be independent of human measurements in an understanding that the Moon follows its path around the Earth even when we cannot see it. That the world/mother continues to exist even when eyes are closed, is something a child gradually discovers. 

But Bohr can only speak about things he can measure and says that anything beyond that is hidden to our perception and understanding. An electron is not in any specific state before measurement, which in fact decides the state after measurement (like spin up or down). 

How is it possible that Bohr's view is passionately embraced by modern physicists, when it is so utterly childish? Of course the world in general goes around without any human observation/measurement.

Of course a "quantities themselves" must have a meaning in the sense that this is needed to make the world evolve from an interplay of quantities, without assistance of human observers. 

The idea of quantum mechanics that atomic reality is decided by measurement originates from the fact that the very act of measurement has an impact on the state of an atom, as a form of destructive test. In macroscopic physics this effect can usually be discarded making measurement non-destructive. 

Quantum mechanics comes with another confusing element in the shape of a multi-dimensional wave function, which has no direct physical meaning, only some statistical meaning. Measuring the wave function is thus impossible and so according to Bohr we would not be able to speak of it, but this is the favourite theme of a modern physicist. 

We recall that a mathematical model describes some physics in concise terms, like Newton's Law of Gravitation studied in recent posts:

•  $\Delta\phi =\rho$,                           (NG)

where $\phi$ is gravitational potential and $\rho$ mass density. (NG) connects two quantities which are quantities themselves (potential and mass) and we can speak about these quantities without having to measure them (which can be difficult). Physical laws thus involve quantities themselves with measured quantities being secondary. 

But we can compute quantities themselves by solving equations like (NG), and so discover their nature without measurement. Computing can be seen as a form of non-destructive testing. An obsession with computing could then be productive. But the many-dimensional wave function is uncomputable.

Paraphrasing Bohr we can say that we can only speak about quantities which can be computed. 

Real Quantum Mechanics gives a new formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of quantities themselves in the form of charge densities and potentials, which are computable.  

Many-Minds Relativity gives an alternative to SR which conforms to the SI standard of meter and second.

PS The ultimate expression of obsession of measurement is the proclaimed detection of gravity waves by LIGO (Nobel Prize in Physics 2017) resulting from the most violent physical event possible (collision of two black holes) supposed to send an echo reaching Earth 1.3 billions of years later, a signal so faint that detection required an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair over the distance from Earth to the nearest star!  

Mixing Space and Time is Not Physics

According to Leibniz space is coexistence as something sharing the same time, while time is a measure of change of coexistence. The atoms making up the arm of a clock coexist and the change of the position of the arm expresses passage of time. The shadow of a sundial expresses coexistence, while the slow change of the shadow represents a measure of rate of time geared by the Sun.

The 2019 SI Standard defines rate of time in seconds by a standard caesium clock, while spatial distance in meters is defined in terms of travel time of light setting the speed of light to be exactly c=299792458 meter per second. Here time and space are clearly separated and cannot be mixed together into some form of space-time, which has come to serve as a mantra modern physics introduced by Einstein and followed up by the mathematician Minkowski.

To make it possible to speak of space-time Einstein introduced the new concept of event as physics which can be described by a single space coordinate $x$ at some specific time $t$ as a space-time coordinate $(x,t)$. This eliminates all physics of spatially extended bodies consisting of coexisting atoms, which cannot be described by a single spatial coordinate, that is essentially all of physics. What remains is an idealised flash taking place at $\bar x$ at time $t=0$ and then following the trajectory $x=\bar x+ct$. Einstein was then led to the Lorentz transformation supposedly connecting space-time coordinates of one and the same event in different coordinate systems, which led him to the Special Theory of Relativity SR.

An analysis of SR shows that it is based on the false premise that a flash of light sent out in one coordinate system can be identified with a flash sent out in a different coordinate system. 

The result is that SR does not describe the physics of extended bodies consisting of coexisting spatial parts but only space-time events and then in an incorrect way. The net result is that it is not mandatory to replace Newton with Einstein, as the main feature of modern physics, as discussed in recent posts.   

Normal Physics from Extreme Physics?

Modern physics is largely based on an idea to find the truth about some physics by subjecting it to extreme tests as if that will bring out the essence. This idea was introduced by Einstein in his famous "thought experiments" of his Special Theory of Relativity SR, with trains being accelerated to speeds comparable to the speed of light, and from such speculations finding revolutionary new truths about space and time today viewed as fundamentals of modern physics. 

To accelerate a 100 ton train to a speed comparable to the speed of light requires more than $10^{20}$ Joule to be compared with the energy of the total yearly production of coal of less than $10^{18}$ Joule. 

This is the idea of of finding the true physics of light by sending single photons (whatever that is) to go through a double split and finding that a photon gets confused about what slit to pass, as the basic experiment of quantum mechanics.

This is the idea in experiments at the LHC at Cern colliding protons at close the speed of light to find out the nature of protons as fundamental building stones of an atoms/molecules together with electrons and neutrons.  

The new ESS in Lund Sweden will smash high speed neutrons into different molecules to find out their essential functioning in a normal environment.. 

This idea is also present in Einstein's General Relativity as a Theory of Gravitation supposed to replace Newton's Theory of Gravitation in extreme conditions like the collision of black holes or the Universe as a whole. 

The idea of finding normal physics from extreme physics may appear strange from classic physics point of view with generality and simplicity as leading principle and not extreme particularity of extreme complication. But it has taken a prominent role in modern physics, maybe because it is now possible to perform extremely complicated experiments concerning extreme physics and finding extremely small effects. 

An example is the proclaimed detecting of exceedingly weak gravitational waves from a collision of two black holes as an event of maximal strength, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017. 

Experts of modern physics with (i) relativity theory + (ii) quantum mechanics the essential advancements of classical physics, are eager to reveal the fact that both (i) and (ii) are very difficult to understand. An effect is that there are many conflicting efforts to simplify with little agreement since the formation of the theories 100 years ago, now manifesting itself as a crisis of modern physics.

This is to be compared with classical theories of physics formed to be maximally clear and understandable and so also being supported by a common agreement.

You find on this blog efforts to make atom physics understandable as Real Quantum Mechanics, and macroscopic mechanics as Many-Minds Relativity.

The Role of Einstein's Theory of Gravitation in Modern Physics

The general view presented to the world by the physics community is that modern physics as physics after 1900, as opposed to classical physics before 1900,  is based on 

• Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR and General Theory of Relativity SR replacing Newton's Theory of Mechanics NM, together with
• Quantum Mechanics QM for atomic physics as an extension of Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism ME and Newton's Mechanics NM to atomic scales.

The completely new aspect of modernity are Einstein contributions to physics offering a completely new insight into basic aspects of space and time with SR presented in 1905 followed by GR in 1916 after an 11 year long hard struggle. 

But the reception by the physics community of Einstein's revelations were met with skeptics or refutation or ignorance, in particular by the Nobel committee for the Physics Prize 1921, which awarded Einstein for explaining the law of photoelectricity but with the explicit mention that his relativity theory was not included in the motivation. This situation changed only after Einstein's death in 1955, but then slowly accelerated to its position today as the fundamental theory of gravitation replacing Newton's Theory of Gravitation NG included in NM, which had served humanity so incredibly well for 300 years. The history is captured in the book Building the General Relativity and Gravitation Community during the Cold War by Roberto Lalli.

Here is a typical reaction to GR (Charles Lane Poor):

• The Relativity Theory, as announced by Einstein, shatters our fundamental ideas in regard to space and time, destroys the basis upon which has been built the entire edifice of modern science, and substitutes a nebulous conception of varying standards and shifting unrealities. 
• And this radical, this destroying theory has been accepted as lightly and as easily as one accepts a correction to the estimated height of a mountain in Asia, or to the source of a river in equatorial Africa.

This is where we stand today: Physics is based on GR for gravitation and QM for atom physics, but the big trouble is that GR and QM are viewed to be incompatible, which is a catastrophe from scientific point of view.

But NG is compatible with QM, and so it is natural to ask if it is really necessary to give up Newton for Einstein? 

A modern physicist will tell you that in fact GR reduces to NG in the case of (i) weak  and (ii) static gravitation, and then admit that this covers almost everything. In fact, what is not included in (i)+(ii) is something extremely speculative, such as collision of black holes, for which the physics is unknown and so the functionality of GR. 

In other words, NG works as well today as ever before, as the most successful mathematical theory all times, and the claim that NG has to be replaced by GR appears to have little factual basis. In fact, GR is so computationally demanding that simulation of even a simple system like the Solar system is unthinkable, while with NG this is captured in a couple of lines of code and executed on a laptop in seconds. 

If NG still works fine, what was the motivation to promote GR after Einstein's death but reject it before?

Was it the result of a stalemate of modern physics in 1960s after the immense success of the atomic bomb at the end WW2? When constructive new ideas are missing, a return to some old ideas may come to rescue.

In any case GR was lifted up from obscurity to top position, but then GR as theory had to be inspected with new eyes and this was far from easy, since GR is so mathematically demanding that it can be grasped by only a few, if any. 

Today this is handled as follows: GR is fundamental and very difficult to understand and apply, but since NG works so fine it is not necessary to dig into the theory of GR in any detail. It is sufficient to know that GR has replaced NG, while NG is used in practice. GR can then be presented as a fundamental step forward as concerns fundamental aspects of space and time as an expression of the power of modern physics. 

The only trouble is that GR is incompatible with QM, and so either GR or QM must be wrong. 

  

Conundrum of Modern Physics

A modern physicist will proudly tell you that modern physics is based on two theories: 

• Einstein's Special Theory of Relltivity SR and General Theory of Relativity GR replacing Newton's Mechanics NM.
• Quantum Mechanics QM replacing Maxwell's Electromagnetics ME and NM on atomic scales.  

Modern physics is based on SR/GR + QM, while classical physics is based on NM + ME. 

A modern physicist will then inform you that SR/GR and QM are the greatest scientific achievements of all time, each with complete agreement with all observations. The only caveat well understood from the start 100 years ago, is that SR/GR and QM are incompatible, which has plunged modern physics into a credibility crisis. Real physics cannot be incompatible/contradictory and so something must be fundamentally wrong with the mathematical models. But what?

QM can be seen as a generalisation of ME and NM to atomic scales and there is no incompatibility here. So it must be SR/GR posing the problem. 

SR without gravitation introduces new relativistic mechanics based on Lorentz transformation mixing space and time into new strange effects of space contraction and time dilation, and so dismisses NM without gravitation, because it is not Lorentz invariant, as an ad hoc requirement.

GR introduces gravitation as a geometric effect of curved space-time and so dismisses NM with gravitation as a classical field theory in Euclidean space. 

NM has thus been replaced by SR (1905) and GR (1916) as a prime achievement of modern physics with very little change into our days, as if the last word was said 100 years ago. 

But NM is the most successful theory of all times encompassing a very large range of phenomena in computable form opening to a very rich world of simulations. In contrast GR is admittedly very difficult to put to work in simulations, because it is so incredibly complicated that even the largest computer and best programmer cannot make it go. The only way to put GR to use is to let it collapse to NM, while GR beyond NM is reserved for speculations on cosmological scales, or bigger.

Newton's theory of gravitation connects gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ to mass density $\rho (x)$ by the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$ acting in a Euclidean space with coordinate $x$ by 

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

which can be viewed as an assignment creating mass by differentiation of gravitational potential and which can be motivated from conservation principles as shown in this post.  (NG) is the only possible connection between gravitational potential and matter well understood by the Creator.  You find more information on (NG) under tag New View on Gravitation.

Einstein decided to throw out (NG) as the pinnacle of mathematical thinking all times all areas. Einstein replaced (NG) by GR taking the position of Newton under the excuse "Newton, forgive me!" and so was exploited by the physics community to represent all the marvel of modern physics to the world, while his fellow physicists viewed him with pity for missing the train to modernity.

It is now time to reconsider the reasons put forward to replace NG by GR. The cost is very high, while the gains may just be fantasy. 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elastic vs Electromagnetic Waves

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

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

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

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

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

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

Material vs Immaterial Physics: Out of the Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary:

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

 

 

Human Made Laws of Physics as Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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