A discussion related to the uniqueness of the velocity of Light

2014

Einstein changed the problem of ether from the discussion of whether or not it exists to that of whether or not it is necessary as a concept or a hypothesis. It is true that if we give the vacuum the property as a medium that transmits light, it becomes unnecessary to search for ether as substance. Even so, we have to search for an experiment to decide whether the propagation of light emitted from the light source is isotropic or anisotropic relative to the light source. An experiment like that was formerly considered inexistent, but this paper will show it is existent. In the process of Thought experiments of this paper, we will find different results from the prediction by Special Relativity. As the cause of that, we will show the existence of an unknown velocity vector Einstein denied.

A discussion related to the uniqueness of the velocity of Light

Light velocity, when measured by Humans, would always result in a constant value and the maximum possible velocity that humans can measure, a claim that was presented by Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as an axiom, without any proof. The above demonstrates the uniqueness of the velocity of Light. But it should be also emphasized that the velocity of Light also presents a severe peculiarity, which is presented as follows: When a moving Human spectator measures the velocity value of any tangible substance, for example, the velocity of a moving Mass body, the velocity, and the direction of motion of this spectator, relative to the velocity and the direction of motion of this Mass body, does affect the measured velocity value of this Mass body, by this Human spectator.

The postulate of constancy of velocity of light irrespective of relative uniform motion of the source and the observer introduced by Albert Einstein in the article 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' Albert Einstein (1905a) is absolutely consistent with the physical and experimental observations. The other postulate of 'laws by which physical systems undergo change are not affected when referred to different inertial reference frames' is in contradiction with all the derivations in the article. Since the change in any physical system; due to whatever reason; could be mainly in reference to the space and time of that physical system; whereas article derives that space and time of any physical system would be different when referred to different inertial reference frames. This article will establish theoretically as well as experimentally that the concept of length contraction in the direction of motion, as proposed by Lorentz & FitzGerald to explain Michelson-Morley experiment is fundamentally incorrect. Consequently the concept of exchangeability of mass and energy as proposed by Einstein in the article 'Does the Inertial of the Body Depend upon its Energy Content' Albert Einstein (1905b) fails conceptually, theoretically as well as experimentally. The theoretical and experimental evidences against the concept of contraction of space in the direction of motion leads to the failure of space-time concept and every theory and concept associated with it. The obvious conclusions are space is finite & absolute, time is relative & emergent, matter is emergent and radiation is the electromagnetic work capacity dissipated by the matter which propagates in the medium of ether as a wave motion. Consequent upon these experimental and theoretical evidences this unique state of existence of the physical universe emerges which has been partly described in the article 'Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things & Living Things' Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) and is further discussed herein. This article discusses in detail the experimental evidences of the coordinate transformation between two coordinate systems in uniform motion derived in Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b); which in turn shows that Lorentz transformation which Einstein physically interpreted in the article Albert Einstein (1905a) is fundamentally incorrect. Consequently the physics which evolved in twentieth century is shown to be incorrect including the formulae

Special Relativity Theory (SRT) has two postulates, one stating that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and the other stating that the speed of light is the constant 186,000 miles per second, regardless of any reference frames. As a result of these postulates, SRT renders predictions such as: 1) No object can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second (the speed of light itself); 2) On approaching the speed of light, a moving object contracts in length in the direction of motion, while 3) a clock traveling with the object slows down; 4) The mass of an object multiplied by the square of the speed of light gives energy ( E mc2 ); i.e., mass could be converted to energy and vice versa; 5) Observers do not agree on the simultaneity of events - two events that are simultaneous for one observer might not be simultaneous for another. There are evident inconsistencies among these predictions. There is also a philosophical problem relating to the nature of reality. Could there be more than one reality in Nature; that is, can reality be subjective, and only a matter of interpretation? This paper explores the evident inconsistencies and the philosophical problem by developing arguments and providing numerical examples.

The Binary Universe - A Theory of Time - ISBN 978-0-9568002-4-4, 2018

The first three papers in this series have made some bold statements, some of which may contradict the physics community’s understanding of relativity, although not the mathematics of the theories. Any new idea, postulate, or theory requires it to be tested to see if it can be falsified. The purpose of this paper is to suggest an experiment to try and falsify the new proposal that observing the less accelerated frame from the more accelerated frame, will show blue shift, not red shift, as is currently believed by the mainstream.

A discussion related to the existence of the entities of Space and Time, 2023

Humans need the entity of Space to perceive relative positions between objects. Humans also need the entities of Space and Time to calculate values that Humans attribute to Motions, such as Velocity or Acceleration. The entities of Space and Time are also the entities that compose the four-dimensional Interwoven Space/Time entity, introduced by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, which provided an explanation of the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies. However, although the notions of Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, do provide the significant explanation of the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies, via Einstein’s General Relativity theory, the notions of Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, are not sufficient for providing explanations to additional similar unanswered questions, such as : what is the origin of the attraction or the repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies? Or, why the velocity of Light, measured by Humans, always results in a constant value and the maximum velocity that Humans can measure? This paper presents the following prediction: Electric (or Magnetic) Fields are forms of Accelerations, like the Gravitational Field, which is already recognized as a form of Acceleration. This prediction also leads to the following thesis: Changes and Movements are the result of Interactions between Energies, and the entities of Space and Time are not entities that exist. The entities of Space and Time are notions (or entities), invented by Humans, because Humans need such notions to perceive Changes and Motions. For some Interactions between Energies, which result in Changes or Motions, Humans can attribute, to these Interactions, attributes of Space and Time, which will assist in providing explanations to why these Changes or Motions are the result of these Energies Interactions. However, this paper predicts, that different sets of Interactions between Energies, should be assigned separate and independent attributes of Space and Time, different and independent from the Space and the Time attributes, assigned to other sets of Interactions between Energies, to provide an explanation for the origin of motions which are yet unexplained, such as: what is the origin of the attraction or the repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies? 2 Because different and independent Space and Time attributes should be assigned to different sets of Interactions between Energies, then, Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, cannot exist, because the above implies, that there should be multiple, independent notions of Space, and multiple, independent notions of Time, and not just one universal Space entity, and just one universal Time entity, as Humans perceive the Space and the Time entities. By abandoning the conclusion that the entities of Space and Time exist, and by concluding that Changes and Motions are only the results of Interactions between Energies, the origin of attraction or repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies can be explained, in addition to the explanation, already provided by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, relating to the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies. Also, by abandoning the conclusion that the entities of Space and Time exist, and by concluding that Changes and Motions are only the results of Interactions between Energies, a possible partial, tentative explanation might be also provided to the question: why the velocity of Light, measured by Humans, always results in a constant value and the maximum velocity that Humans can measure? The prediction that the entities of Space and Time do not really exist sounds as an extraordinary, unbelievable, and out of line statement, at first. This is because, as presented above, the notions of Space and Time are crucial notions, which Humans need them, to perceive, understand and calculate Motions and Changes. However, this paper also proposes a relatively simple experiment, which if implemented, and its results will be successful, as this paper predicts, this will either validate or disprove, what is presented in this paper.

According to Cassirer, the origin of a theoretical hypothesis in physics is almost always due to a conflict in the experimental results or between physical principles. The dialectic between (1) the extension of Galilei’s relativity principle to electromagnetic phenomena and (2) the independence of the velocity of light from the motion of the source emerging from Maxwell’s equation was a case in question. For Cassirer, Einstein’s solution to the problem was transforming it into a postulate. The principle of invariance — in physics objectivity is invariance from particular descriptions — was too fundamental to be dispensed with and had to be valid for all inertially moving frames. For this reason, Einstein began his 1905 paper by discussing an asymmetry in the electrodynamical phenomena that had to be removed. Analogously, the stress on invariance principles on which the new theory was grounded responded very well to Cassirer’s interpretation of the history of physics regarded as a transition from the idea that physical hypotheses have an ontological weight (for instance, qua pictorial representations) to the idea that they have the logical function to constitute the new physical theory. A hypothesis has an ontological weight if it is thought to instantiate real physical properties e.g., the ether as a substantial entity carrying properties typical of perfect fluids and elastic bodies. On the contrary, what he calls “the logical function” of a hypothesis is carried out by mathematical expressions relating the main concepts introduced by an hypothesis. In our case, the ether reduces to the expression of mathematical relations between magnitudes that can be measured through experiments (Cassirer [1]162f) Cassirer argued that this transition was realized by Einstein’s rejection of the ontological hypothesis that the notion of absolute rest could correspond to real properties of either mechanics or electrodynamics and formulated the logical hypothesis that “the same electrodynamic and optical laws hold for all systems of coordinates of which the mechanics equations hold” [1], 371. The two conflicting hypotheses that Einstein transformed into postulates were logical and corresponded to the two requirements that the new theory had to meet to satisfy both (1) and (2) above what we now know as the two postulates of special relativity. The solution of the contradiction between (1) and (2) was achieved neither by an induction nor a deduction from data but implied a complete restructuring of the foundations of the theory suggested both by the “logical” interpretation of Einstein’s hypotheses and by the importance of symmetry principles that according to Cassirer played a fundamental role in the constitution of a physical theory.

European Journal of Physics, 2008

This work ends a trilogy devoted to a journey into the foundations of special relativity. The first paper debated the meaning of the constancy of the twoway speed of light and its close relation to the conceptualization of time. The second one addressed the question of the possible constancy of the oneway speed of light and the trivial-but, unfortunately, even now somewhat controversial-question of the compatibility between the assumption of a special system of reference and Einstein's special relativity. The present study deals with the principle of relativity. Its historical evolution is reviewed and a 'weak' formulation is defended. It is emphasized that many assertions usually associated with special relativity, such as the 'relativity of time dilation' and 'relativity of space contraction' are indeed philosophical statements, as it has been established already by several authors in the past. Nonetheless, most teachers and scientists still believe nowadays they are implied by the theory and by the group property of the Lorentz transformation. This is by no means so, as it is reviewed and elucidated with the simple example on space contraction. It is argued that the lack of knowledge of the true value of the one-way speed of light in empty space leaves the theory undetermined. Einstein's special relativity corresponds to a simple and very elegant solution to this problem, allowing the study of relative motion without any concern with the study of absolute motion, which is considered to be superfluous. However, its standard interpretation is minimalist and even misleading. A large number of researchers have discussed this question, mostly within the conventionality of simultaneity thesis. The typical formulation of this thesis provides some new physical insight and points out the problem, but does not solve it. In contrast, it often leads to a labyrinth of difficult language which is herein clarified.

Il Nuovo Cimento B, 1976

SSRN Electronic Journal

Humans need the entity of Space to perceive relative positions between objects. Humans also need the entities of Space and Time to calculate values that Humans attribute to Motions, such as Velocity or Acceleration. The entities of Space and Time are also the entities that compose the four-dimensional Interwoven Space/Time entity, introduced by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, which provided an explanation of the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies. However, although the notions of Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, do provide the significant explanation of the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies, via Einstein’s General Relativity theory, the notions of Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, are not sufficient for providing explanations to additional similar unanswered questions, such as : what is the origin of the attraction or the repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies? Or, why the velocity of Light, measured by Humans, always results in a constant value and the maximum velocity that Humans can measure? This paper presents the following prediction: Electric (or Magnetic) Fields are forms of Accelerations, like the Gravitational Field, which is already recognized as a form of Acceleration. This prediction also leads to the following thesis: Changes and Movements are the result of Interactions between Energies, and the entities of Space and Time are not entities that exist. The entities of Space and Time are notions (or entities), invented by Humans, because Humans need such notions to perceive Changes and Motions. For some Interactions between Energies, which result in Changes or Motions, Humans can attribute, to these Interactions, attributes of Space and Time, which will assist in providing explanations to why these Changes or Motions are the result of these Energies Interactions. However, this paper predicts, that different sets of Interactions between Energies, should be assigned separate and independent attributes of Space and Time, different and independent from the Space and the Time attributes, assigned to other sets of Interactions between Energies, to provide an explanation for the origin of motions which are yet unexplained, such as: what is the origin of the attraction or the repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies? 2 Because different and independent Space and Time attributes should be assigned to different sets of Interactions between Energies, then, Space and Time, as Humans perceive these notions, cannot exist, because the above implies, that there should be multiple, independent notions of Space, and multiple, independent notions of Time, and not just one universal Space entity, and just one universal Time entity, as Humans perceive the Space and the Time entities. By abandoning the conclusion that the entities of Space and Time exist, and by concluding that Changes and Motions are only the results of Interactions between Energies, the origin of attraction or repulsion between Electrically Charged bodies can be explained, in addition to the explanation, already provided by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, relating to the origin of the attraction between Mass bodies. Also, by abandoning the conclusion that the entities of Space and Time exist, and by concluding that Changes and Motions are only the results of Interactions between Energies, a possible partial, tentative explanation might be also provided to the question: why the velocity of Light, measured by Humans, always results in a constant value and the maximum velocity that Humans can measure? The prediction that the entities of Space and Time do not really exist sounds as an extraordinary, unbelievable, and out of line statement, at first. This is because, as presented above, the notions of Space and Time are crucial notions, which Humans need them, to perceive, understand and calculate Motions and Changes. However, this paper also proposes a relatively simple experiment, which if implemented, and its results will be successful, as this paper predicts, this will either validate or disprove, what is presented in this paper.