Hello everybody !
Since many months, some time to work more on scientific points about scientific answers from the C's :)
Historical context
1 - Electromagnetism
- In the 1860s, Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism predicted that light is an electromagnetic wave that propagates with a constant speed c. This prediction was remarkably consistent with observation but also raised the question of what was the speed of light relative to. Since physicists at the time still believed in the existence of the light-bearing ether, it was assumed that the speed of light was relative to the global medium of the ether and therefore constant only in a one reference frame: that of the ether. What actually is ether and what the speed of light is relative to?
- Physicists discovered that the 4 Maxwell-Heaviside (MH) Equations for electromagnetism don’t transform correctly under Galilean changes of reference frames. In other words, these equations are not covariant under Galilean Group. Actually, should they be covariant?
- In Einstein's theory of relativity (TOR), many times you said that Einstein’s approach is based on too much symmetry :
- November 30, 1996
- Q : The theory of relativity based on Galilei group is better than that based on Lorentz group?
- A: Yes
- Q: Why?
- A: Because of the symmetric calculations they used as a basis for their efforts
- August 8, 1998
- Q: (Ark) Yes because we have been told that the Galilei group which treats space different from time is better than the Lorentz group which treats space as equal to time.
- A: But, the link, the link is the bridge, not necessarily a sum of the parts, in other words, that link does not need to belong to either to exist
- December 28, 1996
- Q: (Ark) I am confused about time. You said relativistic physics must be redone because it assumes unnecessary symmetry. What symmetry do you have in mind?
- A: Unnecessary symmetry? You asked about a particular project or theorem being examined, and those involved. We said that it was on the right track, so long as the symmetrical aspects were dropped as an absolute. Meaning the framework of the project was too narrowly focused.
- Are the symmetry calculations used as a basis to their efforts, the ones used to not take in count of the asymmetry explanations for the production of current due to relative movement between a magnet and a conducting coil?
- Are the 4 MH equations of electromagnetism completes as the 20 Maxwell’s original ones? If not, can you say what was lost with the modern expression?
- What are the flaws in Electromagnetism?
- The problem with the Lorentz group transformation is it related with the use of the MH ‘s waves equations. In other words, should we mix up the 4 equations in 2 wave equations?
- If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, is the speed of light as measured by the observer c' = c+v? Is speed of light affected by the motion of the source of light? Is speed of light invariant relative to a moving observer?
- 2 - Michelson-Morley
- The Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment from 1887 was designed to experimentally confirm this hypothesis by measuring the speed of light in different directions. Given that the earth is known to be moving through space (thus through the ether), the expected result of the experiment was to measure different speeds of light in different directions. Contrary to expectations, however, the experiment famously produced a "null" result: it measured the same speed of light in all directions.
- Can you ponder what’s wrong with the Michelson-Morley experiment in order to account for the complete inability to detect absolute motion, ether wind? Does that mean the believed propagation of light was incorrect?
- Interpretation of the "null" result of the MM experiment: today, we know that the medium of the ether doesn’t exist (moreover, the ether is not a medium and it’s a big difference!). Therefore, the MM experiment could not have measured the speed of light in the ether as no such medium exists. The question is which speed of light was measured by the experiment?
- Let us analyze what the "null" result of the MM experiment means: if we assume that the MM experiment measured the speed of light inside the atmosphere, then we can conclude that the speed of light is relative. But if we assume that the MM experiment measured speed of light in space, then we must conclude that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer. What point is wrong?
- The atmosphere is a material optical medium like water or glass and can refract light (e.g. atmospheric refraction) and reflect light (e.g. radio waves reflection). This means that it is also capable of dragging light waves - which is the physical reason why the speed of light is relative?
- The Fizeau experiment from 1851 showed that running water does only partial drag light waves. This did not allow the conclusion that the speed of light was relative. By failing to realize that the MM experiment measured the speed of light inside the atmosphere, have physicists also failed to realize that the MM experiment is actually equivalent to the Fizeau experiment? Both experiments measured the speed of light in a moving optical medium but did it differently?
3 - Einstein’s postulates
Lorentz and Poincaré, were on the same track as Einstein in the formulation of a time dilatation and length contraction model but were still holding on the old principles of 19th century physics: ether in case of Lorentz and classical electrodynamics in case of Poincaré. From Poincaré, Lorentz and Einstein, can you ponder which one of them was nearest the truth? Is Poincaré naturally died?
The title of Einstein’s 1905 paper (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”) encouraged the idea that it was just an interpretation of Lorentz's theory of electrodynamics. Is it the case?
One of the interesting historical aspects of TOR is that, although often regarded as the highly original and even revolutionary contribution of a single individual, almost every idea and formula of the theory had been anticipated by others. Is it correct to regard Einstein as the sole originator of TOR?
Are the following Einstein’s postulates correct :
- The relativity postulate : the laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frames
- The speed of light postulate: the speed of light, in a vacuum, measured in any inertial reference frame, always has the same value of c, no matter how fast the source of light and the observer are moving relative to each other.
- The problem is that Einstein and physicists, don’t understand the nature of time. A muon, traveling at near light speed, decays much slower than a slower moving muon. Yes, the same process occurs but slower. Therefore the first postulate is incorrect since a change in the rate at which something occurs, is a change in the laws of physics?
4 - Beyond Einstein’s TOR
In future physics, Einstein's postulate "Speed of light is invariable" must be replaced by "Wavelength of light is invariable". So any frequency shift is caused by a speed of light shift?
TOR only applies to inertial reference frames and thus could not be used to describe anything involving but motion in a straight line at constant speed. Therefore, it could not be applied to situations involving forces, such as electromagnetic or gravity?
What are the flaws in TOR?
On the subject of relativity, what are the Stefan Marinov’s and Peter Graneau’s breakthroughs?
My feelings are that we can obtain the UFT without going into General relativity and even the TOR. For that, we must be clear about EM and a true apprehension of space. In other words, a truly comprehension of electromagnetism and space is the key to UFT. Is it on the right track?
Thanks very much for reading, sharing and asking to the C's :)
With Light and Love,
Éric