The Problem of Relativity

Reference: Essays on Substance

The Problem of Relativity

The problem of relativity arises from the fact that, when it comes to a body moving in free space, we can measure its relative velocity only. We have no way of knowing its absolute velocity. For example, the earth moves at a velocity of 29.78 km/s around the sun, but the sun itself is moving. So, we do not know the absolute velocity of either earth or the sun in space.

Knowledge of the absolute velocities is necessary to test and refine our fundamental theories of physics. For example, accurate velocity data allows us to verify and refine the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity then helps accurately determine the masses and motion of celestial bodies.

Newton suggested that his concept of absolute space could be called ‘Aether,’ implying a connection between aether and a fixed reference frame. This idea was central to the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which aimed to detect Earth’s motion through this supposedly stationary aether. The experiment aimed to measure the speed of light in perpendicular directions to observe any differences that would indicate the Earth’s movement relative to this aether. Michelson and Morley used an interferometer, which utilized light wave interference to perform incredibly precise measurements. They expected to observe interference fringes that would indicate different light speeds depending on the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth’s motion. But no such fringes were observed.

Einstein then developed his Special relativity that essentially replaced the “absolute rest frame” by an “absolute velocity frame” using the velocity of light. In addition, Einstein noticed that light, which had no mass, had momentum as did the material objects with mass. This led to Einstein establishing an equivalence between electromagnetic radiation and matter, with his famous equation: E = mc2.

But the absolute motion among celestial bodies was not independent of their mutual gravity, and this required accounting for acceleration in addition to simple velocities. To do so, Einstein developed General relativity using a four-dimensional framework, which included both space and time coordinates and their interdependence.

General relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. It predicts phenomena such as gravitational time dilation, light deflection by massive bodies, and gravitational waves.

General relativity has been remarkably successful. It has found practical applications in everyday technology such as the Global Positioning System (GPS).

But, despite its remarkable success in explaining many gravitational phenomena, General relativity has several known limitations and weaknesses. For example, it does not integrate well with quantum mechanics, leading to inconsistencies when describing gravity at very small scales or high energies. It also requires the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain observed cosmic phenomena, but these have not been directly detected.

These limitations suggest that General Relativity, while highly successful in many contexts, may be an approximation of a more fundamental theory of gravity that resolves these issues.

In order to understand the approximations in GR (General Relativity) one must understand the assumptions made in developing this theory. The key assumption appears to be the speed of light. The theoretical basis for the speed of light is Maxwell’s theory, which assumed light to be a disturbance in aether, which it is not.

.

Proton, Electron and Photon

Reference: Essays on Substance

Proton, Electron and Photon

A particle implies a point-like center and a fixed identity that is moving. But the quantum “particles” inside the atom are not like material particles. They are like drops that could be dissolving and forming within a fluid-like field.

According to the Theory of Substance there are no material-like particles inside the atom. There are only fluid-like fields of different consistencies. These fields are continuous with each other despite sharply varying consistencies.

In a hydrogen atom, the only proton of very high consistency is the very small nucleus at the center, but the only electron of 1836 times lesser consistency fills the rest of the atom. This electron is like a huge field of very diluted mass. It is not like a point-like condensed particle orbiting the nucleus. This makes the electron tens of thousands of times larger than the proton.

There seems to be a relationship between consistency and size of substance: The lower is the consistency, the greater is the size.

Even when the atoms are packed tightly within matter, they have very large spaces among them. These spaces are filled with photons of negligible consistency. From the relationship between consistency and size, we may estimate the size of a photon to be tens of thousands of times larger than the electron.

We may not have the exact sizes of Proton, Electron and Photon, but we can say with certainty that the size of the electron is humongous compared to the size of the proton; and the size of the photon is humongous compared to the size of the electron.

The mathematical interpretation of quantum mechanics may disagree with the above conclusion but the mathematics of quantum mechanics assumes quantum entities to be point-like particles that have probabilistic locations.

.

The Book of Physics

Reference: Postulate Mechanics

The Theory of Substance

This is currently a developing theory.

  1. The Theory of Substance
  2. Substance and Consistency
  3. The Foundation
  4. The Spectrum of Substance
  5. Substance & Matter
  6. Substance & Space
  7. Substance and Time
  8. Inertia and Absolute Motion

Under Review

PHILOSOPHY

  1. The Scientific Method
  2. The Basis of Scientific Method
  3. Mathematics and Physics
  4. The Matter-Centric Fixation
  5. Physics and Brainwashing
  6. Einstein and Spinoza’s God
  7. Non-Locality & Oneness of Reality
  8. Testing a Theory
  9. New Theory and Skeptics
  10. Falsifiability
  11. Providing Proof
  12. Critical Thinking
  13. Thought as Substance

RELATIVITY

  1. An Analysis of Special Relativity (SR)
  2. Michelson-Morley’s Null Result
  3. The Universal Constant ‘c’
  4. The Gravitational Waves
  5. The Einstein’s Observer
  6. Objections to Einstein’s Relativity
  7. Relativistic Mass
  8. Space Contraction
  9. The Gravity
  10. The Principle of Gravity
  11. Motion and Gravity
  12. Motion-Inertia Relationship
  13. The Problem of Relativity
  14. The Speed of Light
  15. Theory of Substance and GR
  16. First postulate of Relativity
  17. Second Postulate of Relativity
  18. Special Relativity & Time
  19. Inertia versus Motion

GR & QM

  1. The Particle of Particle Physics
  2. Fields and Particles
  3. Spin in Quantum Physics
  4. General Relativity & Quantum Mechanics
  5. GR, QM and Theory of Substance
  6. Einstein & Quantum Mechanics
  7. Einstein-Bohr Debate

QUANTUM MECHANICS

  1. The Quantum
  2. The Quantum Particle
  3. The History of Quanta
  4. Misconceptions about Quanta
  5. The Atom
  6. Concepts in Quantum Mechanics
  7. The Particle-Wave Contradiction
  8. The Uncertainty Principle
  9. Quantum Superposition
  10. Quantum Entanglement
  11. Locality and Non-locality
  12. Quantum Mechanics and Reality

.

Old Versions

  1. Logic, Reality and Oneness
  2. The Space
  3. Motion and Relativity
  4. Proton, Electron and Photon
  5. The Nature of Space
  6. Continuity of Substance and Space
  7. Space and Medium of Light
  8. Is Energy Substance?
  9. Is Aether still there?

.

Mathematics and Physics

Reference: Essays on Substance

Mathematics and Physics

The postulates of Mathematics do arise from real experience, but they are then extended into abstract concepts that become distant from reality. For example, numbers, and their relationships arise from our experience with counting and accounting of distances and directions, but they are then extended to ideas, such as, zero and infinity that are abstract concepts only, and can be interpreted in many ways.

Mathematics has developed along the lines of establishing consistency among its postulates. The abstract postulates have become part of its woof and warp. When mathematics is applied to physics, its abstractions have to tested against real observations. Establishing consistency between the mathematical abstractions and real observations benefits both mathematics and physics.

A scientific hypothesis starts from real observations that are not quite consistent with established theories. The scientist generates a hypothesis to resolve that inconsistency. He may create a mathematical model to flush out as many inconsistencies as possible from his hypothesis.

The hypothesis may make new postulates. These postulates need to be properly justified. When we talk about subjectivity, we are talking about unjustified, arbitrary postulates.

So the scientist develops experiments to test the postulates of his hypothesis. These experiments can be conducted using physical equipment in a lab. The resulting measurements are then compared against the predictions from the hypothesis. A consistency between the two helps the hypothesis to be accepted as a theory.

When mathematical interpretations of the hypotheses and theories start to become complex, unreal, or simply pointless then it is time to develop thought experiments to further test the hypotheses and theories for inconsistencies. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are very mathematically oriented. They have espoused ideas about space and time that conflict with reality. Such ideas need to be carefully examined with well designed thought experiments that use live logic.

The thought experiments shall examine the postulates of the hypothesis for consistency with established principles. It will also examine the logical continuity among the ideas and observations leading to those postulates. Finally it will examine the harmony, which these new postulates bring to the broad scene of scientific principles.

The resolution of inconsistencies arising between a hypothesis and the reality of scientific principles may also bring into view basic concepts that are missing both in mathematics as well as in physics. This is what Faraday was insisting in his essay quoted below:

Faraday 1857: On the Conservation of Force

.

Motion and Relativity

Reference: Essays on Substance

Motion and Relativity

When you look at motion on a large scale you see what is missing from the Special Theory of Relativity of Einstein. You can say that light move at the speed of 3 x 108 relative to the Earth; but you cannot say that Earth moves at the same speed relative to light. 

Einstein’s theory is tied to the inertial frame of reference of matter. But even then it doesn’t differentiate between the nature of the speed of the train from the nature of the speed of the platform in the opposite direction. The platform having much higher inertia has a much smaller absolute motion than the train. But the theory of relativity treats both motions the same way.

Newton’s relativity worked  as simple addition of speeds when the two bodies involved had comparable masses. But that mathematical relationship failed when the two bodies involved had a large difference in their masses, as is the case between the masses of Mercury and the Sun. Einstein solved that problem by figuring out a way to take into account the effect of the difference in inertia of Mercury and Sun on the relative speed.

Einstein did it by indirectly “extrapolating” between the inertia/consistency of matter and light, and applying that gradient to the differential of inertia between Mercury and the Sun. This was a genius move. The value of ‘c’ is that gradient. 

But ‘c’ is an approximation that works for heavenly bodies. It does not work at the atomic level because there are no “material particles” within the atom. Now that we know this, a more accurate value for ‘c’ can be determined for atoms.

.