Vinaire's Blog

From Evolution of Physics by Einstein

III. FIELD, RELATIVITY – Time, distance, relativity

Our new assumptions are:

1. The velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all c.s. (coordinate systems) moving uniformly, relative to each other.
2. All laws of nature are the same in all c.s. moving uniformly, relative to each other.

The relativity theory begins with these two assumptions. From now on we shall not use the classical transformation because we know that it contradicts our assumptions.

It is essential here, as always in science, to rid ourselves of deep-rooted, often uncritically repeated, prejudices. Since we have seen that changes in (1) and (2) lead to contradiction with experiment, we must have the courage to state their validity clearly and to attack the one possibly weak point, the way in which positions and velocities are transformed from one c.s. to another. It is our intention to draw conclusions from (1) and (2), see where and how these assumptions contradict the classical transformation, and find the physical meaning of the results obtained.

.

The following are my comments on the assumptions above.  The terminology used in these comments is described under THE DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS below.

1. The disturbance level of light is many orders of magnitude lower than the disturbance level of matter in an “ether-centric” view. Therefore, the velocity of light in ether is so much greater than the velocity of matter that it would appear to be the same in all coordinate system moving uniformly in a “matter-centric” view.

2. All coordinate systems moving uniformly, relative to each other in a “matter-centric” view would essentially be coordinate systems with uniform disturbance levels in an “ether-centric” view.

.

THE DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS

The Disturbance hypothesis views visible light as a disturbance in a medium. This medium is not made of any substance, and the undisturbed medium has no inertia. The basic medium may best be described as a theoretical inertia-less field that acquires inertia as it is disturbed. We may refer to this field by the historical term, ether.

This ether acquires inertia when it is disturbed. The velocity of disturbance in turn is determined by the induced inertia. The inertia is a function of the level of disturbance. The higher is the disturbance level, the greater is the inertia induced, and the slower is the velocity of the disturbance.

The Disturbance hypothesis describes disturbance levels on the basis of a doubling of the amount of disturbance. The basic disturbance level is denoted as DL0, and defined as 2⁰ in basic unit of disturbance. The subsequent disturbance levels are denoted as DL1 (2¹ units), DL2 (2² units), DL3 (2³ units), etc. The n^th disturbance level may be denoted as DLn (2ⁿ units). The basic unit of disturbance may be identified as Hertz for the time being, but a clarification is needed based on the very concepts of time and space. Based on the frequency of visible light, the disturbance level of visible light may be approximated at DL49.

The Disturbance hypothesis views matter as a disturbance of very high inertia. The de Broglie frequency of earth is about 10⁷². This corresponds to a disturbance level of DL239. A kg of mass on earth will have a disturbance level of DL153. These values are very approximate, but they provide the orders of magnitude involved accurately enough. Note that higher are the disturbance levels, the higher would be inertia, and the slower would be the speed of disturbance through ether. These rough estimates show that the speed of matter through ether is so slow compared to the velocity of light that it would be literally impossible to detect.

A change in the velocity of a material body is accompanied by a change in its momentum, and, thus, a change in its inertia. Uniform velocity in a “matter-centric” view may translate to uniform inertia in an “ether-centric” view.

Thus, coordinate systems moving uniformly in one system shall be replaced by coordinate systems that are uniform in terms of their disturbance levels.

It appears that our feel of space and time is probably unique to our “matter-centric” view of the universe. In an “ether-centric” view one may find space and time to be variable in their inherent characteristics.

Einstein Theory of Relativity seems to spring from a “matter-centric” view of the universe. On the other hand, the Disturbance Hypothesis is based on an “ether-centric” approach, which  may provide us with a broader view of the universe.

.

References:

Mindful Subject Clearing – Physics

The Disturbance Hypothesis of Light

KHTK Postulates for Physics

.

From Evolution of Physics by Einstein

III. FIELD, RELATIVITY – Ether and motion

Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative. Looking back over the development of physics we see that the ether, soon after its birth, became the enfant terrible of the family of physical substances. First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused, to a great extent, the breakdown of the mechanical point of view. Second, we had to give up hope that through the presence of the ether-sea one c.s. would be distinguished and lead to the recognition of absolute, and not only relative, motion. This would have been the only way, besides carrying the waves, in which ether could mark and justify its existence. All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e. its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name. We shall say: our space has the physical property of transmitting waves, and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid.

.

All these difficulties resolve when we postulate ether to be a field with no inertia, but which has the ability to transmit electromagnetic waves that have inertia. Ether became “enfant terrible of the family of physical substances” because, to be real, it had to be a substance with inertia, just like anything else.

Ether cannot be described mechanically because the mechanical view assumes mass in all substances, where mass is an expression of inertia. The principles of mechanics apply only to substances with mass, and energy is assumed to be something exchanged among such substances. Mechanics has no concept of energy that is not associated with mass.

Electricity and Magnetism were first assumed to be fluids following the mechanical view. But this caused some fundamental difficulties. These difficulties were finally resolved with the formation of Maxwell’s equations. These equations made the existence of electrical and magnetic fields real without associating them with the concept of mass.

Einstein first viewed ether as a massless substance in the form of a “field”. This was the ether-sea of Einstein. It was expected to provide a coordinate system in which motion could be measured in some absolute sense. But this was found not to be the case.

Einstein writes, “All our attempts to make ether real failed.” This is because reality in the physical universe is viewed as substance with inertia. It is hard for a physicist to conceive of “substance” devoid of inertia.

Einstein then writes, “Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e. its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves.” And that is the reality, and also the truth.

Ether is a “substance” with no inertia, which has the ability to transmit electromagnetic waves that have the property of inertia.

In the final analysis there is no absolute motion.

This is the Disturbance Hypothesis.

.

Einstein says in The Evolution of Physics:

We really have no choice. We tried to save the Galilean relativity principle by assuming that systems carry the ether along in their motion, but this led to a contradiction with experiment. The only way out is to abandon the Galilean relativity principle and try out the assumption that all bodies move through the calm ether-sea.

 .

Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 using the example of a ship traveling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

It is assumed that the medium should move with the motion of inertial frame along with the disturbance, as in the case of sound waves, for Galilean relativity to work. Thus, ether as the medium of light is expected to move with the inertial frame, but there is no experimental evidence found for that.

This can be explained by observing that the inertia associated with the medium of light is several orders of magnitude smaller than the inertia associated with the medium of sound. An object cannot move through a “medium” having the same order of inertia. But such restriction need not apply when the “medium” has a level of inertia several orders of magnitude smaller.

Galilean relativity applies only to objects and medium that has the same order of inertia. We simply have to be aware of this limitation. We need not abandon the Galilean relativity principle.

The error has been in viewing everything physical from the inertial frame of matter.

.

Addition (September 27, 2019)

Lorentz transformation of relativity reduces to Galilean transformation when ‘c’ is infinite. That means that Galilean transformation applies to motion that is absolute. Newton looked the background of stars as the basis that was at absolute rest.

Therefore, Galilean transformation applies to absolute motion, which is the inverse of the density of substance (see The Universal Frame of Reference). Galilean transformation does not apply to relative motion except when density is constant.

Therefore, Galilean transformation applies in the material domain as long as the density of objects is comparable. This is not the case with Mercury, which 4 times as dense as the Earth and 12 times as dense as the Sun. That is why we get an error when we use Newton’s laws, that support Galilean transformation, to calculate the precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit.

We get better results when we use Lorentz transformation because we are using light as the basis. This does not rectify the error completely because ‘c’ is very large but not infinite. We may be able to rectify the error completely if we can determine the absolute motions of all the bodies involved using their density and then use Galilean transformation.

.

Comment (Apr 13, 2026)

Systems do not carry the ether along in their motion. They longitudinally compress ether as they move through it, very much like what happens in a longitudinal wave. The greater is the compression of ether, the greater is the inertia, and smaller is the velocity.

The Galilean relativity principle of adding velocities applies only where inertia of two moving objects is comparable. This is the generally the case with all material objects. This principle does not work when the inertia of two material objects is significantly different as in the case of Mercury and Sun. The theory of relativity applies a correction to this situation by using very large but finite velocity of light as a reference point.

.