The Non existence of Einstein's Light speed barrier Roger J Anderton

Transcription

1 The Non existence of Einstein's Light speed barrier Roger J Anderton R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com The speed of light (in vacuum) is often being treated as a barrier in the context of Einstein's relativity. But it appears that Einstein's deduction that there was a light speed barrier was a non sequitur from his relativity and that Einstein did change his mind about it. So the light speed barrier does not exist. I shall be dealing with an analysis by Homer B. Tilton, [1] who points out various non sequiturs of Einstein, but I shall concentrate on what he says about the 'lightspeed (in vacuum) barrier.' The terms non sequitur is Latin for it does not follow, an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. Dictionary [2] gives definition as: 1. an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent 2. a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said Einstein uses non sequiturs a lot, and Homer B. Tilton notes four non sequiturs of them. Often these are really just Einstein's changes of mind; he will say one thing on one occasion and later contradict himself on another occasion. It is these changes of mind that make Einstein's relativity obscure and ambiguous, because he will first declare one thing and later declare something else; so what is supposed to be his relativity - the first opinion or one of his later opinions. Einstein has a large fan base, and they don't seem to mind these changes of mind, they will individually cherry -pick what they want to believe from what Einstein said. That's their personal choice, but as a scientific theory it is nonsense to have something that is not clearly defined.

2 The point of this article is that things should be understood from the Poincare-Lorentz theory, and whether that is the same as Einstein's theory can be unclear because of Einstein's changes of mind. An example from Tilton: Tilton: Einstein originally declared that the distortions of special relativity reflect real changes to the objects being remotely observed, then reconsidered. He then quotes Sachs:[3] In a lecture that Einstein gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1921, he said the following: "Geometry predicates nothing about relations of real things, but only geometry together with the purport of physical laws can do so... The idea of the measuring rod and the idea of the clock contained with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements, but that of composite structures, which may not play any independent part in theoretical physics." / Einstein then went on to say that, in spite of the foregoing comment, we should temporarily support the use of the length and time transformations as though they were physically real. Tilton then says: Sachs then understandably objects. Tilton: Einstein obviously, in 1921, had second thoughts about some of the things he had written in 1916 and earlier in connection with special relativity. One is the twin paradox; another is his declaration of an absolute light barrier, since he had based that on the shrinking of lengths to zero, and the slowing of clocks as the speed of light is approached. This leads to our [..] non sequitur. However, rather than admit he had changed his mind, he eased into his new view while saying the old one should be accepted a bit longer. In other words Einstein is crafty; he will say one thing then say the opposite and not point out sufficiently clearly that he has changed his mind. The problem is how do you get from the idea of light speed constancy to the idea nothing can go faster than light. The connection from one idea to the other is not clearly established, and looks non sequitur. And Tilton points out problem of speed relative to what? The way he puts it: Tilton: Since there is no luminiferous ether, there can be no "road" in space upon which to conceptually post a sign like this for rocketships: SPEED LIMIT 300 MEGAMETERS PER SECOND STRICTLY ENFORCED. What is "300

3 megameters per second"? That's just the speed of light. So if no ether frame, then what frame is the rocketship to be measured against to get a correct value for its speed. Einstein in one of his opinions seems to be that light speed (in vacuum) is the same value for every inertial frame. So if that is the case what frame is a rocketship to be taken with respect to. There is no signpost in any frame saying what limiting speed can a rocketship go in that frame. Of course in one interpretation of special relativity they try to make out a limiting speed on the rocketship. (My point-of-view is I bring back a type of ether frame. Anyway:) Tilton explains: As a result of his reality view of the effects of special relativity, Einstein concluded in 1905 that there would be a barrier at the speed of light to further acceleration by any real body. He thought of c as being effectively infinite; writing in his 1905 paper : "light-speed in our physical theory plays the role of an infinitely great velocity"; as if to say, The speed of light has long been considered to be effectively infinite although today we know better. But it is my conviction that in the present stage of development of theoretical physics the idea of an effectively infinite speed must still be employed. Later (1916) he stated it somewhat differently, writing : "The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion [and] from this we conclude that... c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body." And there you have it; the light barrier is born. So somehow he gets from the idea that 'light-speed (in vacuum) is constant' to the idea that 'light-speed (in vacuum) is a limiting speed.' Tilton says: Lorentz and Poincaré, who both understood relativity probably as well as Einstein, did not share in his reality view or his conclusion of a barrier; Lorentz saying (1927), "But I never thought that this [time transformation] had anything to do with real time." I would say they understood it better because they still had ether whereas Einstein 1905 was seemingly rejecting it. Thus probably from their perspective based on ether there was no light-speed barrier. Tilton: To put it bluntly, many have put faith ahead of logic and rationality in this field [I.e relativity]. Julius Caesar said it: "Men willingly believe what they wish." And men blindly parrot the statement, "You can't go faster than light," without knowing what it means precisely. They say it with no sinister intent, but that repeated saying has the effect of brainwashing, and holding back, each new generation. And when you ask them how they know that, they say Einstein said it; but when you show them that in 1921 he changed his mind, they fall silent.

4 I would myself say it was sinister, brainwashing is sinister as far as I am concerned. But there you have it: Certain people are brainwashed to say nothing can go faster than light, they don't know why that is, except they act like parrots and say it because Einstein said it. And they are unable to process the fact that Einstein changed his mind. Einstein's thinking process is probably along the lines that in 1905 was discarding the aether as superfluous and then later changing his mind and accepting aether. [4] So his change of belief on light-speed barrier reflects his change in belief about aether. I would like to thus point out: Einstein proceeds blundering around and changing his mind, while leaving the parrot -type people totally confused. These parrot types are perfectly able to take something that Einstein said and recite it like a parrot so that they think that they appear clever, but are unable to process Einstein saying the opposite at a later time because that requires thinking on their part of trying to work out what to believe: what Einstein said originally or what Einstein changed his mind to say. Tilton: But now we encounter a popular logical paradox, repeated over-and over down through the years, generally NOT recognized as being a paradox at all. He then quotes what he says is typical thing said, from Zimmerman & Zimmerman (1993) [5] : "The speed of light in a vacuum is the limit at which anything - matter or energy - can travel." Tilton: The paradox is this: that speed, the speed of light, is both an upper limit and a lower limit for photons; so if it also acts on rocketships, then how can we suppose it to be an upper limit when it is clearly not a lower limit? Where is the logic there? No, that logic is faulty but it is widely subscribed to nonetheless. And if we recognise that most people in the field of relativity are parrots reciting things Einstein said without being able to understand by thinking it through for themselves, it makes perfect sense why they violate logic; its not something they are capable of dealing with. Another Einsteinian change of mind is as follows, Tilton cites Nahin [6]: Einstein himself, in his 1905 paper, specifically took the rate of a clock's timekeeping to be velocity-dependent only. However [there are] those who object. In this book I side with Einstein. When asked during a 1952 interview whether it is permissible to use special relativity in problems involving acceleration, Einstein replied, "Oh yes, that is all right as long as gravity does not enter; in all other cases, special relativity is applicable. Although, perhaps the general relativity approach might be better, it is not necessary."

5 Tilton refers to this as: Looks like another non sequitur, and an easing back by Einstein from an earlier position; for aren't gravitation and acceleration fields equivalent? The genesis of the light-speed barrier, Tilton gives as: Tilton: Einstein wrote of the distortions of special relativity as if they were real physical changes to the body resulting from their being observed from afar. So what... he said (paraphrasing). So what if each observer sees a different magnitude of change; each view is real in the eye of the beholder. Einstein's words may not have been exactly that, but it seems Einstein ignored physicist/philosopher Henry Margenau's admonition that "The tree is real... because it satisfies the demands of consistency..." (The Nature of Physical Reality, p.292). Tilton says of this: Everyone deferred to Einstein's judgement. Einstein had taken center stage. i.e. people were acting like parrots. Einstein was explaining his theory of relativity and no one understood what he was talking about, they were not mentally able to process it because what he was saying made no sense, the only thing they could do was act like parrots if they wanted to present the pretence of understanding. But then Einstein went and changed his mind and said the opposite: in an address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin on 27 Jan 1921, Einstein gave in; and in 1922 these words appeared in an obscure little book by Einstein (p.35): "Sub specie aeterni [After all is said and done] Poincaré, in my opinion, is right." By that time Poincaré had died. Lorentz was still alive. So he was now saying it was the Poincare-Lorentz theory and in that theory there was aether and there was no light-speed barrier. Tilton then explains it: And here's a trap to be avoided: One must not confuse the 1905 Einsteinian light barrier with the second postulate. That change of mind had the effect (generally unrecognized even to this day) of nullifying Einstein's conclusion of an impenetrable light barrier. That barrier could no longer be supported on the basis that the relativistic effects are real; now they admittedly were not real. The constancy of the velocity of light itself is the only unusual real thing remaining about the special theory. And then concludes: The upshot of all this is that the theory of relativity needs some heavy-duty reinterpreting.

6 There is no light-speed barrier. The theory should have been the Poincare-Lorentz theory. (A theory which of course has it roots with Boscovich's theory and unifies relativity with quantum physics (as dealt with in previous articles).) References [1] TODAY'S TAKE ON EINSTEIN S RELATIVITY PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE OF 18 FEB 2005, Edited by Homer B. Tilton and Florentin Smarandache, sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0cciqfjaa&url=http%3a%2f %2Ffs.gallup.unm.edu%2FProceedingsTucson.pdf&ei=AVrfU7LjA83X7AaaoDwBQ&usg=AFQjCNGoHxxni3r08e5HZT9RyCQYR5z6tQ&bvm=bv ,d. ZGU [2] Merriam Webster dictionary %20sequitur [3] Mendel Sachs, "On Einstein's Later View of the Twin Paradox," Foundations of Physics, Vol.15, No.9, Sep. 1985, pp [4] Einstein in 1920 is saying: according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable [5] Why Nothing Can Travel Faster Than Light, Barry E. Zimmerman & David E. Zimmerman, Published by : Contemporary Books, 1993 ISBN [6] Paul J. Nahin, Time Machines, 2nd Ed., Springer, 1998, ISBN , p.408 c.rjanderton10aug2014