The Greatest Failure of the Scientific Method - Special Relativity. Copyright Joseph A. Rybczyk

Transcription

1 The Greatest Failure of the Scientific Method - Special Relativity Copyright 207 Joseph A. Rybczyk Abstract It is only a matter of time when the scientific authorities will have to face the inevitable conclusion that Einstein s special theory of relativity is invalid. They will then be put into the embarrassing positon of having to explain how this could have happened. How were the multitudes of scientists around the world persuaded into believing a theory that was based on a thought experiment 2 and the subsequent rejection of real evidence from an experiment 3 that proved it to be invalid? What are the psychological factors involved that caused the world s scientific establishments to fully accept a theory that they obviously did not comprehend? This is especially true in the United States where we pride ourselves on the right to freedom of expression. Right up to the present day, the peer-review system, the scientific journals, the governmental funding agencies, and a long list of other factors have failed to do what they were intended to do. And, that is to support the process of valid scientific research in order to further the advancement of science, and not to stifle the opponents with alternative views when such views are based on valid scientific methods and procedures. In support of the views just expressed the author will show the many inconsistencies and downright falsities inherent in Einstein s special theory of relativity.

2 The Greatest Failure of the Scientific Method - Special Relativity Copyright 207 Joseph A. Rybczyk. Introduction Einstein s special theory of relativity is based on two postulates; the principle of relativity 4 and the constancy of light speed 5, that have an equally strong basis of validity and falsity at the same time. It all depends upon the circumstances in which they are applied. The problem is that the universe is complex far beyond the human capacity to comprehend. In fact, it is impossible for the human mind to grasp even the simplest concepts of the physical laws of science without putting forth an extensive effort to study that specific area of science. Because of such cognitive inadequacy we rely on the collective consensus of others who have dedicated large amounts of time to the study of that in which we have interest. Thus, we start out believing what the so-called experts in the field appear to be in agreement on. But, if we pick an area of interest and dedicate a significant amount of time to its study, we will almost certainly run into areas of confusion, apparent conflicts, and eventually, downright disbelief in what we are finding. Those of us who are willing to dedicate a significant portion of our lives to find solutions to these quandaries will eventually succeed to some degree. But then we are faced with the ensuing problem as to how to convince the authorities that they are wrong. The only solution is to document your findings in sufficient detail and present them in a media that is available to the public. In so doing, the authorities, who prevent you from publishing in respected science journals, will eventually have to deal with it. It is on this basis that the contents of this paper are presented. 2. The Expansion Principle One of the primary causes of the failure of the scientific method is the failure of the isolation principle. To get to the underlying cause and effect of that which we are researching, we instinctively zero in on the principle components of the phenomena and brush aside any extraneous factors so as not to complicate matters unnecessarily and cause unwanted confusion. 2

3 This normal human instinct is perhaps best summed up in the form of the heuristic technique called Occam s razor 6. The principle can be interpreted as stating: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Unfortunately, science is not that simple, and following such advice will lead you to faulty understandings of that which is being studied. This became apparent early on to the author and led to his development of spherical reference frames to supplant the three coordinate system, (not counting time), used in Einstein s special theory of relativity. By use of such reference frames, one is forced to consider all of the characteristics of light propagation and not only those that are the focus of the research. And, as might be expected, such approach will add to the confusion of what such research is showing us. But, there is also a positive aspect to such approach as will be discussed next. Although it took 6 years since the introduction of spherical reference frames 7 to figure it out, it is now clear as to the true nature of light propagation, the principle of relative motion, and the meaning of time dilation as used in Einstein s special theory of relativity. And, as will be shown to those who are committed enough to read these findings in their entirety, time dilation is not what is defined in Einstein s theory of relativity. Nor, is the speed of light constant under the principles of Einstein s theory. And, in fact, to the limited degree that there is some support for the principle of time dilation, there is a similar degree of support for the consequential principle of time expansion. All of these principles have an entirely different meaning when they are properly understood, however. To arrive at the truth, though, we must employ the expansion principle of the author s theory. This means we must use spherical reference frames to evaluate the complete relationships of light propagation between two, light--containing, inertial frames that are in relative motion with respect to each other. 3. The Real Origin of Time Dilation To ease the transitioning into the dual spherical reference frames analyses of the author s theory we will begin with a single spherical reference frame that illustrates the real origin of time dilation in opposition to that based on the thought experiment of Einstein. Of first importance in that regard is the fact that the initial findings presented here are based on the light from a stationary and not the light from a moving as given in Einstein s thought experiment. Later in this paper we will show the true relationship of time dilation in regard to the frame of the moving light, but for now, let us focus on the real origin of time dilation. In referring to Figure, we have a moving point of reference, mrp, traveling to the right at a uniform rate of speed v that past the stationary light at the center of the expanding sphere of light at the very instant that the sphere of light was emitted. Since the light is moving at a uniform rate of speed c in all directions from the stationary, it follows that for any uniform speed v from 0 to c of the moving reference point, there will be a point of light on the expanding sphere that remains directly above the moving reference point. Such point is labeled point in the illustration. It should be rather obvious from what is shown in the illustration, that if the point of light traveled path from the to point at speed c while simultaneously traveling the perpendicular path ct in the moving frame of point mrp, then its speed must be less than c in the moving frame. I.e., if path ct is shorter than path and both paths were traveled during the same time period, then path ct in the moving frame had to be traveled at a slower rate than path in the stationary frame. And in fact, that is the finding of this author. But, according to the principles of special relativity, light travels through empty space at speed c and therefore the shorter path had to be traveled during a shorter period of time. This is indicated in the illustration by the notation and ct where c is the speed of light and t is the dilated time in 3

4 the moving frame that corresponds to proper time T in the stationary frame. Since the triangle shown is a Pythagorean triangle, solving it for t will result in the time dilation formula of special relativity. expanding light sphere ct stationary vt mrp Figure Real Origin of Time Dilation That is, solving for time t in the moving frame of mrp will yield the special relativity (SR) time dilation formula tt = TT vv2 cc 2 () SSSS TTTTTTTT DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD where t is the dilated time in the moving frame, T is the proper time in the stationary frame, v is the speed of the moving inertial frame, and c is the speed of light in empty space. The problem with this reasoning, however, is that it then means that time is direction dependent as discussed next. Using the same valid principle of physics that was used in Figure to show the dual paths traveled by the same point of light; one in the frame of the stationary and one in the frame of the moving reference point, we have the two additional dual paths shown in Figure 2. expanding light sphere 2 2 ct 3 ct 2 stationary vt mrp Figure 2 Resulting Direction Dependency of Time Note: such dual paths exist for every point of light on the expanding sphere, but only those involved in the two additional points, 2 and 3, are needed to illustrate what is being shown. And that is that path 2 from the moving point of reference mrp to point 2 is longer than path ct to 4

5 point, while the path ct2 from the moving reference point mrp to point 3 is shorter than the path ct to point. If these differences in distance are a result of a difference in time and not a difference in light speed, then time in the moving frame of reference point mrp is dependent on the direction of stationary light travel in the moving frame. It is considerations such as these, based on the expansion principle that are never officially discussed in regard to Einstein s theory of relativity. The only mention regarding such repercussions in Einstein s theory is the proposition that the perpendicular path ct is not effected by the direction of motion. But, any reasonable person of normal intelligence who is not intimidated by the assumed superior knowledge of the scientific authorities knows this is nonsense. It is the same vectorial principles that effect the light travel distance in all of the other directions that causes it to have the length it has in the perpendicular direction. In short, Einstein s theory says that the difference in time in all of the other directions doesn t count. Only the effect in the perpendicular direction to the path of travel, or in this case, reference point mrp travel, matters. 4. The Real Meaning of Time Dilation Now that we have some understanding of the fundamental principles being discussed regarding light propagation between two inertial frames, we can expand the discussion to that involving dual spherical reference frames. In so doing, we can develop a valid scientific basis for the concept of time dilation based on real scientific principles. And, as will be seen, such principles are not those given in special relativity. Referring now to Figure 3, we have a moving light as used in the special theory of relativity. light from stationary stationary at point 0 GT 5 0 vt vt Gt LT = ct ct moving at point 2 light from moving Figure 3 Real Meaning of Time Dilation But, contrary to the principles of special relativity, the expanding sphere of light emitted by the moving stays centered on the moving and moves with it to the right. The expanding sphere of light in the stationary frame was, (also contrary to the principles of special relativity), emitted by a stationary light located at point 0 in the illustration. For ease of understanding, the paths associated with each sphere are of the same color as the respective sphere. With that understood, let us now see what time dilation really is. Assume that the moving, currently located at point 2 in the illustration, was at point 0, the location of the stationary, when each gave off a sphere of light. Since both spheres were emitted at the same time and expanded at the same rate c during the same time period T, they are the same size at the instant shown in the illustration. As given in Einstein s thought experiment in special relativity, the point of light emitted in the direction perpendicular 5

6 to the moving s path of travel remains directly above the moving while moving away from it at speed c. Thus, it has travel path in the frame of the moving from point 2 to point 5 at the top of the expanding moving light sphere. Since the moving was at point 0, the location of the stationary, when the sphere was emitted, the same point of light simultaneously traveled distance GT from point 0 to point 5 in the stationary frame of the stationary. When the two paths, and GT are combined with the moving travel path vt from point 0 to point 2, we have the Pythagorean triangle shown. In this case T is the time during which the point of light traveled both paths, and c is the speed it traveled in the moving frame while G is the speed it traveled in the stationary frame. Since distance GT is greater than distance, and both paths were traveled during the same time period T, G is a greater speed than light speed c. Now, let us look at the corresponding relationships of the light from the stationary. At the exact instant that the moving past the stationary, the stationary emitted the sphere of light centered on it at point 0 in the stationary frame. During the same time period T previously discussed, a point on the sphere emitted by the stationary stayed directly over the moving and thereby traveled path from point 0 to point 4 in the stationary frame. Subsequently, the same point of light simultaneously traveled path LT from point 2 to point 4 in the moving frame of the moving. Since LT is a smaller distance than and both distances were traveled during time period T, L is a lesser speed or lower speed than light speed c. And, similar to the case involving the moving sphere, when paths and LT are combined with the travel path vt of the moving, we have another Pythagorean triangle. But, unlike the first one, this one is identical to the one used in special relativity with the very important exception that it is based on the light from a stationary light and not the light from a moving light. Once an adequate understanding of the two different light spheres and their corresponding Pythagorean triangles is obtained we can relate the two and derive a valid substitute for time dilation. Referring back to the moving frame path from point 2 to point 5, it should be rather obvious that if it took time T for the point of light to travel the whole distance from the moving at point 2 to the current positon at point 5 on the expanding moving light sphere, it will have traveled the smaller distance, LT from point 2 to the point 4 on the stationary frame light sphere in less time than time T. And, since stationary path GT from point 0 to point 5 was traveled simultaneously with path from point 2 to point 5, we can extend a dashed line parallel to the path of travel to connect point 4 on path to point 3 on path GT as shown. Then, by extending a perpendicular line from the moving travel path at point to point 3 on the GT light path, we can determine where the moving and its expanding light sphere were at when the distance LT on the path between points 2 and 4 was traveled. In other words, at an earlier time t when the moving had only traveled the shorter distance vt from point 0 to point, the point of its light traveling the perpendicular path ct had only reached point 3 in the moving frame. The stationary frame path Gt traveled simultaneously from point 0 to point 3 by that same point of moving light did so during that same earlier time period t. More specifically, distances vt, ct, and Gt were traveled at speed v, c, and G respectively during the same time period t. And since all of these distances are shorter than their corresponding distances vt,, and GT, reached during the later time period T, it s obvious that time t is less than time T. We can then state with absolute validity, that distance LT = distance ct as shown on the later path from point 2 to point 4. Of even greater interest is the fact that time t can be determined by the same formula used in Einstein s theory, given earlier as equation () SR Time 6

7 Dilation. That is, the stationary frame Pythagorean triangle that connects points 0, 2, and 4 with sides vt,, and ct can be solved to derive the special relativity time dilation formula. But, unlike the case with special relativity, time t is not dilated time but simply an earlier time that distance ct was traveled by the same point of moving frame light that traveled the total distance from point 2 to point 5 during time period T. By way of clarification, the findings just presented show that time in the moving frame passes at the same rate as time in the stationary frame. The shorter time t, is simply an earlier time and not dilated time as given in Einstein s theory. Because time t is determined by the exact same Lorentz factor 8 based formula as derived in both theories, it is mathematically related to current time T to the same degree of accuracy in both theories. This, in turn, only adds to the confusion because it appears to provide support for Einstein s theory when it actually doesn t. This finding resolves the twin paradox 9 in special relativity and validates the principle of relativity between inertial frames. All motion related considerations between two inertial frames are the same in either of the two frames that the motion is attributed to. Neither frame travels through time at a slower rate. 5. Complete Dual Spherical Inertial Frames Relationships Because of the complexity of the dual spherical inertial frames, only a single sided view was used in the previous section. And, as can be seen by anyone who was committed enough to read through the entire analysis presented, it was confusing enough as given. But, to avoid the misconception that the moving frame is any more complex than the stationary frame, the following complete graphical representation is presented. light from at left 5 GT GT 5 light from at right left at point 0 & Gt Gt ct ct 0 vt vt 2 2 vt vt 0 4 LT = ct LT = ct right at point 2 & 0 Figure 4 Dual Spherical Inertial Frames Relationships In referring to Figure 4 it should be apparent that all of the relationships shown in regard to the moving inertial frame previously discussed are now also given for the opposite reference frame. Either frame may be considered to be in uniform motion relative to the other. It was through the analyses of these kinds of expanded relational representations using the expansion principle discussed in Section 2 that finally led to the correct understanding of inertial motion as presented in this paper. 7

8 6. Time is Constant, not Light Speed Whereas the first postulate of special relativity proclaiming the laws of physics to be the same in all inertial frames is a reasonable conclusion involving our understanding of natural phenomena, the same cannot be said for the second postulate. The proclamation that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference is paradoxical to the highest order. It violates the evidence supported principle that time is constant and independent of the direction of light travel regarding light from a in an inertial frame that is in motion relative to another inertial frame. I.e., inertial motion is relative. The motion can be attributed to either of the two reference frames it is related to. For example, in referring to Figure 5 we have attributed the relative motion to the moving reference point and not the of the light sphere shown. Note: For an improved understanding of light propagation the same sphere is shown at two different times. The smaller sphere is the previous location of the larger sphere which is the only sphere that exist at the current time T. 2 expanding light sphere GT LT 3 L 2T stationary vt mrp Figure 5 Stationary Source Relative to Moving Frame If the sphere increases in all directions relative to the at speed c, then its distance relative to the is the same in all directions at any chosen time. That is not true of its distance relative to the moving reference point, mrp. Although that distance depends on the direction relative to the moving reference point and is greatest in the direction of recession and least in the direction of approach, it increases in all directions over time. But, the fact that it is different, dependent on direction relative to the moving reference point, means that its speed is effected dependent on direction in the frame of the moving reference point as previously discussed. Next we have the same and reference point during the same time period T where the motion has been attributed to the and not the reference point as just given. In this case the location of the sphere moves with the as it expands at speed c relative to the as shown in Figure 6. But all of the relationships relative to the are the same as they were in Figure 5 and likewise the same relative to the reference point srp as they were to reference point mrp in Figure 5. They only appear different because they are being shown at two different places in the same illustration. If we look only at the final sphere, i.e., the larger sphere, in each 8

9 illustration, we will see the same exact relationships in both cases. The only exception being that in Figure 5 we attribute the motion to the reference point, and in Figure 6 we attribute it to the light. 2 expanding light sphere GT LT 3 L 2T moving vt srp Figure 6 Moving Source Relative to Stationary Frame Note: The earlier relationships of the emitted light relative to the smaller sphere in Figure 6 may appear to be different from those shown in Figure 5, especially those in the direction of point. But it is simply an optical illusion of the cognitive form. It is these kinds of difficulties in trying to graphically represent what is taking place during light propagation that allows the scientific authorities to support Einstein s claim that the speed of light is constant in empty space when it really isn t. The truth, as best as we can tell, is that light is emitted at speed c relative to its and travels through space at that speed in all directions relative to its, but not relative to its observer. For more information, involving the variable speed of light, see the author s papers on the Cause and Effect Theory of Light Propagation Conclusion Contrary to what the reader might think, it has long been apparent to this author that there has to be at least some element of truth to Einstein s special theory of relativity, or else it would have been rejected from the very start. For example, the mathematics for time dilation is identical to the mathematics for the earlier time that light traveled a specific distance as shown in this paper. The problem is that such elements of truth are so deeply embedded in the relational factors of physical phenomena that it is very difficult to reveal them for what they truly are. Thus, we are prone to accepting such mathematical results that seem to agree with what is being claimed when in fact they really don t. But these difficulties of ambiguities do not excuse scientists for their continued defense of theories when such ambiguities are finally uncovered, resolved, and exposed in scientific papers such as this. It should also be understood that this author is not claiming that everything in Einstein s special theory of relativity is wrong. But the constant speed of light and the resulting time dilation are most definitely so. And so too is the special relativity Doppler effect that is based on the constant speed of light. It was because of issues like these that this author finally gave up on the principles of relativity as given in 9

10 Einstein s theory and finally developed the cause and effect theory of relativity. In closing let it be understood that the author welcomes critical, unbiased, appraisals of his work from respected scientific authorities, should such authorities have the integrity to engage him in that regard. REFFERENCES Albert Einstein, the Special Theory of Relativity, originally published under the title, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Annalen der Physik, 7, (905) 2 Albert Einstein s light clock thought experiment in which a pulse of light is reflected between two mirrors along the y axis of a moving device that travels along the x axis between two synchronized clocks in the stationary frame. From it he deduces the principle of time dilation in the frame of the moving light. Re: Joseph A. Rybczyk, The Paradoxes of Einstein s Light Clock Experiment and Doppler Effect (205), Available from the home page of the Millennium Relativity website at: 3 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, (887 experiment to detect ether), in support of the special relativity principle that light travels at a constant speed and does not take on the speed of the. The experiment failed to detect an ether. 4 The First Postulate of The Special Theory of Relativity: The Principle of Relativity The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. 5 The Second Postulate of The Special Theory of Relativity: The Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuum The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference. 6 William of Ockham, (c ) who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. 7 Joseph A. Rybczyk, Millennium Theory of Relativity (200), Available from the home page of the Millennium Relativity website at: 8 Hendrik A. Lorentz, Dutch Physicist, discovered a new way to transform distance and time measurements between two moving observers so that Maxwell s equations would give the same results for both, (899, 904), Einstein further refined the transformations for use in his special theory of relativity 9 Wikipedia, In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. 0 Joseph A. Rybczyk, Cause and Effect Theory of Light Propagation, (20), Available from the home page of the Millennium Relativity website at: Joseph A. Rybczyk, A series of six papers, beginning with, Cause and Effect Principles of Light Speed Constancy, (20), All available from the home page of the Millennium Relativity website at: 0

11 The Greatest Failure of the Scientific Method - Special Relativity Copyright 207 Joseph A. Rybczyk All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form without permission. Millennium Relativity home page