CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space by Gurcharn Singh Sandhu
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT
Essay AbstractThe founding assumptions or postulates of Relativity and some of the resulting consequences confound the logic and common sense. In Relativity the Newtonian notions of absolute motion, absolute time, and absolute reference frame have been replaced with the Einsteinian notions of relative motion, relative time, and inertial reference frames in relative motion. This relativity dominated viewpoint has effectively abandoned any critical study or advanced research in the detailed properties and processes of physical space for advancement of Fundamental Physics. In this essay I show that the founding assumptions and postulates of Relativity are fundamentally wrong. To reinforce this argument two practically doable experiments are proposed for detection of absolute motion and establishment of a universal or absolute reference frame. After establishing the Newtonian absolute space, we can focus on the physical properties of space and examine the formation and existence of matter and fields in this physical space. Feasibility of such an advanced study of physical space as an elastic continuum is also discussed. It is shown that all forms of stable and unstable matter particles and fields exist as localized dynamic stress/strain bubbles in the elastic space continuum.
Author BioGurcharn S. Sandhu is an engineer by profession but a physicist by pursuit. After his M. Tech. from Cranfield Institute of Technology (UK) he rendered a long distinguished service in the Defense Research and Development Organization of India. Fundamental research in physics initially started as his hobby but gradually turned into a passion. In pursuit of this passion he obtained premature retirement from service and started devoting full time on fundamental physics research. He has published a book titled, “Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields”, which contains the gist of his research work on physical space as an elastic continuum.
Download Essay PDF File
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Sri Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,
I was impressed by your paper both for your determined effort to escape what you term the 'mesmerizing effects of Relativity', and with the detailed technical approach you have presented. I have reached a somewhat similar conclusion about physical reality, local interactions and the disservice Einstein has done physics in creating Special Relativity. He could have just emphasized Lorentz' and others' ideas, but instead created this very specialized world of his where measurement is absolute (c constant) but the Universe is relative. It worked but has created many complications...
My work is qualitative compared to yours, and I need to re-read your work especially about proposed experiments. Where I differ from your approach is your conclusion that the universal medium is elastic and perhaps continuous. I rather think of it as having varying angular momentum at local discrete dielectric points making up the ether lattice. I would be honored if you read and comment on
my fqxi essay Fix Physics! , and also
Beautiful Universe Theory on which it is based.
With best wishes,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Vladimir Tamari
Thanks for your appreciation of my essay.
I don't expect all authors in this contest to completely agree on any one point of view. Small little contributions from many like-minded authors can definitely make a difference in the emergence of a consolidated un-orthodox viewpoint to remove some of the major weaknesses, contradictions and fantasies from current Physics.
For evolving such consolidated viewpoint, the foremost requirement in my opinion is to distinguish between the physical entities and abstract mathematical notions. I am not against mathematics, but I am against allowing a mix-up between abstract mathematical notions and physical reality. For example I cannot accept 4D spacetime model of GR as a physical entity that can be curved or deformed. I cannot accept the mathematical construct of a metric associated with a coordinate manifold as a physical entity. In my opinion it is absolutely essential to distinguish between the mathematical notion of coordinate space and the physical space.
Finally, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.
With best wishes
G S Sandhu
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:45 GMT
Dear Vladimir Tamari,
Congratulations for your excellent essay, I especially enjoyed your diagrams. I liked your analogy with a modern building, very true. I also liked your style and skepticism. However, I cannot agree with your starting assumptions in your Beautiful Universe.
Overall an excellent essay.
Best Wishes
G S Sandhu
Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT
GS Sandhu,
The following paragraph caught my eye so I will reread your essay in closer detail:
"A closed region of Elastic Space Continuum in a strained state, satisfying the equilibrium equations & boundary conditions, may be termed as a strain bubble, provided the total strain energy content in this closed region is time invariant constant."
I believe that we may come to the same conclusions through different routes. I think your section 5 can easily be supported by a simple change in General Relativity. Any comments you may have on my essay are appreciated.
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 05:51 GMT
Dear Jeff Baugher ,
Thanks for your positive comments.
The sentence which you have quoted represents the core area of the proposed research in physical space. In my opinion there is a tremendous scope for advanced future research in coming decades to study and understand all physical phenomenon as embedded in physical space continuum in the form of strain waves and packets.
I shall make appropriate comments on your essay in your essay thread.
Regards
G S Sandhu
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 07:15 GMT
GS Sandhu,
I am examining your paper published in Physics Essays more in depth. You state: "The GR is based on Riemannian 3D space in which the points of the space continuum are not considered invariant." Do you not mean a 4D space where the 3 spatial bases are not invariant? If not, can you explain more in depth?
(I accidentally first posted this on my own thread page instead of the appropriate place, which is here.)
Regards,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 08:07 GMT
GS,
Just to make sure, your equation (24) in your Physics Essays paper should have the mass term >>1, correct?
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Dear Jeff Baugher ,
Kindly first study 'Invariance of Arc Element ds' in section II and then study 'Metric Representation of Continuum Deformation' in section III. Thereafter when you study 'Deformable Riemannian 3-D Space' in section III it will become clear that "In GR, the coefficients of metric tensor h
ij are obtained from Einstein‘s Field Equations (EFE) and the Riemann curvature tensor R
ijkl computed from h
ij is non-zero. On the other hand, the Riemann tensor computed from the metric tensor g
ij of the Euclidean space, is always zero. As such the Riemannian 3D space of GR is defined to be a deformable space which is generally perceived as curved space. Albert Einstein had stated that 'the Space-time continuum of the General Theory of Relativity is not a Euclidean Continuum'."
Further, the mass term 2GM/c
2r in equation (24) is
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
(Sorry, my previous post got truncated due to some technical problem in much less than symbol.)
Further, the mass term 2GM/c
2r in equation (24) is much less than 1 for studying the induced strain in the weak field limit. This is just for illustration of the induced deformations produced by GR if spacetime is assumed to be a physical entity. Finally it is proved that the 4D spacetime manifold cannot be a physical entity.
Regards
G S Sandhu
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
GS,
I will study the sections you are speaking of. As for equation (24), can you work out how you got your answer? I am not algebraically following you. I can't get your answer. If 2GM/c
2r1 then
so that
and doesn't work either to get your answer.
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 03:38 GMT
Dear Jeff Baugher,
As I have already explained a number of times, when 2GM/c
2r is much less than 1, the expression
2e
rr = (1-2GM/c
2r)
-1 - 1 = (1 + 2GM/c
2r) - 1 = 2GM/c
2r
and not zero for the simple reason that when the term 2GM/c
2r is much less than 1, higher powers of (2GM/c
2r) can be...
view entire post
Dear Jeff Baugher,
As I have already explained a number of times, when 2GM/c
2r is much less than 1, the expression
2e
rr = (1-2GM/c
2r)
-1 - 1 = (1 + 2GM/c
2r) - 1 = 2GM/c
2r
and not zero for the simple reason that when the term 2GM/c
2r is much less than 1, higher powers of (2GM/c
2r) can be neglected but not the first power or the term 2GM/c
2r itself. This term itself will be zero only if the mass M=0, in which case there is no gravitational field.
Jeff, I suggest for any further clarification of doubts on any of my papers referred in the subject essay, you may contact me by e-mail given in my essay. Let us use this forum for discussion of the contest essays only.
I am also deleting some of the earlier posts which were truncated due to technical problems with some of the mathematical symbols.
Regards
G S Sandhu
view post as summary
Domenic Oricchio wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 00:27 GMT
I reread your essay.
It is interesting to consider what is the strength of the relativity compared with the Poincaré theory, or Umov theory (I don't know this interesting story): what is the characteristic that help the human revolution? I think that your reasoning is right: the strength of the revolution is in the world of ideas because we have not maps (mathematical description) of the physic frontier.
I think that the abstract mathematical construct like wave function (visible interference fringe) and four dimensional coordinate (perihelion precession of Mercury) have a direct observable measure but I think that your idea is more deep: I understand that now, in this age, we use a construct that must change in some thousand years (in an other mathematical frame), with a simpler description that is true like this (if it is so, that is interesting).
When you say that the laws of Nature exist independently from the coordinate system, then you say an interesting thing (that I don't notice in the first reading): the laws are true for each system, considering all the transformation, and apparent forces.
I have ever used a different synchronization, using the reflections time along AB, then I must to make some calculation to verify all (I understand that in [9] c+Uab is an approximation, because the velocity cannot be greater of c).
I voted your essay some day ago, like all the other, but I make a quickly read: each essay merit a reading for the innovative idea, but my vote are not ever generous.
Saluti
Domenico
report post as inappropriate
Colin Walker wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 23:41 GMT
Dear G S Sandhu
Ron Hatch holds views quite similar to yours on inertial reference frames, Galilean velocity addition and a compressible ether with stress and strain.
In his seventies now, Ron is a GPS consultant and is probably still part of the company he co-founded. He is an engineer with a string of accomplishments without an advanced degree.
Ron had a website with his papers, but took it down after Gravity Probe B did not confirm a result he had predicted. As I recall it had to do with gyroscope precession. My impression was that his prediction was made rashly. From what little I understand, the effect would only be of second-order and should be unobservable.
Ron is a proponent of an exponential metric which is the subject of my essay. By the way, I doubt if he believes a metric has any existence beyond mathematics any more than I do.
Hatch presumes from the beginning an exponential "scale factor" which functionally replaces the metric in simple situations like free fall. The purpose of my
essay is to derive the exponential metric from Newtonian potential energy and special relativity. Special relativity and the corresponding part of what Hatch calls Modified Lorentian Ether Theory (MLET) give the same result for the relevant quantities.
Thank you very much for your comment on
Ernst Fischer's essay. You exposed a problem with balancing the energy for Mach's principle. To me energy is of primary importance and I like to investigate possibilities - even if they might involve spooky action at a distance.
All the best
Colin
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Colin,
Yes, I have glanced through a number of Ron Hatch's papers and agree that his views are quite similar to mine in many respects. However, he could not break off from the mesmerizing influence of Relativity and has been focusing on its modifications. I have particularly noted his remark, "While it is true that there is no measurement which can be used to distinguish the absolute ether frame from any other inertial frame,..". In this regard, I wonder if you could forward a copy of my contest essay, "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space" to Ron Hatch to show that I have proposed not one but two simple doable tests for detection of absolute reference frame.
All the best
G S Sandhu
George wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 06:06 GMT
Dear Sandhu,
Your work is interesting; mostly I agree with your critics. There are some points as well (on SR), on which I have some different view (particularly, I see M-r Minkowski more “guilty” than Einstein) Nevertheless, it seems just impossible to discuss it right here because the deal is about “so heavy” theme that requires pages and time.
On W=mc^2. It is more important for me that Einstein have realized/interpreted right cognitive meaning of it (in mine opinion). Who have deduced it first – there are different views that I cannot exclude.
Regards,
George
report post as inappropriate
Joseph Maria Hoebe wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Hello G.S.
Very good essay. Thanks.
The one thing I like of A.E. is his approach to see the truth of more than one observer. To me SR is about that.
It is an observer dilemma and not a physical dilemma.
A problem to me in GR is C. The idea of a vacuum is false. It is just an assumption. Also in outer space (seen from off earth) there is no real vacuum.
Another problem with SR, but also in other theories, like the one you mentioned, is C2. The squaring is derived from the calculation but not taken into account as number. Even when C is constant and absolute the final conclusion should be: C2 = C, like 1^2 equals 1. Because this is left out, C2 should be seen like a nominator of dimension, by which C2 is a field instead of a direction (Line).
Well, enough. I think in coming time a lot more physicists will break down the holy grail of A.E and his SR. Your thesis is a good start.
Congratulations.
with warm regards
Jos Hoebe
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 17:25 GMT
Gurcharn,
You wrote: "Further, a rod of length L0 will be seen to be of different lengths L1, L2, etc. when viewed from different IRF moving parallel to the length at different velocities. Hence, we may conclude that the length contraction in SR is an apparent effect, induced by the assumed constancy of the speed of light 'c' in all IRF in relative motion. This implies a logical flaw in the...
view entire post
Gurcharn,
You wrote: "Further, a rod of length L0 will be seen to be of different lengths L1, L2, etc. when viewed from different IRF moving parallel to the length at different velocities. Hence, we may conclude that the length contraction in SR is an apparent effect, induced by the assumed constancy of the speed of light 'c' in all IRF in relative motion. This implies a logical flaw in the second postulate of SR."
Correct. But Einsteinians couldn't care less and develop the absurdity further. They teach that, since the rod is measured to be shorter, it can even be trapped inside a shorter container - e.g. an 80 m pole can be gloriously trapped inside a 40 m barn:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/bar
n_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol35_no1/vol35_no1_2.pdf
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Pentcho Valev,
I agree with you that there are many absurdities in the formulation as well as in the interpretation of SR. You say, "But Einsteinians couldn't care less and develop the absurdity further. They teach that, since the rod is measured to be shorter, it can even be trapped inside a shorter container - e.g. an 80 m pole can be gloriously trapped inside a 40 m barn"
All such paradoxes of SR in fact represent the internal contradictions and inconsistencies of SR. In case of so called 'length contraction', the inconsistency is in the prescribed 'hypothetical' measurement procedure. As I have written in the essay, "We say ‘hypothetically measured’ because as per the prescribed method of measurement, the measuring rods are supposed to be carried in the moving IRF (K') while the rod to be measured is located in the BCRF, and the measurements are to be carried out through exchange of light signals. Practically it is impossible to carry out such measurements." And such a measurement of length contraction has in fact NEVER been carried out throughout the long history of SR.
Best Wishes
G S Sandhu
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:58 GMT
Length contraction is the standard miracle but there is also length elongation in special relativity. Without length elongation, special relativity predicts that the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is both dead and alive:
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of...
view entire post
Length contraction is the standard miracle but there is also length elongation in special relativity. Without length elongation, special relativity predicts that the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is both dead and alive:
"
The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."
Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"
John de Pillis: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Mr. Gurcharn,
Thank you so much for taking the time and the trouble to read my essay and for posting a comment about it.
As you kindly requested of me, I have now attempted to read your essay, however, due to the dismal fact that I am not particularly well educated, I am afraid I did not understand a good deal of it. It did seem to be exceptionally well written and its presentation was clear and succinct. The section on “dimension analysis” did intrigue me, especially your assertion that numbers are dimensionless.
As best as I can tell, one real appearing Universe can be perpetually occurring in one real here for one real now while performing in one real dimension once. All real stuff has always to remain in one real dimension, although that one real dimension can have three abstract aspects. There is only one real 1 of anything once. There is only one real 1 of everything once.
Mathematicians constantly reuse the symbolic number 1 without ever paying any mind to the abstract absolute logical imperative of a defined once. If a real Universe can only use one real one of anything once, Mathematics has to have an inbuilt flaw because the only symbolic 1 that would have had any plausibility would have been the very first 1 that was ever constructed once.
I do wish you well in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
murat Asgatovich gaisin wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Sandhu,
Congratulations. You wrote a very good essay with a criticism of Relativity. The content of your essay is important for our time. SR and GR should stay in the past as a false theory cause they contain wrong notions about space and essence of time.
Best regards,
M.A. Gaisin
report post as inappropriate
Patrick Alan Hutchinson wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Hello Gurcharn Singh Sandhu
This is actually a response to your post to Geoffrey Haselhurst. I hope this is an appropriate way to send it.
You write to Hazelhurst:
You say, "what we call empty space is in fact full of waves". In your opinion, what are the physical properties of this empty space that facilitate the creation or propagation of waves in it? Which parameter is supposed to oscillate in these waves?
My essay,
The Place of Geometry in Physics, is about a possible answer. That is its main topic. I hope you find it satisfactory.
Best wishes
Alan Hutchinson.
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
Dear Gurbachan,
I have read your excellent paper and I am in general agreement with your views. There are some areas that I see differently. The point that is most important in your argument, as I see it is your disagreement with the first postulate – ‘Special’ Principle of Relativity’. In addition to the relevant dynamical point you raise about the angular momentum and kinetic...
view entire post
Dear Gurbachan,
I have read your excellent paper and I am in general agreement with your views. There are some areas that I see differently. The point that is most important in your argument, as I see it is your disagreement with the first postulate – ‘Special’ Principle of Relativity’. In addition to the relevant dynamical point you raise about the angular momentum and kinetic energy with respect to the barycentric frame, there is also another point that I would like to make because this is the key to the dynamic explanation of the so-called Lorentz transformation. (This you will understand from the last section of my paper).
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549
While your arguments about angular momentum and kinetic energy are valid, they trivialize this argument by insisting that a) energy is relative and b) laws of physics (meaning Newton’s second law holds) in all inertial frames. Their argument is based on the position that the differential coefficient of the velocity of a particle will remain invariant, with respect to any IFR.
Einstein has taken the dynamic content out of Galileo’s principle of relativity and made a fake imitation of it. And this is why a dynamic explanation for the Lorentz transformation can not be offered by SRT.
I would like you to consider the following.
In his book “Dialogue Between The Two Chief World Systems” in the chapter on Second Day (157 pages in all) he takes example after example and showed that the reason why the effects of motion of a place (i.e. observer’s location) in uniform motion cannot seen by the observer is because the observer and the observed objects (in motion relative to the observer) shared a COMMON MOTION with that place.
Galileo started off his discussion on the principle of relativity in the following way: “Then let the beginning of our reflections be the consideration that whatever motions comes to be attributed to the earth must necessarily remain IMPERCEPTIBLE to us and as if non-existent, so long as we look only at terrestrial objects; for as inhabitants of the earth, WE CONSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MOTION” (p. 114).
“The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship’s motion is common to all the things contained in it” (p. 187).
In Galileo’s relativity, (as opposed Poincare’s version), it is the relative motion between the objects, that remain unaffected by motion of the place (Local reference frame), and not the discrete motion per se of a given object.
Newton brings this out clearly in his statement of the principle of relativity: Newton wrote the principle of relativity (in Principia, Corollary V) as follows: “The motions of bodies included in a GIVEN SPACE are the same AMONG THEMSELVES, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forwards in a right line without any circular motion” (p. 20).
“Motion of bodies ….among themselves” means motions RELATIVE to one another, and not the motion of each body relative to the given space. (According the Galileo’s principle Relative motions between bodies remain invariant, but not discrete motions of individual bodies).
Poincare started to twist Galileo’s tail from 1900 to insist that a) there is no common motion with the local frame b) Motion of each body remained unaffected by the motion of the local frame. (This is the basis of equivalence of all reference frames). In 1904 St. Louis Speech he announced his Principle of Relativity. (According to Poincare’s principle, discrete motion of each body remains invariant. “Motion of A BODY is independent of the motion of the system”)
Einstein dropped Galileo-Newton principle of relativity and grabbed hold of Poincare’s principle. The rest is history of confusion for 100 years.
I think the dynamic explanation of LT by the restoration of Galileo’s principle will be important to prove the fallacy of the notion of equivalence of all IFR.
I would like to hear your comments.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Viraj,
You say, "I think the dynamic explanation of LT by the restoration of Galileo s principle will be important to prove the fallacy of the notion of equivalence of all IFR."
After discussing various fallacies, paradoxes and inconsistencies of Relativity with expert relativists for a number of years, I have come to believe that no amount of logical arguments can ever convince them about the invalidity of Relativity. The only way forward is to practically demonstrate the invalidity of Relativity through a repeatable unambiguous experiment. For that I have proposed not one but two simple doable experiments for detection of absolute motion that can clinch the issue once and for all. In fact the second experiment is so simple that any pair of timing Labs can conduct it within a week without asking for any additional resources. A detailed paper about this proposed experiment has been just accepted for publication in Applied Physics Research Journal for publication in their November issue. Links to these papers have been given in my essay.
Best Regards
G S Sandhu
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 06:33 GMT
Dear Gurcham Singh Sandhu,
You provided almost no references to those many who also dealt with the topic you are focusing on. Hopefully you will appreciate the references 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 in
my essay.My Fig. 5 refers to 28. I consider it the first obviously plausible and quantitatively confirmed explanation for the unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley. The implications should be known.
Any objections?
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I have just read your excellent essay and fully agree with your point of view. I am also impressed with the long list of references given in your essay. However, I refrained from quoting many references because of the FQXi guidelines mentioning, "While the essay may or may not constitute original research, if the core ideas are largely contained in published works, those works should be the author's."
Further I am convinced that no amount of logical arguments can ever convince the Relativists about the invalidity of Relativity. The only way forward is to practically demonstrate the invalidity of Relativity through a repeatable unambiguous experiment. For that I have proposed not one but two simple doable experiments for detection of absolute motion that can clinch the issue once and for all. In fact the second experiment is so simple that any pair of timing Labs can conduct it within a week without asking for any additional resources. A detailed paper about this proposed experiment has been just accepted for publication in Applied Physics Research Journal for publication in their November issue. Links to these papers have been given in my essay.
Best Regards
G S Sandhu
Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 10:40 GMT
Gurcharn
I liked your nicely written critique of relativity, agreeing with most but with one big caveat; In logic, nothing can be proved illogical if just one case exists in which it may be logical Astonishingly I've found such a case for the SR postulates. I hope you may study it in my essay and comment.
It actually proves most of you other points correct, but the assumption that rigid objects even 'appear to contract' (never evidenced) incorrect. Contraction and dilation would apply to time signals, waves, strings of photons and compressible bodies on acceleration, (between inertial states) and = Doppler shift.
Interestingly it shows that an absolute ultimate frame is logically possible AS WELL as local ones. The hierachical compound structure of logic is applied directly to real inertial 'frames' as real spaces with real spatial limits. It does take some concentration to assimilate! I hope you can do so and give me your views.
Well done, and best of luck.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Hi Gurcharn,
My project does not entail exposing of fallacies of SRT per se as you seem to think. I made the above statement to you (and quoted back by you) because your paper is seemingly dedicated to expose fallacies of SRT, and I pointed out that your position can be made stronger by the derivation of LT by a dynamic interpretation of Galileo’s principle of relativity (as opposed to...
view entire post
Hi Gurcharn,
My project does not entail exposing of fallacies of SRT per se as you seem to think. I made the above statement to you (and quoted back by you) because your paper is seemingly dedicated to expose fallacies of SRT, and I pointed out that your position can be made stronger by the derivation of LT by a dynamic interpretation of Galileo’s principle of relativity (as opposed to Einstein’s kinematic principle).
Why people hang on the SRT despite all the contradictions is because there in no other viable alternative theory, that explains relativistic phenomena in a consistent manner. You must understand that even Lorentz finally gave up his position
If you read my paper carefully, you will find that it is giving an alternative to SRT, based on first principles. It shows that the reason why SRT arose in the first place is because of the Problematic concepts in the Newtonian foundation. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549
“We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated”.
By rectifying all the above problems, I have forged a theory that covers the physics of motions of bodies for all velocities – 0
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 20:50 GMT
Excuse me. The system seems to reject "less than" "greater than" symbols. So I have re-adjusted the script and trying again.
Continuing:
By rectifying all the above problems, I have forged a theory that covers the physics of motions of bodies for all velocities – zero less than v less than c. The “GDE transformation” is applicable to any velocity, unlike Newtonian mechanics (v...
view entire post
Excuse me. The system seems to reject "less than" "greater than" symbols. So I have re-adjusted the script and trying again.
Continuing:
By rectifying all the above problems, I have forged a theory that covers the physics of motions of bodies for all velocities – zero less than v less than c. The “GDE transformation” is applicable to any velocity, unlike Newtonian mechanics (v very much less than c) and SRT (v tends to c). And there is a vast middle ground uncovered by any theory. Lorentz transformation completely breaks down for experiments done on earth at velocities u approximating to u = 30 k/s = 0.0001c. Therefore data for experimental proof of the validity of the GDE transformation of my theory already exists. It is a matter of analyzing the data of particle accelerator experiments carried out during the last century at various velocities of particle v for the range 0.0001 c to c. This analysis will show that the conformity of result to LT starts deteriorate around v = 0.5c. Then it goes down the tube from then on exponentially and totally breaks down at v tends to 0.0001c.
I wish you the best with your experiment. Have you tried contacting Tom Phipps? He will have the ability to do the experiment for you. (Or you may even try Chandra Roychoudhury at the Photon Lab, U.Connecticut). My suspicion is that you will end up proving Einstein postulate to be correct.
The reason is that photons don’t behave like matter particles. They change frequency and not velocity in confronting constraints. Hence the velocity of light both ways will be the same. Since for local light the change of frequency is in terms of TDE only, you will not even detect a change of frequency (linear Doppler shift) related earth’s orbital motion in the two directions. I would really like to know the results of your experiment. It will help my above views.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 12:05 GMT
Dear Viraj ,
I don't know Tom Phipps. Some one from National Timing Labs who contribute to the UTC time can easily help conduct the proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion through measurement of a few clock synchronization offsets. Let me know the contact address of Tom Phipps to find out if he can really help in conducting such experiment.
Best Regards
G S Sandhu
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear G S Sandhu,
Thank you for your kind words. I agree with you! In the background of overwhelming odds (and noise) our collective message that something is wrong with physics needs to resonate in mutual support to be heard and considered.
You write, “The fact that mathematics mainly deals with dimensionless numbers, distinguishes its domain from that of physics. Physical...
view entire post
Dear G S Sandhu,
Thank you for your kind words. I agree with you! In the background of overwhelming odds (and noise) our collective message that something is wrong with physics needs to resonate in mutual support to be heard and considered.
You write, “The fact that mathematics mainly deals with dimensionless numbers, distinguishes its domain from that of physics. Physical dimensions provide an important linkage between mathematical representations and physical reality.”
I agree with that. And used the same idea in the past to differentiate the difference. Just this realization should forewarn physicists that math alone cannot illuminate physical reality. With physics we have 'measurements' which require 'benchmark comparison' and lead to 'relative quantities' (to the benchmarks) having 'units' and scaled by proportionality constants that acquire units.
The empty physical space of Physics is an oxymoron. Though I have no problem with the idea of empty space in math, I have serious problem with such in physics. Physical existence requires 'something' to fill the existing space. So how can empty space exist?
In the endnotes to my essay,
“The Metaphysics of Physics”, I mathematically prove the following proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. This puts the CSL Postulate in contradiction with the Photon Hypothesis. But it also shows that space is not empty. But must be filled by a medium of propagation. In my work that medium is the 'quantity eta' (Planck's constant is such a quantity, for example). As a propagating wave through a medium, the speed of light will indeed be absolute and independent of the 'source'. And since all measurements of the speed of light can only be done 'locally' to the medium of propagation, that absolute speed of light will also be independent of all observers; since all observers are 'local' to the 'ether' medium and so will be at rest with the medium. So no need to Postulate CSL. This becomes a 'mathematical certainty' and a 'physical reality'.
But, in my opinion, the biggest problem with the misuse of math in physics is the Spacetime continuum GR and Cosmology use to model the physical universe. One important result to come out of my continuous derivation of Planck's formula for blackbodies is a proportionality relation between entropy and time. Specifically, ΔS = kνΔt , where k is Boltzmann's constant and ν is frequency (or 'rate of evolution' is more closer to the 'truth' – both positive OR negative real number). Relating this to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this leads to the following rewording of the Second Law: “all physical events take some positive duration of time to occur”. Thus, the Second Law specifies 'physical time' to be 'duration' Δt and NOT 'instantiation', t .The 'event points' of Spacetime, therefore are not representative of the physical universe. And this, in my view, may account for the discrepancies between Cosmology and Thermodynamics. The 'dark energy and matter' needed to fill in an accelerating inflationary universe may be a consequence of assuming physical events are instantaneous. Each moment of a particle, for example, traveling on a smooth worldline in Spacetime is a physical event that requires some duration of time to occur. It does not occur at an 'instant' t, as Spacetime assumes. And this may account for all that 'missing energy' that has lead physicists to a patchwork of theories to account.
I appreciate all your efforts to point out false and misleading assumptions in physics. All the best for a successful contest,
Constantinos
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Hi Gurchan,
About Tom Phipps, look for “Acausal Absorber Theory” under the following article:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissident
view.html. If your experiment is doable he will be most interested in it, to prove the constancy of light speed. Tom Phipps tephipps@sbcglobal.net,
You may also contact Greg Volk the.volks@comcast.net at the Natural...
view entire post
Hi Gurchan,
About Tom Phipps, look for “Acausal Absorber Theory” under the following article:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissident
view.html. If your experiment is doable he will be most interested in it, to prove the constancy of light speed. Tom Phipps tephipps@sbcglobal.net,
You may also contact Greg Volk the.volks@comcast.net at the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA). Greg (or the NPA) does not have the facility to do your experiment but Greg has plenty of contacts. You can also by joining NPA put your essay/ other papers in NPA website, since the content coincides with their thinking.
Chandra Roychoudhry is the Organiser of ‘Nature of Light’ conference with SPIE. He is bound to have a lot of contacts who might be interested in your experiment.
chandra
Best of luck,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Patrick Alan Hutchinson wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear Sandhu
Thanks for your very kind appreciative remarks on my essay.
Your ideas about assessment make a lot of sense. I have been wondering about it. It would be better if something like what you suggest were made obligatory: entrants who don't assess several other essays might somehow be penalised, so the assessment process would be performed properly.
At this stage, the FQXI organisers are not likely to change procedures, so this won't happen.
Anyway, best wishes
Alan H.
report post as inappropriate
Gene H Barbee wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Singh, I appreciate your comments on my essay and I was impressed with your use of mathamatics and logic to show deficiencies in our current theory of relativity. In fact, the reason it took me so long to respond to your post is that I was motivated to do a great deal more work by your essay. I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame. I posted a new paper entitled "Gravity in an expanding universe". There is a heading late in the paper entitled "In a relativitic universe is anything constant?" that I would like your comments on if you have time.
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 02:43 GMT
Dear Gene Barbee/ Gurchan,
You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: “I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame”.
My paper not only shows the way to work motions of particles without reference frames, it explains all relativistic phenomena under this new foundation.
Please see: ...
view entire post
Dear Gene Barbee/ Gurchan,
You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: “I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame”.
My paper not only shows the way to work motions of particles without reference frames, it explains all relativistic phenomena under this new foundation.
Please see: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549
(Note my essay in the competition is handicapped because the diagrams have not come out proper and FQXi rules do not permit any changes. Therefore I am attaching the essay separately as well.
I am copying what I wrote to Sergey Fedosin yesterday:
HERE IS HOW TO SEE THE PROBLEM OF MOTION OF A PARTICLE WITHOUT THE USE OF THE ERRONEOUS FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM OF REFERENCE FRAMES AND FALLING INTO KINEMATICS.
It is done by developing an anlogy between thermodynamics and particle mechanics.
------------------
0. The zeroth law of motion is that,
a) In the motion of a particle it occurs by way the fusing on its intrinsic energy Mc2 and the applied energy of motion (pc). The fusion takes place by both quantities of energy losing fractions of energy in equal proportion – thus each quantity of energy gets scaled down by the factor (gamma).
After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2
b) The converse of the fusion theorem is that when a quantity of energy X is to break up into two parts aX and (1-a) X, the original energy X gets scaled up by a factor ’ (gamma)’ so that the parts become equal to (gamma)’aX and (gamma)’(1-a) X,
(Note: In my essay I have explained the physics of fusion and fission interactions)
1. In a system of particles moving relative to their common centre of mass, the energy of motion of the centre of mass cannot be made use of to make discrete changes in the particles relative to each other.
(Applied to earth, we earthlings cannot tap energy from the orbital motion of the earth for terrestrial use. ‘Impossibility of the perpetuum mobile of the first kind)
This is analogous to the first law of thermodynamics.
2. In applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle within a co-moving the system of particles (about their centre of mass), it is impossible to for the particle to acquire a motion of velocity v, relative to the other co-moving particles to the full extent of the net energy (Mvc) applied.
This is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics. (Carnot’s cycle – see my essay p. 4 last para)
2a. The conversion of the applied net energy Mvc must occur with respect to the energy level of relative to which the motion of the common centre of mass occurs.
Recognizing that energy Mvc also possesses inertia Mv/c2, this energy too must move in common motion with the centre of mass (at velocity u). For this common motion it requires Mvc to break up and dedicate the fraction (Mvc).u/c. Hence the balance energy would be Mvc( 1-u/c). From zeroth law (b) this fission causes the energy of motion to scale-up by the factor gamma’= 1/(1- u2/c2)1/2 at the moment of fission.
Hence the energy that remains for motion relative to the centre of mass is Mvc(1-u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2.
Consequently the displacement of the particle relative to another particle (co-moving with the centre of mass) is: x’ = vt(1- u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2 --------------(1).
At Newtonian velocities v/c tends to 0, hence x’ tends to(gamma)’vt. Since for a particle moving relative to a lab frame on earth(gamma)’ = 1.000000005, for terrestrial displacements at Newtonian velocities (v/c tends to 0), the scaling up of the displacement due to ’ has gone unnoticed and in practice we have formed the convention
x = vt.-------------(2)
When very accurate measurements are made for particles moving at near light velocities v/c tends to1, the effect of the scaling up also has come to the notice. Then the equation (1) takes the appearance of
x’ = (x –ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 -----------------------(3) (Lorentz transformation).
Equation (3) is valid only for very fast moving particles. When the velocity of a particle reaches the range 0.5c the results start to significantly deviate from the equation. When it reaches the value of earth’s orbital velocity, the equation (3) breaks down totally.\
Unlike (3) Equation (1) provides accurate results for all velocities between low (Newtonian) velocities to near light velocities. This can be tested by analyzing the results of all the particle accelerator experiments carried out in the last 100 years.
Best regards/ Viraj
--------------------
Please see my essay: Have you seen any explanations for the following anywhere a) the mechanism through which gamma-factors arise. b) are you aware that there are two gamma-factors involved in the motion of a particle and why? c) from where the energy for the centrifugal force comes? d) The process which causes internal processes of particles to slow down? e) Why matter particles cannot reach the velocity c? f) why it requires momentum gammaMv for a particle to move with momentum Mv? f) Physical basis of Lorentz transformation? g) Have you come across a single equation with is applicable for the motion of a particle at any velocity (very slow or near light)? The story does not end there, there is many more things explained under the new foundation but I could not squeeze in everything within 25,000 characters that FQXi permitted.
view post as summary
attachments:
2_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Dear Gurcharn,
Your differentiation of physics entities and mathematical constructions in physics is a good base to find ways to overcome some problems of fundamental theory. I agree with you in the question that constancy of speed of light is a convention in STR. See about it in
Extended special theory of relativity. I think the properties of physical space mostly dependent on the gravitons fluxes because of their great energy density, as it pointed out in my essay. It seems the property of elasticity of space is only first step to reality.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear professors Sandhu
Although different measures, but we have the same conclusion.
Very happy to know professors.
Kind Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
David Rousseau wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear GS Sandhu,
Julie and I have read your essay and we really liked your clear distinction between mathematical abstractions and physical reality. It's easy to accidentally blur this line and we think your clarity on this is very important when working on fundamental topics. We are also in agreement with the position you take about the nature of space, time, and causality. We defend compatible views in
our essay, where we propose a model in which space is a kind of medium that has energy and can interact with physical matter, just as you argue must be the case. We were also pleased to see you defending the view that the future comes about through the operation of physical laws of nature operating in the present. Taking causation and change seriously is important for doing clearheaded science. We also rely on this approach in our essay, where we argue that a commitment to scientific explanations inevitable commit us to conservation laws, causal processes and genuine change.
Congratulations on a very well written essay that defends important fundamental concepts and distinctions, and proposes practical tests of the ideas you propose. We like your essay very much, and we have rated it very positively.
Best wishes,
David and Julie
report post as inappropriate
Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear David and Julie,
Thanks for your most encouraging and positive comments on my essay. I have already read your excellent essay and rated it as such.
I wish you best of luck in the contest.
Warm Regards
G S Sandhu
Renate Quehenberger replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear GS Sandhu,
I like to ad my compliments to your essay here.
Indeed there are too many peculiarities arising from the notion of time as a pure signal of light .
Equally I agree to your a upgrading of Euclidian geometry towards a higher dimensional Minkowski space time manifold serving as a metric structure for a neo-Newtonian absolut space.
But may I wonder if you might change your mind about" 4D space time as a physical entity", if you look back on its foundations ?
For this issue I may recommend my footnotes in : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1524
Best wishes,
Renate Quehenberger
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 23:26 GMT
Gurcharn,
You say,
"It is well known from Maxwell’s theory that the speed of light in vacuum depends on the permittivity ε0 and permeability μ0 of the physical space ( 0 0 c 1 ). Since permittivity and permeability are properties of the physical space, the speed of light in vacuum is also a property of physical space and cannot be derived from the metric properties of coordinate space."
I believe that the medium of travel determines light's velocity and that space could be altered to increase an object's speed.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 11:50 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:53 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.