A Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity

[Eise]

1 hour ago, lidal said:

The fact that relativity theory has problems, which many physicists are increasingly becoming aware of

Do you have references for that? Special relativity, mind you. And please only serious sources.

[KJW]

2 hours ago, lidal said:

 

The fact that relativity theory has problems, which many physicists are increasingly becoming aware of.

I'm not aware of any problems with special relativity. If you think that quantum entanglement and experiments such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment are a problem for special relativity, then it would seem that you do not correctly understand the nature of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is often presented as the communication of the result of a measurement of one particle to its distant quantum entangled partner. But this is incorrect. According to the no-communication theorem, it is not possible to use quantum entanglement to communicate information. In other words, there is nothing that a person can do to their quantum state that will have any effect on the result of any measurement performed by another person on the corresponding entangled partner state. This absence of communication means that the correlation between the entangled particles, even if it appears to be faster than light or backwards in time, does not violate special relativity.

[lidal]

2 hours ago, KJW said:

I'm not aware of any problems with special relativity. If you think that quantum entanglement and experiments such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment are a problem for special relativity, then it would seem that you do not correctly understand the nature of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is often presented as the communication of the result of a measurement of one particle to its distant quantum entangled partner. But this is incorrect. According to the no-communication theorem, it is not possible to use quantum entanglement to communicate information. In other words, there is nothing that a person can do to their quantum state that will have any effect on the result of any measurement performed by another person on the corresponding entangled partner state. This absence of communication means that the correlation between the entangled particles, even if it appears to be faster than light or backwards in time, does not violate special relativity.

I am not talking about the traditional problem of quantum-entanglement implying faster than light (instantaneous) communication. In fact, I don’t think the REAL problem in physics is the incompatibility between special relativity and quantum mechanics.

I am saying that current physics treats the problem of the speed of light by SRT (time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.) and the quantum problem (wave particle duality, entanglement, wave-function collapse, etc.) by Quantum Mechanics.  Physics treats these as unrelated problems, endeavoring to achieve the impossible task of 'unifying' these. My point is that it is impossible to bring unification in physics without destroying much of modern physics.   

 

[studiot]

43 minutes ago, lidal said:

My point is that it is impossible to bring unification in physics without destroying much of modern physics.   

 

 

If that is really your point, why didn't you say so in the first place (first post ?)

[lidal]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

If that is really your point, why didn't you say so in the first place (first post ?)

 

I said that is my point in the reply I gave to @KJW , since he had raised the issue of incompatibility of quantum mechanics and special relativity b/c he seems not to get my idea in the reply I gave to you (@studiot).

 

[lidal]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Do you have references for that? Special relativity, mind you. And please only serious sources.

Look at the sheer number of papers claiming to disprove special relativity. So do those voices not count? 

Even in mainstream, physicists are now openly saying there might be problem with general relativity theory. This was not the case years ago.

[studiot]

35 minutes ago, lidal said:

Look at the sheer number of papers claiming to disprove special relativity. So do those voices not count? 

Not really since not one of them have achieved their objective.

SR is correct within its domain of applicability.

Some have tried to extend it beyond that and have found that it does not necessarily work beyond its domain of applicability.

 

37 minutes ago, lidal said:

Even in mainstream, physicists are now openly saying there might be problem with general relativity theory. This was not the case years ago.

This is just plain wrong.

A good history of the century of what he calls "The Battle of General Relativity" was written by Professor Ferriera in 2014.

Even Einstein himself though one thing, then another then yet another during that time.

Lambda, for instance was not originally included.

Einstein added it later then withdrew it.

But today's (Astro)Physicists have found a f=definited use /reason for it.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, lidal said:

Even in mainstream, physicists are now openly saying there might be problem with general relativity theory. This was not the case years ago.

You were asked specifically about special relativity.

 

[Markus Hanke]

4 hours ago, lidal said:

the traditional problem of quantum-entanglement implying faster than light (instantaneous) communication.

There is no such implication at all - no exchange of information takes place here.

4 hours ago, lidal said:

incompatibility between special relativity and quantum mechanics.

There is no such incompatibility - the combination of SR and QM gives you quantum field theory, which is perfectly well established, and extensively tested too. There are also simpler relativistic generalisations of the QM wave equations, such as the Dirac equation. 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

There is no such implication at all - no exchange of information takes place here.

There is no such incompatibility - the combination of SR and QM gives you quantum field theory, which is perfectly well established, and extensively tested too. There are also simpler relativistic generalisations of the QM wave equations, such as the Dirac equation. 

Nicely put. +1

[lidal]

Just now, Markus Hanke said:

There is no such implication at all - no exchange of information takes place here.

I didn't say that I see quantum entanglement as implying instantaneous communication. In fact, I don't think there is any communication between entangled particles. (But this is not to say that FTL communication is impossible. ) I only said that is how it is seen, as far as I know. I don't think you need to object to everything I say. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

31 minutes ago, lidal said:

I don't think you need to object to everything I say. 

You don’t seem to appreciate just how fundamental SR is to modern science and engineering - it underpins everything from the behaviour and properties of elementary particles (the entire Standard Model is a relativistic quantum field theory), to chemistry and all its uses, electrodynamics and all its engineering applications (including whatever device you use to make your posts here), to classical mechanics in the high-velocity regime, to everything to do with gravity, to cosmology. Our everyday world is full of relativistic phenomena - CRT screens, the colour of metals such as gold, particle accelerators and the interactions they observe, MRI scanners, the chemical properties of the materials in your smart phone…the list is endless. So the suggestion that SR is somehow “wrong” is just silly - we use it every day, and have done so for some time, and hence know that it is a good model from experience.

So you’ll have to excuse when people call you out on some of your more egregious statements.

[md65536]

On 11/6/2023 at 12:40 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Constancy means that c always has the same value under all circumstances - which it evidently does not, since its value depends on the permittivity and permeability of the underlying medium. For example, c is different in glass than in vacuum.

c is a universal constant that refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. It's not shorthand for "speed of light" in all possible contexts or coordinates. In a medium, light generally propagates at a rate lower than c, it doesn't change its value.

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, md65536 said:

c is a universal constant that refers to the speed of light in a vacuum.

Yes, I know I’ve been sloppy in my choice of words in that statement. The actual definition of a constant is more along the lines of a quantity that does not vary wrt to any relevant variable, particularly not in space or time within this context.

The main point was though to contrast this against the notion of invariance, which is a different concept.

And then of course there’s the notion of covariance, which is again a different concept.

[lidal]

On 11/4/2023 at 2:11 PM, studiot said:

Since you propose measuring a time difference of the order of 10-11 seconds, please explain the electronics of your 'start pulse', which must be several orders of magnitude smaller.

Please also evaluate the accuracy to which the synchronisation must be achieved.

 

On 11/4/2023 at 6:18 PM, lidal said:

Yes, you are right. The pulse widths of the synch pulse and the pulses sent from the sources to the detector need to be around 1 pico second or less ? , for the time difference of 11 picoseconds, which I think is not feasible.

Perhaps if distance D is 100km, the time difference will also increase by the same factor, 1100 picoseconds= 1.1 nanosecond. The synch pulse width will be about 0.1 nano second (if we take it to be ten percent of the time difference). But then I am not sure if it is possible to transmit such a small pulse width successfully over a distance of 100km because it may not have sufficient energy to detect.

But I need to study all this this in detail. Overall, I think it is a very challenging experiment, if feasible at all.

May be some one with better experience can help.

 

 

 

There is still hope for a feasible terrestrial experiment to test the isotropy of the speed of light. The solution is related to realizing the reason why the time difference of the two pulses at the detector is so small. The effect of absolute motion when C₁ sends a synch pulse to C₂ is almost (but not completely) cancelled by the effect of absolute motion when C₁ and C₂ later send pulses to the detector ‘simultaneously’. It takes more time for the synch pulse to reach C₂ because C₂ is moving in the same direction as the synch pulse, resulting in clock C₂ lagging behind clock C₁. However, this (absolute motion) effect is almost completely (not completely) cancelled when C₁ and C₂ later send pulses to the detector. The pulse from C₁ will take longer time to catch up with the detector (the pulse and the detector are travelling in the same direction) , suppressing the effect of clock C₁ being ahead of clock C₂ . The pulse from C₂ will take shorter time to meet the detector (the pulse and the detector are travelling in opposite directions), suppressing the effect of clock C₂ lagging behind clock C₁ . That is, the absolute motion effect gained during clock synchronization is significantly lost when the clocks transmit pulses to the detector.

The question is: is it possible to retain the absolute motion effect gained during clock synchronization in the thought experiment? The solution is to do the ‘synchronization’ of the clocks when the axis of the experiment (the line connecting the clocks) is aligned with the direction of Leo, but to make the clocks send pulses to the detector when the axis is perpendicular to the direction of Leo! In this orientation, the effect of absolute motion is very small: c² + v² ≈ c² .

This experiment can be done by using three helicopters , two for the clocks and associated (laser) transmitters and detectors, and one for the detector at the mid-point, at higher altitudes to enable larger distances 2D for larger time differences. For example, if distance 2D = 200km , the time difference of the two clocks will be 867.8 ns ≈  0.87 µs . The requirement is that there should be minimum drift of the clocks between ‘synchronization’ ( clock C₁ sending a synch pulse to clock C₂ ) and clocks C₁ and C₂ sending pulses to the detector. This could take, for example, one hour (the time taken for the helicopters to change positions) , during which the drifts of the clocks must be minimum. The experiment is to be done during one or two hours when Leo is on the horizon.

It is possible to improve the above experiment even more. The clock synchronization procedure is the same as above, that is clock C₁ sends a synch pulse to clock C₂ when the C₁C₂ line is parallel to the direction of Leo. However, clocks C₁ and C₂ send pulses to the detector when the C₁ C₂ line is anti-parallel (not orthogonal) to the direction of Leo. That is, once the clocks are ‘synchronized’ , they exchange positions and then send pulses to the detector ‘simultaneously’.     

The time difference of the pulses from the clocks at the detector will be twice for the same distance 2D. Therefore, for a distance 2D = 200 km , the time difference of the pulses will be, δ = 2*867.8 ns = 1.7356 µs .

                   δ  =  2 * 2D* v /( c(c-v))  = 4D * v / c(c-v)

 

The absolute motion effect can be further increased significantly by using not one but multiple exchanges of time signals and clock re-synchronizations. The time difference obtained for one synchronization procedure can be multiplied by repeated exchanges of time signals and clock re-synchronizations, accumulating the effect of absolute motion, as follows.

Suppose that there is a third clock C₃ co-located and co-moving with clock C₁. At first, with the  C₁ C₂ line parallel to the direction of Leo, clocks C₁ and C₃ are set to t = 0 and at the same time a synch pulse is sent to clock C₂ . On receiving the synch pulse, clock C₂ is set to t = 2D/c . Then the clocks exchange positions and clock C₂ sends time signal to clock C₁ , which calculates and re-synchronizes its time based on the time signal sent from C₂ and assuming isotropy of the speed of light. Again the clocks exchange positions again and clock C₁ sends time signal to clock C₂ , which calculates the time and re-synchronizes based on the time signal from C₁ , by assuming light speed isotropy, and so on. Note that clock C₃ , unlike clocks C₁  and C₂ , runs freely and is not re-synchronized after the initial synchronization at t = 0. This re-synchronization procedure can be repeated as many times as possible, say ten times. After ten re-synchronizations, the time of clock C₁ is compared to that clock C₃ . The time difference should be ten times that of a single synchronization procedure. For example, for a distance 2D = 100 km , this time difference will be 8.678 µs. This experiment can be done by using two helicopters, one for clocks C₁ and C₃  and associated laser transmitters and detectors, another for clock C₂ and its associated laser transmitter and receiver/detector.

These experiments need to be carefully designed. For example, precisely what value of the speed of light is to be used to calculate time? Also, in a real experiment there is propagation delay in the electronic circuitry and this also needs to be taken into account.

Any suggestions are welcome.

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by lidal

[studiot]

What makes you think this sort of thing hasn't been done before ?

 

Apart from a 200km transmission path across the atmousphere (It's much easier for satellites up throught he atmousphere) beig far from isotropic or homogenous,

What is the effect of a 1m, 10m, 100m, 1000m error in the placement of your helicopters on your calculations?

 

Before we had all the satellite stuff, (and swansont is far better placed than I to discuss them) folks did this sort of thing by an instrument called the Tellurometer. This was invented / developed for the surveys of South Africa, Australia and Canada. Mountain tops, rather than helicopters were used as they do not move about and their positions can be independently verified.
My experience of lasers is that they do not have the range, across the atmousphere, most have a range of a few km at best and the Wild Distomat was really up to a km. They had corner reflectors rather than independent clocks aand there is now such a reflector on the Moon using up through the atmosphere techniques.

You still haven't told me how you are goung to create your pulse for 1000gHz signals.

[KJW]

I would like to point out that the frame of reference in which the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation is zero is not an absolute rest frame.

[lidal]

32 minutes ago, studiot said:

What is the effect of a 1m, 10m, 100m, 1000m error in the placement of your helicopters on your calculations?

 

For a distance 2D = 200km, for example, the time difference of the pulses would be about 1.7µs, which corresponds to a distance of 510m. Therefore, an error in position of up to 50m will not significantly affect the experiment. Even if there is an error of up to 100m , this will only reduce the accuracy of the measurement , but not the detectability of the effect.

 

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

You still haven't told me how you are goung to create your pulse for 1000gHz signals.

 With the new procedure, the time differences of the pulses at the detector are typically hundreds of nanoseconds and even in the microseconds, much larger than tens of picoseconds . Therefore, there will not be need for extremely short pulses. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

My experience of lasers is that they do not have the range, across the atmousphere, most have a range of a few km at best and the Wild Distomat was really up to a km. They had corner reflectors rather than independent clocks aand there is now such a reflector on the Moon using up through the atmosphere techniques.

 

Perhaps those ranges are for the naked eye. I think large distances are possible if relatively high power lasers and amplifiers are used. Moreover, it will be much easier to detect the photons at night.

Just now, KJW said:

I would like to point out that the frame of reference in which the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation is zero is not an absolute rest frame.

I always rely on the Silvertooth experiment for this, that is the CMBR velocity and the Silvertooth velocity agreed both in magnitude and direction.

[swansont]

Why is it that satellite time transfer does not address your issues?

2 hours ago, lidal said:

I always rely on the Silvertooth experiment for this, that is the CMBR velocity and the Silvertooth velocity agreed both in magnitude and direction

You mean the experiment that has been shown to be flawed? And was never published as a peer-reviewed article? That Silvertooth experiment?

[KJW]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

You mean the experiment that has been shown to be flawed? And was never published as a peer-reviewed article? That Silvertooth experiment?

Yeah, I wasn't aware of the Silvertooth experiment, so I looked it up. Wikipedia doesn't have a page on the experiment. When I Googled "Silvertooth experiment", the only seemingly legitimate article I found was in Forbes titled "The Tale Of A 1986 Experiment That Proved Einstein Wrong" written in 2018. Some of the other Google entries were blocked by my security software, while others were on sites with names such as "Aetherometry", "Spirit-Science", or "viXra". Anyway, the following is an excerpt from the Forbes article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/?sh=563e9dde3ed3) about a follow-up experiment by Doug Marett in 2012:

Quote

Over the course of 18 months Marett recreated the Silvertooth experiment, and confirmed the result. There was an apparent shift in wavelength that varied with the orientation of Earth, and it did seem to show an apparent motion of Earth in agreement with Silvertooth's intial findings. But looking at the data more carefully, Marett also found that there was a lot of fluctuation in the data.

 

The correlation of apparent shift with room temperature.

 DOUG MARETT (USED WITH PERMISSION)

 

Silvertooth's original claim was that the wavelengths varied over the course of a sidereal day. A sidereal day is measured relative to the motion of the stars. Our normal solar day is based upon the motion of the Sun. Because of the Earth's motion around the Sun, a solar day is about 4 minutes longer than a sidereal day. If Silvertooth was right, the wavelength variations should follow sidereal time, not solar time. Marett found there was so much noise in the data, the variation in wavelengths could be made to agree with either sidereal or solar time. Digging into things more closely, he saw a correlation between the observed wavelength shift and small fluctuations in the temperature of the room. The change in temperature was shifting the alignment of the experiment laser, causing the apparent shift Silvertooth saw. Marett also found that the calculated motion of the Earth only worked because Silvertooth assumed the data measured an actual wavelength shift. Silvertooth's results were real, but his conclusions were wrong.

This doesn't mean the aether doesn't exist, but for now it is clear we don't need an aether to explain Silvertooth's experiment. In a broader sense, this story is an excellent example of the striking difference between science and pseudoscience. In pseduoscience folks are content to cite an article without any consideration of the actual results. If it seems to agree with your expectations, then that's good enough. As a scientist, Marett took the time to look at an old experiment with a questioning eye. In doing so he solved a 30-year old mystery of the experiment that seemed to prove Einstein wrong.

 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, KJW said:

Yeah, I wasn't aware of the Silvertooth experiment

I wasn’t either, but then, an unpublished (other than a letter to the editor) experiment doesn’t really have a big radar cross-section.

[KJW]

Here's a link to E.W. Silvertooth's article titled "Experimental detection of the ether":

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.418.8179&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

 

[lidal]

1 hour ago, KJW said:

 

 

Just now, swansont said:

Why is it that satellite time transfer does not address your issues?

You mean the experiment that has been shown to be flawed? And was never published as a peer-reviewed article? That Silvertooth experiment?

The GPS engineers are only interested in building a system that works. For example,the Sagnac correction is applied in the GPS despite being controversial because it contradicts the isotropy of the speed of light as I have shown in this thread and as many authors have pointed out in the past. The Sagnac correction is applied because the GPS will not operate correctly without it,not because the engineers wanted to prove or disprove relativity. Therefore, I would say that the GPS can't have been so accurate without correcting for absolute motion effects somehow, for example, as ephemeris correction.

Moreover, as Brian G Wallace disclosed, there was a practice of ignoring large variations in the round trip time of radio signals reflected from planet Venus that contradicted the constancy of the speed of light, without any explanations, in the Shapiro delay experiment. I wouldn't say there is no such practice in relativity today.

With regard to the Silvertooth experiment, I know that it was published in some fringe? journals. It was also published in Nature journal not as an article but as an advertisment. What about the Marinov experiment? The two experiments nearly agreed in the direction of our motion in space, and these fairly agreed with the CMBR velocity.

After I have seen the insurmountable resistance to publish alternative ideas myself for years, I wouldn't consider publication alone as a criteria for the credibility of any scientific work today.

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by lidal

[KJW]

5 minutes ago, lidal said:

the Shapiro delay experiment

The Shapiro time delay is a confirmation of General Relativity.

[KJW]

1 hour ago, lidal said:

Sagnac correction

The Sagnac effect is in agreement with Special Relativity.