General Relativity of Electromagnetic Fields; C depends on source-observer relative acceleration

[lidal]

The previously proposed new theory of Relativity of EM Fields assumed a constant speed of an observer relative to the light source. Now this theory can well be called Special Relativity of EM fields.

As I looked closely into the new theory, I was disappointed at first when I discovered that the theory implied a variation of the speed of light for an observer in accelerating motion relative to the source. The implication of the theory seemed to contradict with the foundation of the theory. After some thought I found out that this variation of C to be vitally important because this gives the theory the potential to explain the results of those experiments that are claimed as evidences supporting Einstein’s relativity theories. This theory can be called General Relativity of EM fields.

It was only later that it happened to me that the previous theory (constant observer-source relative speed) was analogous with Einstein’s special relativity and the latter one (accelerating observer-source relative motion) was analogous with Einstein’s general relativity. In both Einstein’s general relativity and the new General Relativity of EM Fields, there is no limit on the speed of light!

The three experiments (evidences) which might be explained by the new theory of Relativity of EM Fields are:

Ives – Stilwell Experiment

‘GPS correction’

Hafele and Keating Experiment

There is a common factor in all these experiments: acceleration.

Of the three above, however, one report in the Hafele and Keating Experiment may not be explained by the new theory. The ‘time delay’ measurements during the flight might be explained by the new theory, but the report that the time delay persisted after the flight may not be explained by the new theory.

However, the General theory of Relativity of EM waves has to be worked out fully quantitatively to clarify and test its claims.

In any case, one thing seems certain: the speed of light varies with the acceleration of the observer relative to the source.

For a more detail preliminary discussions : google viXra:1303.0063

 

[swansont]

We prefer that you discuss the details here.

 

Why do we need a new theory? Are you contending there is some problem with relativity?

[lidal]

We prefer that you discuss the details here.

 

Why do we need a new theory? Are you contending there is some problem with relativity?

I have thought about relativity only at a basic and intuitive level. I didn’t make any deep study of relativity, but I would only like to express my difficulty and confusion to understand relativity at an intuitive level as follows.

 

Yes, relativity has problems. Relativity is not a kind of a theory you can declare as correct or wrong. It is counter intuitive. I think there can be no valid experiment that can prove or disprove relativity.I can’t understand what is meant by ‘space contracts’, ‘time dilates’. Space and time define everything in the universe: the laws, the objects, the phenomena …even ourselves (the observers). What defines space and time themselves? Can space and time ‘define themselves’?

 

Suppose that you and another observer are at rest relative to each other. And there is a stick at rest relative to both of you. You started moving with some constant velocity (comparable with C) relative to the other observer (and relative to the stick). Then you observed that stick while moving. It appeared shorter to you. Now how do you explain this phenomena?

 

1. It is just due to finite speed of light. In this case length shortening is only an illusion. OR

 

2. Special relativity. ‘Space contracts, time dilates’. If space contracted, not only will the stick become ‘shorter’, but also the observer (his eyes, his brain, … everything) . If his retina didn’t contract, he would have detected the change. But his retina gets contracted proportionally.

So, would he detect contraction of stick? No. He would perceive the stick as before. But we know that this is not the case. In order to detect a change, there should be something that doesn’t change. Everything including the observer changes. Space and time define everything in the universe, and if space and time got ‘contracted’ or ‘dilated’, no one, no instrument would detect that. Our consciousness???

 

Or, does space contraction not affect an observer?

 

The same is to time dilation. Who or what can detect time dilation? The moving observer? The stationary observer? No, because they are defined with space and time themselves as any object and therefore they are ‘contracted’ and ‘time dilated’ themselves. The whole of our biological system would change so that we wouldn’t be able to detect time dilation. Again, in order to detect a change there should be something that doesn’t change.

 

An atomic clock? No, because it would also change.

 

Can there be any valid experiment then that can prove or disprove Einstein’s relativity?

 

In special relativity, it is said that ‘the space of the moving observer’ contracts as observed by the stationary observer. If two observers A and B are in relative uniform/rectilinear motion, ‘the space of B’ contracts (appears to?) as observed by A and the ‘space of A’ contracts as observed by B.

 

So A and B have ‘their own’ different spaces?! Then each observer would have to ’switch’ between the two spaces: one contracted, the other not contracted ????? When A looks at objects that are at rest relative to him, he looks in the non contracted space? When he has to look at the moving observer, he switches to the contracted space? But we know that space is one.

 

If space starts to contract because observer B has suddenly started moving, then observer A would also contract and not be able to detect ‘space contraction'.

1. The third explanation: Lorentz transformation

Is it length, and not space that contracts?

 

This is much better theory than Einstein’s relativity because it is possible to prove or disprove it. But Lorentz transformation is not real. I will not go into the detail of this now.

 

Therefore, of the three, we take the most straightforward explanation: illusion.

 

I would like an intuitive theory, whether it is correct or wrong, and not a counterintuitive theory at all.

1. The new theory is intuitive. It is much easier to understand and even to think of EM fields contracting and expanding than space itself contracting. An EM wave contracts relative to space, relative to what does space itself contract? The delay of events is relative to time, relative to what does time itself dilate? Time to measure time? Space to measure space?
2. The new theory is logically consistent
3. If I can’t understand relativity at this level, I don’t want to go any further with it.

I am ready to receive any comments on the above and ready to learn what others think.

[swansont]

I have thought about relativity only at a basic and intuitive level. I didn’t make any deep study of relativity, but I would only like to express my difficulty and confusion to understand relativity at an intuitive level as follows.

 

That would be a problem. This is physics, not the latest teen vampire romance paperback (or ebook). It was developed to describe how nature behaves, not to appeal to a wide audience.

 

 

 

Yes, relativity has problems. Relativity is not a kind of a theory you can declare as correct or wrong. It is counter intuitive. I think there can be no valid experiment that can prove or disprove relativity.I can’t understand what is meant by ‘space contracts’, ‘time dilates’. Space and time define everything in the universe: the laws, the objects, the phenomena …even ourselves (the observers). What defines space and time themselves? Can space and time ‘define themselves’?

 

That's a problem for you, not relativity. That you have difficulty understanding it has no bearing on its validity. To claim otherwise would be the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. And yes, since relativity makes specific predictions, it is precisely the kind of theory you can declare correct or wrong. If experimental results do not agree with predictions, it is wrong. If they repeatedly do — as is the case — then you consider it to be correct.

 

 

Suppose that you and another observer are at rest relative to each other. And there is a stick at rest relative to both of you. You started moving with some constant velocity (comparable with C) relative to the other observer (and relative to the stick). Then you observed that stick while moving. It appeared shorter to you. Now how do you explain this phenomena?

 

It's called length contraction, and is explained by any textbook on relativity. And many places on the internet.

 

1. It is just due to finite speed of light. In this case length shortening is only an illusion. OR

 

Not an illusion. It has real effects, which have been measured.

 

 

2. Special relativity. ‘Space contracts, time dilates’. If space contracted, not only will the stick become ‘shorter’, but also the observer (his eyes, his brain, … everything) . If his retina didn’t contract, he would have detected the change. But his retina gets contracted proportionally.

So, would he detect contraction of stick? No. He would perceive the stick as before. But we know that this is not the case. In order to detect a change, there should be something that doesn’t change. Everything including the observer changes. Space and time define everything in the universe, and if space and time got ‘contracted’ or ‘dilated’, no one, no instrument would detect that. Our consciousness???

 

Or, does space contraction not affect an observer?

 

The same is to time dilation. Who or what can detect time dilation? The moving observer? The stationary observer? No, because they are defined with space and time themselves as any object and therefore they are ‘contracted’ and ‘time dilated’ themselves. The whole of our biological system would change so that we wouldn’t be able to detect time dilation. Again, in order to detect a change there should be something that doesn’t change.

 

The observer is unaffected because only moving frames are affected, and the observer is always at rest (for inertial frames of reference)

 

An atomic clock? No, because it would also change.

 

Can there be any valid experiment then that can prove or disprove Einstein’s relativity?

 

Yes, and several have been done. Some are done continually, like GPS.

 

In special relativity, it is said that ‘the space of the moving observer’ contracts as observed by the stationary observer. If two observers A and B are in relative uniform/rectilinear motion, ‘the space of B’ contracts (appears to?) as observed by A and the ‘space of A’ contracts as observed by B.

 

So A and B have ‘their own’ different spaces?! Then each observer would have to ’switch’ between the two spaces: one contracted, the other not contracted ????? When A looks at objects that are at rest relative to him, he looks in the non contracted space? When he has to look at the moving observer, he switches to the contracted space? But we know that space is one.

 

If space starts to contract because observer B has suddenly started moving, then observer A would also contract and not be able to detect ‘space contraction'.

 

No, that's not what relativity claims. You need to investigate it at more than a "basic and intuitive" level. You are attempting to debunk a strawman of relativity.

 

 

1. The third explanation: Lorentz transformation

Is it length, and not space that contracts?

 

This is much better theory than Einstein’s relativity because it is possible to prove or disprove it. But Lorentz transformation is not real. I will not go into the detail of this now.

 

Therefore, of the three, we take the most straightforward explanation: illusion.

 

I would like an intuitive theory, whether it is correct or wrong, and not a counterintuitive theory at all.

1. The new theory is intuitive. It is much easier to understand and even to think of EM fields contracting and expanding than space itself contracting. An EM wave contracts relative to space, relative to what does space itself contract? The delay of events is relative to time, relative to what does time itself dilate? Time to measure time? Space to measure space?
2. The new theory is logically consistent
3. If I can’t understand relativity at this level, I don’t want to go any further with it.

I am ready to receive any comments on the above and ready to learn what others think.

 

Nature behaves as nature behaves, and doesn't give a damn about how intuitive it is for you to understand. This is a specious requirement.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I liked what someone mentioned in a different thread about probability being [the most reduced substance]. It seems to me that probability does travel fastest in order for all things with mass to follow in it's wake, but who am I kidding, ok just labeling.