Lal Silva

I am writing about Special Relativity, so thought that I should give out some history about my association with the subject of Special Relativity.

When I was an undergraduate at the Colombo University Sri Lanka my pet subject was Special Relativity. There was one Maths lecturer named Valentine Joseph lecturing on this subject, I never missed his lectures, however, I missed almost all other lectures in one year, playing bridge, chess, table tennis or watching girls at the bus stop.

However love of Special Relativity was my undoing. I loved the subject so much I was the only student in the batch who tried to answer the questions about relativity in physics, then messed up a calculation and was able to pass the test barley. The result was instead a first class I go only a second upper. This changed my life I was not absorbed to any academic post in the university and I ended as a Tax Specialist in the Inland Revenue Department of Sri Lanka.

Anyway this did not stop me thinking about the universe and science. But to a lesser extent than economics and business studies.

At age 63 now I am interested in philosophy and read about the subject.

Negative Space

Whatever space we experience is positive space. This space can be contracted when moving at a velocity. (See Special Relativity is flawed written by me)

This theory states that moving objects contracts. The transformation for object moving in x axis will be:

x = xο,                                  y = yο √1-v²/c²,                         z = zο √1-v²/c²

One important aspect that I emphasize in this theory not to make the mistake of special relativity where length contracts in the moving frame and not so in the stationary frame which leads to multiple contradictions and paradoxes.

If we need to avoid contradictions it should be stated that the same happens in both frames. Therefore as well as the moving object the stationary measuring instrument also contracts and this contraction cannot therefore be measured by an instrument.

It should be noted that the length contraction here is different from Special Relativity. In Special Relativity the contraction is along the line of velocity, but here it is perpendicular to the line of movement. Further there is no Time Dilation like in Special Relativity.

Several implications due to this theory:

1. Cosmic distance measurement may need to be revised. Because, of red shift galaxies further away will be moving faster than the near ones. Astronomical distance measurements are related to size of objects in space and the angle projected to earth.
2. While moving objects contracts the objects moving in planes perpendicular to line of sight and the obits created by object circling another may remain same.
3. If size can be measured in binary stars rotating in the same plane as line of sight, because the size may be smaller when moving in the line of sight than perpendicular to it. In other words binary stars in blue and red shifts appears smaller than when there is no shift.
4. Creation of negative space when objects travel at velocities greater than light. 
5. May explain dark matter and dark energy by attributing velocities grater than c therefore objects moving to negative space which cannot be observed though the gravitational effect is evident to the surrounding space.
6. Explain the existence of quasars with red shift  z >4 and velocities greater than light.
7. Moving clocks might be running slower or faster due to size contraction and changes in physical size.
8. The age of the universe, the theory of big bang, the structure of the universe, finiteness of the universe etc may need to be rethought.
9. This might give more answers than exotic Special Relativity which gives to more Fantasizeism.
10. This will be the unification of space contraction and quantum theory. 
11. Explain variable stars.

Observer in Einstein's Train thought experiment

Observer is an integral part of motion. Without observer there is no motion. We cannot forget observer in motion. Einstein’s thought experiment regarding simultaneity. Two light signals are emitted at the two ends of a moving train.

 

A- The two light signals are emitted simultaneously at both ends of the train.

F - Stationary observer receives both light signals simultaneously.

B- The moving observer in the train sees the light coming from front of the train at first.

C – Then after a while the moving observer sees the light coming from the back of the train.

D – The scenario that both light signals reach the traveling observer simultaneously contrary to Einstein’s 

       prediction.

Why Einstein’s prediction in the thought experiment is wrong:

F – is correct, both light signals reach stationary observer simultaneously.

D – is also correct, both light signals reach the traveling observer simultaneously- light travels at constant   

        velocity.

B & C – are wrong. How does the stationary observer know that the light signal is received by the traveling observer? The only way it can be achieved is, the traveling observer gives some sign that he received the signal coming from the front. The assumption by the stationary observer that light coming from the front reach the traveling observer first since train travels forward and signal travels backwards is wrong. The stationary observer has know way of knowing this. He needs to rely on the sign given by the traveling observer. Since velocity of light is same in all reference frames the traveling observer will give the sign exactly when both light signals reach him simultaneously

The above diagram further explains the final position the two observers stand when both light signals are received by them. Lets assume time t lapses for the light to reach observers, v is velocity of train and c is velocity of light. One important factor is the time t is same to both observers. Therefore the light signals will be received by both observers simultaneously. It can be seen that in respect of both observers light signal has traveled ct distance to reach them. Further, the moving observer has moved a distance of vt forward when he received the light signal.

More explanation regarding the Mirror Example
The problem of how light behave when light oscillates between two moving parallel mirrors, originated from Michelson Morley experiment. Practically this scenario can be visualized if such a setup is made on earth since the earth is moving — same as what Michelson Morley did.
A  frame consisting with two parallel mirrors that has a light source directed up, will be moving forward at velocity v.

 

The observer stationed with mirrors will see light photons go up and come down. And he can observe this by setting up a a lesser beam that directed up and a light detector along it's side.

The main contentious point here, is how will the stationary observer see this moving arrangement as a whole. And in particular how the moving photons behave in respect to him. Einstein's thought experiment used light signals. This is wrong since a light signal is a bunch of photons. To be more accurate we need to consider how a single photon behave. Further, it was assumed that the light signals reach the lower mirror simultaneously for both observers. This assumption was made with no arguments how it can happen. I am examining it whether it is correct.

It is impossible to verify this argument directly, because a single photon cannot be detected by two different observers. Though a light signal can be broken into two, a single photon cannot. Even when it is possible to split a photon by polarization, in observing, multiple observers cannot detect it. Single photon can be detected only by a single observer.

First if we forget the time dilation and space contractions and assume that velocity of light is constant, the stationary observer will receive the light signal after the moving observer received it, since it has to travel more to reach the stationary observer — moving observe will see photon go vertically up and come down, while, stationary observer see photon travel diagonally up and down.

Is there any evidence that of two photons that are emitted simultaneously, one seen by the moving observer and the other by the stationary observer, will reach simultaneously the lower detector. Only way of finding out is, one observer will give out a signal to the other, exactly when he received the photon. This signal will also be another photon. However, it may not matter much in this case since both observers are at the same location when they receive the photons — it may not be the case if they receive photons at different times.

Special Relativity assumes that these two photons are received simultaneously and builds the theory on it.

However, there is an argument in favor that these two photons are received at the same time. If it is stated that these two photons are received at different times, each such photon needs to have knowledge when it is emitted originally by the beam which detector it is going to strike! If such knowledge is lacking, either photon might hit one of the two detectors. Therefore they both should hit the detectors simultaneously.

Once again in quantum theory where spliting of the same electrion having knowledge through wich s

Special Relativity Flawed

It can be proved that Special Relativity Flawed.
Take the basic example of a photon emitted in a frame:
Frame example

Moving Observer
a frame AB moves at a velocity v, emits a photon -- photon is more accurate than a light signal. After time t the photon arrives at D since the frame has now moved to CD. All this activity is relative to an observer standing on the frame AB/CD, that moves at velocity v with the frame.

With respect to the observer on the frame
We can safely state r = c * t where c is the velocity of light (r - size of the frame). Since light travels at velocity c for any observer -- Michelson Morly Experiment.

With respect of the stationary observer standing outside the frame
Here again velocity of light is the constant c. Light photon will be moving from point at Aο and reach point Bο after time tο. Though at the same time, point B will start moving to D, this needs to be disregarded, since point B or D has no bearing or relevance to the stationary observer. This important phenomena, is missed by Special Relativity activists, they assume that, light coming from point Aο, is going to point D, moving at velocity c with respect of the stationary observer.

The mistake
This is wrong. Light travels at constant velocity c to the stationary observer, but not in respect to moving point B--as said earlier, point B is irrelevant to stationary observer. The Special Relativists argue that according to the stationary observer light will travel from A with velocity c, while point B of the frame  will move to point D, independent of the in coming light photon. Therefore the light photon will have to travel additionally a distance s to reach D. This is an unnecessary assumption. While traveling observer can consider light travel from A to D the stationary observer sees the same photon -- or with quantum theory different photon emitted almost at same time-- traveling from point A to B.

This mistaken argument results, either velocity of light should be c+v or frame AB need to contract or time need to dilate. But since velocity of light is constant the frame should contract and time need to dilate. Therefore moving frames contract. And time tο for stationary observer will be different from time t of the moving observer.

(It may look strange but putting the arguments to language is really difficult)

Mirror Example
A frame consisting with two parallel mirrors that has a light source directed up--this is a light clock, will be moving forward at velocity v

Scenario 1  c & d - invariant and t -variant (The normal accepted principal of Special Relativity)

2d = c tο ---------------(1)

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4

            ______

= tc/2 √1-v²/c² ---------- (2)

                     _____

c tο/2 = tc/2√1-v²/c²

          ______

tο = t √1-v²/c²      ------ (accepted time dilation formula in Special Relativity)

 Scenario 2  t & d - invariant and c -variant (velocities greater than c exist Principal )

2d = cο t ---------------(1)

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4

            ______

= tc/2 √1-v²/c² ---------- (2)

                     _____

cο t/2 = tc/2√1-v²/c²

            ____

  cο =  √c²-v²
  cο² =  c²-v²
        _______
c = √ cο²  + v²       -----------(velocities greater than c exist Principal )

 Scenario 3  t & c - invariant and d -variant (Space Contraction Principal)

2dο = c t ---------------(1)

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4

            ______

= tc/2 √1-v²/c² ---------- (2)

                        _____

d = (2dο/c)c/2√1-v²/c²

             ______

 d = dο √1-v²/c²    ------ (Space Contraction Principal)
 

Scenario 1 accepts Special Relativity time dilation formula. It assumes that velocity of light is the same to all observers and goes beyond by assuming the stationary observer will not calculate c - v as the photon approach velocity towards mirror(photon moving in at c  mirror moving out at v)  but just as c. The stationary observer thinking  that, the photon moves towards the mirror at c. This is how the formula             

         __________

d = √c²t²/4 – v²t²/4   is derived. 

There is a problem with Scenario 1 because it leads to multiple paradoxes like twin paradox, grandfather paradox, ladder paradox, train on a bridge or tunnel paradox etc. Though some of these are said to be avoided by stating the shift from initial to non-initial frames looks like callous disregard to these paradoxes.
You get paradoxes because something is wrong or you cannot explain something. Then you need to give careful considerations to the assumption you have made and try to find the lapses. Another major defect of this theory is melding with time. The concept of time is one of the least understood. However, special relativity has made drastic changes to the concept of time. For instance we use phrases like "trillionth of a second after big bang" commonly. These phrases brings out pure absurdity because where was such a clock to measure time at that epoch. This shows how flimsy our understanding of time is.

Scenario 2  accepts that though light will have constant velocity with respect to any observer, velocities higher than light exist. Take for example the Frame Example above, a stationary observer will see that photon emitted at point A moves towards point D at c. But the stationary observer will also see that point D is moving at v. Therefore the stationary observer should say that photon moves towards D at c-v. And if the frame moves the other way c+v. Therefore velocities greater than c exist.

However, the two speed theory may run to problems if we consider a hole in the mirror allows light to fall on a screen of the stationary observer and how it is possible to have the same light photon or very near two photons to have two velocities of light. The observer moving with mirrors will see velocity c while the stationary observer will see velocity √ c²  + v²

Still, higher than c velocities may explain, quasars with z > 4 traveling at velocity greater than 4c.

Scenario 3  may give us very interesting explanations for hitherto unexplained phenomena.Here the distance between the mirrors will contract. This contraction will compensate the longer distance that the light beam need to travel when the mirror moves. The practical implication will be when the photon moves the space around it will contract.

We may be able to construct a new transformation (space contraction transformation) by the following formulas:                                                ______                                           _____
               x = xο                             y = yο √1-v²/c²                               z  = zο √1-v²/c²

These formulas will give out further interesting explanations to other phenomena. For instance say v > c then the space will become negative space. Whatever inside this space will be invisible like black holes. But this whatever inside can interact in other ways other than electromagnetic waves. For instance gravitation

When we observe a galaxy in the sky we know it's velocity by the red shift. Then we should know that the size will appear smaller depending on the red shift. Dark Mater and Dark Energy may be the result that these entities are inside a negative space created by it moving faster than light towards us.

These concepts will create a host of new hypothesis that can be tested by scientists in future to give us better explanation of what is around us.

see also twin paradox  and Observer in Einstein's Train thought experiment

Twin paradox

paradox is: say there are two twins A and B. A takes a space ship and travels near the speed of light. B remains on earth. After some time A returns to earth. A will be younger than B. A, since it travels near speed of light will experience time dilation and his clocks including his biological clock will run slow compared to his earth twin B- Scenario X

.
It becomes a paradox why the same thing don't happen to B. Why only A gets younger and not B. B also will be traveling in the other direction compared to A.

The explanation given is, A first starts to accelerate to attain the required speed. Then after traveling it will decelerate to stop, it will turn and accelerate again coming back to earth, then it will travel to earth and decelerate to stop. When accelerating and decelerating A ceases to be in initial frames. But B always is in an initial frame. Therefore A and B are different.

This is a very lose explanation.It is very strange this explanation is accepted so long. Maybe success of time dilation experiments or a sham, obscured the correctness of the thought experiment.

Consider the same experiment - Scenario Y. After A makes the outward traveling and stops at some place, B will make the same travel to teach A. It is very obvious that now both A and B should be of the same age now. 

If we compare B's outward travel in Scenario Y,  to A's inward travel in Scenario X, there's only one difference, only the direction has changed. Because acceleration f, velocity v and declaration -f are same for both

Therefore this paradox cannot be explained by non-initial frames that A undergo. The same can be said of the grandfather paradox - you travel faster than light and go back in time to kill your grandfather, you cannot be born though you exist now.

Special Relativity was intended to solve the problem created by the Michelson Morley Experiment that light does not travel in a preferred reference frame. Therefore, logically, in one reference frame, one twin grows older than the other twin in a different reference frame cannot be true, because either twin cannot be in a preferred reference frame than the other.

Time travel for anyone

We went a trip. My wife said I forgot to bring an extra water bottle, then after sometime she said I forgot to bring a knife, yet sometime later she said I should have brought a cup to drink.

Now suppose she had a time machine each time she could have gone back in time and corrected the mistake.

So if we don't make a mistake we don't need to go back to correct it.
Small deviations are necessary for life or life will be so monotonous it will not be worth living.
So if we can live our life to full, we will never need a time machine to time travel to go back.
So live the life to full, don't make mistakes, at least not big ones.

Problem of atomic propositions

Suppose the universe consists of facts.

Each fact can be a thought. Therefore can be represented buy a proposition. And each proposition consists of one or more atomic propositions. Atomic proposition cannot consist two or more propositions, but only one.

Consider inside a room - a room in a house, all the facts inside it are represented by a set of atomic propositions. Consider a proposition about a pedestal lamp is inserted, we can imagine a room without a pedestal lamp now converted to one with a pedestal lamp. Like that facts can be added or removed.

A room is a space. It is a subset of the space of universe. Room should be represented by a single big composite proposition that show every aspect of the room. This proposition will be the conjunction of many atomic prepositions.

The universe is represented by the universal set of all possible atomic propositions.

Any possible proposition is a conjunction of -(set of elements consisting of) atomic propositions.

Then logically the room can be represented by a subset of universal propositions. Wrong! Why?

Consider a proposition that represent Mount Everest. It cannot go into a room. Therefore any subset of the universal set of propositions won't fit a room. We might lead to think it is because of size, but no, Mount Everest cannot be moved to Pacific Ocean. This is an impossibility. Can American Declaration of Independence be inside this room? No. Though the physical size permits, practically it is an impossibility. So factors involved can be unlimited. If it is my room an expensive chair be in the room is illogical. But if the room is of a millionaire it may be possible. But further, a photograph of painting of Mount Everest can be in my room. So not all but some propositions regarding Mount Everest will be acceptable to represent my room.

It means that any subset of the universal set do not represent a subspace of reality.

A subset of the universal set is any number of elements of it taken together.

Room is a subset of universe. But it will not be a subset in respect of conjunction of propositions.