#realtivity

Introduction Over the last few years I have revisited the big questions in theoretical physics that so interested me in my youth and which I once studied up to Master’s level in one of the world’s best universities. I read about the great advances that had taken place in observational astronomy over the last fifty years and was very impressed. But I was not impressed by developments in the area of theoretical physics. The big questions I had been interested in were still unanswered. Worse still, the theorists now supposed that all the types of matter and energy that had every been discovered only account for a few percent of the Universe and the rest must be comprised of mysterious dark energy and dark matter. In short they had managed to lose about 97% of the Universe!

You might think that any model that came up short by 97% would not be considered a perfect success. But the model in question had already become established as the orthodox paradigm. Thousands of scientists have made their careers out of developing it and they are heavily invested in its validity. It was what they had worked so hard to understand. It is what they have written papers on and got grants and awards for. They teach it at university and popularise it on TV. Changing direction is unthinkable. Uncomfortable facts are brushed aside. Anybody who suggests that the ‘emperor had no clothes’ is ignored. Cognitive dissonance and ‘group think’ rule.

The search for exotic cold dark matter has been going on for nearly fifty years without success. More recently it has been joined by a search for dark energy. Maybe these searches will be successful. But if they are not, I wonder how many decades have to pass before the suspicion that the whole roadshow is in the wrong ballpark becomes undeniable?

The other big change was in the culture and practice of science. The internet has led to an explosion of written work and on-line video clips. Some of this is excellent e.g. the ready availability of scientific paper preprints, and some really good educational materials available freely to everyone. The downside is that most of the volume is low quality. In self defence the cognoscenti have retreated behind their ivory tower walls and are only speaking to people they already know and who already agree with them.

I decided to go back over the history of physics since about 1855 to see how the current set of beliefs evolved. Since I was not wedded to any particular school of thought, dogma or orthodoxy, and was not beholden to any grants body or group of professors, I was free to be an open-minded skeptic.

It was a most fascinating journey. I learnt a lot, had a lot of fun and developed large number of new ideas. Now new ideas are a funny thing. Inevitably most of them are wrong. But every good idea starts out as a new idea, or is born out of a mix of new and old ideas. If you take the fun out of physics it will stagnate.  o I decided to write up my adventure in an easily accessible format and make it available to anyone interested. I’ve keep the mathematics and references down to a minimum and have happily mixed my metaphors. I hope a few people find it interesting, amusing or informative. I hope that others will find it intriguing, challenging or even annoying. I would like to rattle the mental cages of the complacent. I would love to inspire courage and fresh thinking in a few talented, open-minded scientists.

I’ve posted my first draft in the form of 32 essays in this open access platform called Tumblr. This platform is dominated by young people sharing quirky images and adolescent ramblings. It is a world away from the formal scientific literature but at least it is quick, easily accessible and a matter of public record. In any case, the discipline of organising my thoughts on paper is useful and fun. I intend to produce a second draft on a more searchable platform sometime next year.

A next step in this journey is to explore the experimental implications of my various heretical ideas and suggestions. If any of them turn out to be promising the third step would be to inspire someone somewhere to check the verifiable predictions against the empirical evidence. Even if none of the ideas turn out to have merit the whole exercise has been (for me anyway) interesting, enjoyable and satisfying. I encourage enquiring minds and seekers after truth everywhere to understand where the current orthodox paradigms in their field have come from. Do not ignore the clues that do not fit, challenge the explanations that do not ring true and ask the questions that others dare not ask. Science will ultimately thank you.

Recap/Overview

1. Introduction. Twenty five examples of open issues. Not with current paradigms but in fundamental physics itself: Mach’s Principle, nature of light, galactic rotation curves etc.  

2. Some Preliminary Comments. Descriptions and models as compared to really understanding things.

3. Preliminaries to Special Relativity. Reference frames, nature of time etc.

4. The Speed of Light. Attempts to detect the aether.

5. Special Relativity. Swimmer in the stream analogy. Hendrik Lorentz. Foundations of Special Relativity. The 3 postulates underlying Special Relativity. Time dilation. Length contraction.

6. The Very Fast Train Thought Experiment. Relativistic effects are real, not just illusory.

7. Special Relativity Discussion. The aether is not dead, just sleeping. Length contractions inferred, not demonstrated. A symmetrical twin paradox – what is the answer? Sagnac’s interferometer and what does it mean?

8. The Ehrenfest Paradox. Paradoxes and thought experiments can be very useful. Paul Ehrenfest’s rotating disc paradox worried Einstein. The clock postulate.

9. Light – Some Important Background. Understanding light has been a challenge for hundreds of years. It is still not fully understood. Wave-particle duality. Discussion of key experiments – Young’s Double Slit, Michelson-Morley etc.  

10. A New Model for Light. Dissatisfied with incomplete and contradictory explanations using old fashioned analogies, the author invents his own heuristic model for the nature of light. If nothing else, just to provoke and inspire others to improve the current inadequate  explanations and analogies.

11. Explanation for Young’s Double Slit Experiment. A demonstration of how easily the new model of light explains this troublesome experiment.

12. Michelson-Morley Revisited. This is perhaps the most famous null experiment ever reported. My suggested new model for light is not only able to describe what goes on in the experiment, but also helps to interpret it in an interesting way.

13. Special Relativity Revisited. Special Relativity has been very successful. However, it struggles in certain areas. I was surprised to find that not every aspect of Special Relativity has been fully tested e.g. the invariance of one-way speed of light and the second postulate (classical relativity) at relativistic speeds. So I developed a version of Special Relativity using only assumptions that have been fully tested. I called it Relativity Lorentzian style. This turned out to be useful in resolving some paradoxes in Special Relativity where the existing explanations seem weak. It gives different predictions to Special Relativity in certain circumstances and these may be open to experimental verification.

14. Relativity and Global Positioning Satellites. Looks at relativistic effects as they affect GPS systems. Suggest an experiment that may give surprising results and is worth checking. Might make a good topic for an existing expert with access to the data, or a PhD topic for a bright student. It would be interesting if ‘Relativity Lorentzian style’ gives a better result than Special Relativity.

15. Gravity and Inertia. Before discussing General Relativity I have some fun with some fundamental physics and favourite pet topics e.g. what underlies Newton’s laws of motion? what are the so-called fixed stars? how does a rotating system know it is rotating? I then discuss a major modern problem for existing physics – the fact that stars in spiral galaxies have orbital speeds that are much too fast.  

16. A Machian Solution for the Physics of Spiral Galaxies. This is a slightly more formal essay. It considers the origins of inertia and suggests that stars in the rims of spiral galaxies are actually travelling at exactly their correct Keplerian velocities. There is no need to invent exotic cold dark matter at all. We simply have to understand that the correct reference frame for understanding the motions is partially related to the local galaxy and partially related to distant galaxies. The galaxies are telling us a fundamental truth that we have been too blind to see. Best of all, this new idea is open to experimental verification.

17. Q Theory Creation Myth. I became slightly annoyed by the smug complacency of some Big Bang Models adherents. Yes the model can explain a lot of things. But it isn’t perfect. Science requires open minds, not closed ranks. So, just to be provocative, I decided to write my own creation myth. I started with an energy field I call Q and created the whole Universe from it.

18. Q Theory Part 2 – Mass, Gravity and Inertia. Uses Q theory to explain the three basic phenomena of mass, gravity and inertia. Discusses why Newton’s Laws of motion are true. Explores the differences between linear motion and curved motion, and between linear and angular momentum. Develops a heuristic explanation for relativistic mass increase.

19. Q Theory Part 3 – Evolution of the Early Universe. Having too much fun to stop, I continue using Q theory and model the evolution of the whole Universe. Amongst other things, I consider why positive and negative entities are one way around and not the other and why there is almost no anti-matter or negative gravity. I posit a potential reason for expansion in the Universe and a potential candidate/substitute for dark energy.

20. Q Theory Part 4 – Evolution of the Modern Universe. Discusses the emergence of stars and galaxies. Top down and bottom up cosmic processes. The shapes of galaxies. Expansion and acceleration.  

21. General Relativity Basics. A less fanciful essay that looks at the origins of General Relativity.

22. Einstein’s Equivalence Principle. Discusses this foundation of General Relativity and concludes that it is just a very useful mathematical assumption.

23. Gravitational Redshift.  Considers the empirical evidence for this important phenomenon and how it fits in with General Relativity. Argues that it provides further proof that the nature of time is not what it seems. Argues that Pound-Rebka redshift experiment does not imply that the only way to understand gravity is to invoke curvature in all the dimensions of space-time.

24. Gravitational Light Bending. Looks at this famous “proof” of General Relativity. Discovers that classical physics already predicted half the effect. Suggests that a combination of Special Relativity and the fact that gravity slows down both time and the speed of light can account for the other half. Einstein’s curved geometry approach provides a clever and accurate description but is not necessarily the only possible way in which to model and interpret what is going on.

25. Gravity, Time and Light.  Discusses the inter-related phenomena of time, gravity and light. This is a profound and beautiful topic in modern science.

26. Mercury’s Perihelion Precession. Einstein offered an explanation for the anomalous precession in the orbit of the planet Mercury as proof that his new model was mathematically useful. And so it is. But why is it so hard to explain what is going on in plain language? And is it the only possible way to understand what is going on?

27. Gravitational Waves. Gravitational waves are well described in Einstein’s General Relativity and have recently been able to be detected. But they were also predicted by classical physics hundreds of years ago. They are not proof that the only way to look at the Universe is through models that use fully curved spacetime.

28. Fresh Perspectives Needed. Looks at the many variants of General Relativity and agrees that the original version is the best. Argues that this does not mean General Relativity is perfect. Argues that modern cosmology is in trouble. Criticises the post-Einstein view that curved spacetime is somehow “real”.  It is just a useful model.

29. Bell’s Inequality. Explains, proves and discusses this simple mathematical result as a prelude to the fundamental debate in physics between Einstein and Bohr.

30. Einstein, Bohr and Bell. Discusses the debate between Einstein and Bohr over the significance of the Copenhagen Interpretation in Quantum physics. The EPR Paradox and Schrodinger’s cat. The theorem and experiment idea posed by John Stuart Bell. Argues against the current view that Bell Experiments have supported Bohr’s view rather than Einstein’s.

31. Triple Polarisers Experiment.  Looks at this simple experiment which is also held out as supporting Bohr over Einstein. Argues that it not a valid Bell’s Experiment at all, but that it does show how that our current explanatory models of light are really very poor and unsatisfactory.

Heretical Ideas in Fundamental Physics within these Essays:

A new model for light.

A modified version of Special Relativity.

Suggested explanations for a variety of difficult experiments.

Some new paradoxes to provoke people who think they have all the answers.

A suggested explanation for the Galactic Rotation Curve problem that does not require imaginary Cold Dark Matter.

Some alternative ideas to the Big Bang Theory

A suggested explanation for why Newton’s Laws of Motion are true.

A suggested explanation for the origin of mass, gravity and inertia.

A suggested explanation for charge/parity violation in the early Universe.

A suggestion for what drives expansion in the Universe.

Challenges assumptions about the nature of time and the speed of light in the Big Bang Model.

Suggests that Einstein’s Equivalence Principle is just a useful abstract assumption for the purpose of creating a clever type of mathematical model.

Argues that you can use fully curved spacetime geometry if you want to, but you do not have to. 

Argues that all the experimental proofs of General Relativity can be explained using classical physics augmented by Special Relativity and the fact that gravity slows down time and the speed of light.

Argues against the modern notion that fully curved spacetime is ‘real’ and the only valid way to understand gravity.

Argues that modern Bell’s experiments using entangled photons are not in fact valid Bell’s experiments and that the results have possible interpretations that do not require us to believe in instantaneous action across impossibly large distances.

Argues that the two pillars of modern physics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, are beautiful mathematical models but are nonetheless just mathematical models.

Argues that interpreting the models as literally true has led to the current quagmire in theoretical physics and cosmology.

Pleads for a more open-mind attitude towards heretical alternatives and complementary viewpoints.

Take a time-traveling Ben Franklin for a ride in your Prius and you’ll give him a heart attack. Meanwhile, you’re driving down the highway while eating a muffin and texting at the same time. We can clearly get used to more than we expect. We can learn to live a space station orbiting the Earth, and we can learn to sit in zazen meditation for 18 hours without moving. It’s not what you are capable…

Visualizing Spacetime - models in an aerial cube

1. Last kiss: In August with a gorgeous 6" tall guy that I met at a concert - we texted for two months afterwards but never hung out again

65. Get married?: I really want to but probably just for the sake of planning a wedding

85. Fallen for a friend: Honestly, probably but I can't remember. If I did, it never went anywhere.

According to Albert Einstein's theory, time is warped by space.

This means that your head (because it is further from the gravitational force of the Earth and travelling through space fractionally faster) is aging faster than your feet by 0.00000000000068741628934....(687 quadrillionths) of a second per hour.

There is no such thing as denotative meaning, as words themselves have no inherent value/meaning- all are elected & assigned. Connotation is just "unofficial" but this is just as relative as "crazy" or "weird." If all the world uses a connotative meaning as the denotative, it then becomes the denotative and vice versa.