.   What's New In Forum  Letters [ All   P h y s i c s ]

A d v e r t i s e m e n t   S p a c e

The two (2) critical-view articles recently posted in our Foundational Inquiries section on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity -one with respect to the relativistic Mass-Energy concepts -the other with respect to the relativistic Space-Time continuum are receiving mixed responses. Consistent with our general policy of publishing only the critical-view letters with respect to what we are doing, what we are not doing, what we ought to be doing, and what we are not doing right or at all with respect to the subject of Physics, we have posted only four (4) letters as of now. Two letters are from a reader, Edward M. Schaefer, who is attacking, among other things, the merits of our two articles suggesting that they be removed, and who questions, in addition, whether in Physics it is feasible or desirable to employ arguments based exclusively on Rational Thinking. The other two (2) letter, in rebuttal, are from the Author. In his last letter, the Author presents, in a stunning outline, new theoretical principles and techniques for discovering "things" in Nature. Our comments are also presented in reference to the material in question.

.   Site Overview Of Forum  Letters [ All   P h y s i c s ]

A d v e r t i s e m e n t   S p a c e

A d v e r t i s e m e n t   S p a c e

S p e c i a l   T h e o r y    o f   R e l a t i v i t y

Referenced Articles: Relativistic Mass-Energy and Relativistic Space-Time Continuum   Baseless Attack on Einstein's Relativity #P-A1 December 29, 1998  To the Editor: The two (2) critical-view articles on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) posted on your site should be removed as they have no merit. The attack and the so-called refutations of Relativity have stood time and time again over the past 90 years. Anyone interested in learning WHY relativity is accepted should look at the Relativity FAQ site at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html and particularly at the page where the experimental verification of STR is fully documented, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/experiments.html. Putting aside that all arguments presented therein are based on lines of attack that were long dismissed, I take additional issue with your entire site which indicates that arguments should be made "using Rational Thinking and only Rational Thinking". Physics is not based on "Rational Thinking", but instead is focused on achieving consistency with observation. What is "Rational" takes a back-seat to being able to explain observation and predict the results of future experiments. That means that any reasonable refutation will not only make statements contradicting the assertions of the author of these articles, but will also cite published works in which said observations were made or in which a line of reasoning was first shown to prove a conjecture. I would hope that such citations would add weight to any such argument, and not be glossed over as is often the case with others who feel that "Thinking" is superior to observation, logic, and mathematics. Edward M. Schaefer schaefer@plansys.com STR  STR  STR December 29, 1998 Editor's Reply:  #PER-A1 While it is true that during its 90-year existence STR had plenty of opposition (see, for instance, the recently released book of Professor Arthur I. Miller from the University College in London, England, entitled Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Springer-Verlag New York, 1998), this in itself cannot constitute a ground for dismissing outright a critical examination of STR. Surely Einstein did not seem too concerned to challenge after some 220 years Newton's theory of gravitation! As for your remark pointing out that Physics does not, as a matter of fact, employ exclusively "Rational Thinking and only Rational Thinking", to that regrettably I have to agree with you. I say regrettably because this is the source of so many problems that Theoretical Physics is facing today most notably the ones from Quantum Theory. It is our experiment here, never employed anywhere, to see how far we can go using, in exclusivity, our most precious commodity --Rational Thinking, to an absolute extreme. We may call our endeavor Rational Physics to separate it, if you will, from the traditional methods of Physics that you have described. .  .   . #P-A2 December 29, 1998  To the Editor: Edward M. Schaefer schaefer@plansys.com       January 2, 1999  Editor's Reply:  #PER-A2 With respect to your point that in Science "it is easy to attack something", this is true only if the attack is based on beliefs or speculations as anybody can indeed believe and speculate in whatever he or she may want. However, when the attack is done from a sound physical foundation and carried out not through beliefs and speculations but through rigorous logical inferences --that is an entirely different proposition altogether and may not be as easy as you think. In regard to your point that a credible attack needs, in addition, to have "something to replace it with" --this, in general, is also not correct. In Mathematics, for instance, proofs of various theorems are rejected all the time by finding an aberration of logic without finding a substitute proof. One of the most celebrated and publicized such theorems was Fermat's "Last Theorem." Pierre de Fermat, some 350 years ago scribbled his result on the margin of a book stating that he did not have space to write the proof for his theorem. Ever since, mathematicians have tried to prove or to disprove that theorem. Numerous proofs were given on both sides: for showing that Fermat's Last Theorem was true and for showing that it was not. Each time a "perfect" proof was claimed to exist, a subtle error in rationale was shown to exist. It was not until a couple of years ago, that Fermat's Last Theorem was finally proved, but not without several revisions, by the now famous mathematician, Professor Andrew Wiles of Princeton University, USA. Because of the sensation that this proof of Professor Wiles created, a PBS "Nova" documentary was made highlighting the drama and the turmoil of this discovery which was aired in 1997 on most of the PBS stations. For those who missed this fascinating documentary or are not residents of the US and may wish to visit or revisit this subject and see an interesting interview with Professor Wiles, they may want to "hit" the PBS website, at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/proof/wiles.html But now to come back to Physics and to the subject at hand, it is worth mentioning that the famed Dutch physicist Hendrik A. Lorentz in attempting to prove the null or negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which eventually lead Einstein to his Relativity Theory, created an elaborate theory of the electron (see, The Theory of Electrons by H. A. Lorentz, Second Edition, Dover Publications, 1952) which later was refuted by others without an alternative theory being provided. In fact, as of now we still do not have a complete theory of the electron. Thus, your point that for a credible attack on a theory "like Relativity, you need something to replace it with" is plain nonsense. You are absolutely correct in the analysis of your point #2. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on the side that one is taking with respect to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity in general and the relativistic mass formula in particular, the correctness of this critique of yours does not affect an iota, one way or the other, the debate on the validity or invalidity of Einstein's mass formula. Indeed, let us take a closer look at what is involved here. The author, clearly overstated his case when he wrote in Part VIII of his article refuting Einstein's relativistic mass formula the following: "Imagine what would have happened with particle accelerators around the world if Einstein's mass formula were to hold! Since particles in modern accelerators can reach speeds comparable to the speed of light, their mass, by this formula, would have been increased so much that the structures holding such accelerators would have had to collapse by their own enormous weight creating in the end earthquakes! No such a thing ever happened, and the architects designing the foundational structures of such accelerators never put in their calculations the weight effects of the accelerated particles that may result from Einstein's mass formula." As you correctly have shown even at "a trillionth less than c itself, a speed for all practical purposes indistinguishable from c, the mass of a particle is still less than a million times its rest mass." Thus, what you have proven beyond dispute was how negligible the relativistic mass effect is in a particle accelerator, so negligible in fact, that for all practical purposes it can be neglected altogether! It is surprising therefore when you, out of the blue, made this leap in your concluding remark: "The simple fact of the matter is that particle accelerator operators live and breath Relativity. Without using Einstein's insights, they cannot get the things to work." Aside from its gratuitous nature, this statement defies exactly what you have just proved: that in particle accelerators the relativistic "influence" to the overall mass result is so small that for all practical purposes it is nonexistent. Why would anyone care, in practical terms, for such an infinitesimal and imperceptible influence? Thus, ironically your calculations helped the author's conclusion to stand, namely that "the architects designing the foundational structures of such accelerators never put in their calculations the weight effects of the accelerated particles that may result from Einstein's mass formula." But with this being said, let us make no mistake that the author's passage in question cannot stand as it is, being incorrect, and accordingly, it has to be either removed or modified to take into account your valid criticism. Of course, it goes without saying, that this, in itself, has no effect on the challenge and the potential threat that the new mass formula introduced in the posted article and derived from Classical Physics may pose to Einstein's relativistic mass formula. .   Not So Baseless Attack on Einstein's Relativity #P-CA1 January 2, 1999 To the Editor: First, I take strong exception to the framework under which this entire discussion takes place. Respectfully, the title "Baseless Attack on Einstein's Relativity" is without merit as there is nothing, in the discussion presented to warrant, as of now, such a title. When and if a credible challenge can be found based on Rational Thinking and only Rational Thinking free of "beliefs, speculations, or analogies" as posted in your welcoming page, http://www.NatureQuest.net/home.html, then and only then can such a title have any meaning, merit, or consideration. Now with this being said, let me be allowed to respond in kind to some of the issues that have been raised by Edward Schaefer in his second letter (#P-A2), and divide my response in two (2) parts. Part I In the first paragraph of the stated letter, Mr. Schaefer is arguing, in brief, two points: i)  one, that through Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity "the rules of physics better fit observations" and, ii)  two, that the attack on Einstein's theory is due to its success! As Mr. Schaefer put it, Einstein "succeeded, and therefore his work remains the focus of debate and attacks." [sic!] Let me state emphatically, as this point was made in my two articles, that there is not one single observation or experiment that "fits better" through the predictions of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I challenge Mr. Schaefer or anyone else to document in detail only one such observation or experiment. As part of our collective brainwash, we were indoctrinated by our educators with a myth of how wonderful Einstein's Special Relativity predicts certain observations of Nature better than before when in fact, at a closer and more meticulous scrutiny, no such thing exists. The harm of this brainwash, which has a life of its own, is of a monumental proportion as it deprives generation after generation of students from getting acquainted with the real Physics embodied in a 2000-year history. The current success of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity rests not in its ability to predict certain observations better, as the preachers of this theory led us to believe, but in its speculative nature and in the difficulty to acknowledge how wrong, how impatient, and how desperate we have been in finding quick solutions to our most vexing problems. As I have alluded, in one of my posted articles, keeping alive Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was essential for the birth of Quantum Mechanics, and if an opportunity is given to me to present this linkage through a full-fledged article, I most certainly shall take advantage of such an offer. Part II Much was made of my blunder in the ostracized passage given in my article on the relativistic mass. In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, it is postulated that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. For the purpose of this argument (and only for this purpose), let us assume this to be true. Nothing in the relativity theory prohibits an object reaching the speed of light; the only prohibition is that it cannot exceed the speed of light. Thus, in theory, nothing prohibits a particle, in an accelerator, to actually reach the speed of light. And in such a hypothetical situation, we get, by Einstein's mass formula, the absurd result that the respective particle will have an infinite mass. My point was that we need not worry about such absurdity ever materializing! Thus, for the sake of clarity and accuracy, I am suggesting that the said passage in question be replaced with this one below: Anonymous Author (Code: #AA050144-552) Email: AnonymousAuthor@NatureQuest.net  .  .  . Editor's Reply:  #PER-CA1 We have noted your protest and displeasure with our heading "Baseless Attack on Einstein's Relativity" but that heading will stay as it represents a point of view, and in fact, as you must be aware, it represents the current prevailing point of view. But, on the other hand, being sensitive to your criticism, we have added a second title, as you can see, more in "tune" with your vantage point, under which your response is being published. We are not here to judge or to endorse a particular point of view. Our job is simply to create a proper and balanced "atmosphere" for airing different, and sometimes clashing, points of view. If we fail in that objective, we clearly fail in our responsibilities. We are happy to commission you for the article that you have alluded to. If our understanding is correct, you have some ideas regarding a possible linkage between Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the "birth" of Quantum Mechanics. We would love to have your thoughts formalized in an article which, depending upon its nature, could be posted either in our Historical Scrutinies section for Physics, or in our Foundational Inquiries. Finally, we are allowing the modification that you have requested, although we have a feeling that this may not be the last revision that needs to be made. You see, your rhetorical question posed of what would have happened if a particle in an accelerator would have reached the speed of light may not even be a realistic question since implicitly it implies that a particle will not disintegrate before it reaches the speed of light. Why and when a particle disintegrates is a fair question to be posed for examination and elucidation.  ...    ... #P-CA2   JJanuary 10, 1999anuary 2, 1999 To the Editor: In Part II of my letter above (#P-CA1), I stated the following: "Nothing in the relativity theory prohibits an object reaching the speed of light; the only prohibition is that it cannot exceed the speed of light. Thus, in theory, nothing prohibits a particle, in an accelerator, to actually reach the speed of light." You, in your response to my rationale, in a subtle way, took issue with the inference made by me, i.e., with my "Thus" throwing a monkey wrench into it. You in effect argued, perhaps not in these exact words, that just because from STR we do not have a direct prohibition that a particle cannot reach the speed of light this does not mean that in fact such a prohibition does not exist dictated perhaps by other theories or principles of Physics. You then continued, with your critical analysis, by noting that for this matter to be settled we need to have, at the very least, an understanding of "why and when a particle disintegrates." Well, it is my pleasure to provide you with such an understanding from the principles enunciated in my article attacking Einstein's relativistic mass concept. To "see" why, when, and how a particle disintegrates, you need to follow my LOOM method of discovering 'things' in Nature, and thus, if you do not mind, follow me in this journey. We are going to "descend" to a Level Of Organization Matter (i.e., to a LOOM) from where we can "see" the interrelationship or interrelationships which an accelerated particle establishes with its immediate environment. In fact, we are going to "descend" to the lowest LOOM possible reaching thus the "bottom" of the Universe! I shall employ the simplest visualization possible so that absolutely anyone who wants to can join us, in this rather fascinating journey, without difficulty or special training. The only thing that you need is to keep yours eyes "open". Well, if you are ready, let me begin by setting up the stage. • As noted in my article, Einstein's renunciation and abolishment of a material medium filling up the space of the Universe is, as so eloquently was put by Isaac Newton, "so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it". Yes, the old and troubled ether concept (as the hypothetical, prevailing and underlying substance within which all material perturbances of the Universe are being transmitted and propagated) which was thrown out by Einstein needs to be restored, perhaps under a new name. For a number of years, in my studies, the name that I have been using in lieu of the ether or æther concept is xenofluid ("xeno" in Greek means "strange"). To fully appreciate this concept, I have to present a full-fledged cosmological article, but for here, to continue, it is suffice to say that the ether concept is back and fully reinstated and being "reincarnated" as xenofluid. We need this fundamental and underlying concept to explain what we are going to "see" in our journey about to begin. • The name 'particle' in this journey shall have a completely different meaning than the one employed in Quantum Mechanics. Here by 'particle' we will mean simply a minuscule "hard" ball, which anybody can visualize and thus be able to "see", formed of a "hard shell" whose interior is vacuum. We will view such particles as the primordial particles of the Universe and we shall called them masstrons. Without going into any detail how masstrons of the Universe are being formed or the kinds or types of masstrons that may exist, what we need to know about them is that notwithstanding their "hard" shell, they can eventually break. And when they do break, their hard shell substance, called xenorigid (XR), will transform back into xenofluid (XF). The capacity of xenorigid to transform into xenofluid shall be called energy. If this xenorigid's capacity is able to manifest its existence, then we shall call it active energy, if not we shall call it dormant energy. The actual flow of this transformation from xenorigid to xenofluid shall be called the energetic field. The xenofluid (aka the old ether concept) is considered to be the pervading substance of the Universe which obeys a so-called DownLevel Law (or Downward Law) --the grand master law of the Universe from within which all physical phenomena and laws of Nature can be derived and understood in a coherent way. In its simplest form of expression, the DownLevel Law, states that: xenofluid has always the tendency to flow towards its less dense parts. Xenofluid should be viewed as the primordial matter of the Universe and, from an analysis that is not going to be given here, considered to be an unstructured "perfect" compressible fluid within the meaning employed in Continuum Mechanics or in Fluid Mechanics. The density of the xenofluid can vary between a maximum low level value, transforming it into a new state, called xenobase (XB), which can be viewed as a state in which xenofluid is at its maximum "stretch", and a maximum high finite level value, transforming it into a new state, called xenorigid (XR), which can be viewed as a state in which xenofluid is at its maximum "compression", and regarded as an "absolute" unstructured rigid in the sense employed in the mathematical Theory of Elasticity. All these three states, xenofluid, xenobase, and xenorigid, can be incorporated under the collective name xenosubstance (XS). With this terminology introduced, we state that the objective of the DownLevel Law is that of leveling down the entire energy of the Universe to the energy level of the xenobase. With this simple preparation, we are hopefully ready to begin our journey, so let us not waste any more time as a vista of phenomenal splendor and incredible depth is just in front of us about to open. As a final reminder before we proceed, let us not forget the magic secret provided by the LOOM method of discovering "things" in Nature: to always look at the relationship(s) that the studied object (in our case, our particle vested into the masstron concept) establishes with its immediate environmental medium, as each such relationship will manifest its existence through a concrete physical phenomenon.  As stated, we begin our extraordinary journey by "descending" all the way to the absolute "bottom" LOOM of the Universe. Here, at this ultimate "bottom", the corresponding loomtrons are the ultimate particles of the Universe --the masstrons, and the surrounding environmental medium is the underlying matter of the Universe --the xenofluid. As a masstron moves through its environmental xenofluid, we "see" with ease two (2) interesting things that happen simultaneously --one in the back of the masstron, the other in its front: FIG.1  A moving masstron leaving behind it a low-density xenofluid tail and, in front a high-density coat deposited on the frontal side of the masstron's surface. By the DownLevel Law, the environmental xenofluid will "rush" towards the masstron's low-density xenofluid tail left behind. i).  In the back of the masstron, we see that a "tail" of a lower density xenofluid is being formed following the moving masstron. ii). In the front of the masstron, we see that a xenofluid "coat" of a higher density xenofluid is being accumulated on the masstron's surface on its frontal part. Now, let's see what is happening next. In the back of the masstron, the environmental xenofluid, by the DownLevel Law, will "rush" towards the masstron's tail from all sides generating an IN-going xenofluid flow. Let us note that the IN-going xenofluid flow will push from behind the masstron offsetting the resistivity that the masstron will encounter from its surrounding xenofluid medium. This is the Principle of Inertia! first enunciated by Galileo. We have for the first time an understanding of the Principle of Inertia. We have the big WHY in our pocket, we know WHY, for the very first time, inertia exists, we understand and are able to "see" its machinery at work! Let's stop for a minute here and reflect. And as we do this, you may want to perhaps read what the late distinguished Professor Richard P. Feynman had to say about Galileo's Principle of Inertia in his celebrated Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1963, vol. I, p. 7-2): "Galileo discovered a very remarkable fact about motion ... That is the principle of inertia --if something is moving, with nothing touching it and completely undisturbed, it will go on forever, coasting at a uniform speed in a straight line. (Why does it keep on coasting?  We do not know, but that is the way it is.)" Now, we do know and "see" how inertia works. Let us look one more time at FIG. 1 before we move on. As a result of the IN-going xenofluid flow created, the masstron's tail will be squished transforming its current shape into a hot-dog shape of high-density xenofluid. Then, by the same, DownLevel Law, the high-dense xenofluid hot-dog will decompress, generating a burst of an OUT-going xenofluid flow (FIG. 2), until it reaches the level of its environmental xenofluid medium. FIG.2  The masstron's tail being transformed, by the DownLevel Law, into a dense hot-dog shape xenofluid which in turn, by the same DownLevel Law, generates an outburst of an outgoing xenofluid flow. As for the frontal xenofluid coat of the masstron, its density will increase until the DownLevel Law shall "take over" generating an OUT-going xenofluid flow. In a theory which we shall not pursue or elaborate here, called The Rational Unified Theory Of Nature (TRUTON), the IN-going xenofluid flows are called gravitational fields and, the OUT-going xenofluid flows are called caloric fields. This is another momentous point which we have reached in our journey, so let us stop again for a minute and reflect on the extraordinary vista that has opened in front of us. For the first time ever we are actually able to "see" the origin of gravity and its association with the caloric field. This, in itself, is truly extraordinary. Let's stay here for another moment or so and grasp these two stunning revelations: a masstron by simply moving generates an ingoing gravitational field! and, a masstron by simply moving generates an outgoing caloric field! From this vantage point, we see the path which needs to be followed for studying and understanding gravity. That the gravitational field and the caloric field are part of the same underlying process is an astonishing connection to have discovered. In fact understanding this deep connection will lead us to understanding, in a rational fashion, the most stunning cosmological results in regard to the evolution of the Universe. The realization that gravity is not the only dominant force in the Universe and that that there is an other force equally dominant opposing gravity, vested in the caloric field, is the underlying motor for all work in Theoretical Astronomy. The checks and balances that the caloric field continuously imposes on the "influence" of the gravitational field is the secret for understanding the great harmony and global equilibrium that exists in the Universe. And this study, is without doubt, one of the most fascinating paths that one can undertake. Also from the same vantage point but looking slightly into a different direction, we "see" the path that we need to enter for studying the energy concept. Also from here, we can "see" the path which we need to enter for studying and understanding light and other electromagnetic radiation. The wave-corpuscular duality associated with the properties of light or the de Broglie wavelike postulate associated with particles in general are straightforward consequences derived from the interrelationship that a masstron establishes with its surrounding environmental xenofluid. In fact, because we are at the "bottom" of the Universe from where all physical laws of Nature have their origin implanted, we can pursue from here to any desired subject of studies covered by Natural Sciences. But what about the subject at hand which is to understand and "see" why and how an accelerated particle will eventually disintegrate as it cannot increase its speed indefinitely, you may ask. Well, we are coming to it right now, but it was irresistible for me not to point out the stunning vistas that are available for exploration from this vantage point where we are now situated. As we stated and stated, the key to discovering the origin of any property of Nature is through an analysis deciphering the relationship which the object of study establishes with its immediate environment. Let us therefore continue looking at the evolving relationship that a masstron whose speed continuously accelerates establishes with its surrounding xenofluid medium. Well, first let us note, that because of the "perfect" elastic property of the xenofluid, the masstron is able to advance through space as the xenofluid in front of it will always "open up" through its stretch. However, if the masstron's speed continuously increases, then it will exist a moment, called the critical moment, when the masstron's speed will be so great, called the universal critical speed û, that the masstron can no longer be able to advance through its surrounding xenofluid as it hits the "bottom" of the facing xenofluid, i.e., it will hit its xenobase. FIG. 3  A masstron reaching its maximum critical speed before disintegrating into a burst of energy by hitting the xenobase "wall". The energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light) that is propagating perpendicular (red arrows) to the masstron's direction of motion. And this xenobase will act as an impenetrable wall: the masstron will be crushed transforming into a burst of energy which we call light. We note that radiation of light always propagates perpendicular to the direction of motion. Thus, not only that were we able to understand why an accelerated particle cannot increase its speed indefinitely, but we, as a bonus, were able to "see" how an accelerated particle actually transforms into light. And this, as you undoubtedly will recognize, is a tremendous bonus as it opens to us the vista toward the road for studying light and the rest of electromagnetic radiations. I will stop here for now hoping that you have enjoyed this journey which took us to the "bottom" of the Universe. Anonymous Author (Code: #AA050144-552) Email: AnonymousAuthor@NatureQuest.net .  . .  Editor's Reply:  #PER-CA2   If I am to understand correctly from your dazzling journey, you have a theory entitled The Rational Unified Theory Of Nature (TRUTON) employing as its primordial element the masstron. Since you stated that "without going into any detail how masstrons of the Universe are being formed or the kinds or types of masstrons that may exist ..." I am wondering how and through what principles and mechanism your masstrons are being formed and if there is more than one type of masstron, how can you differentiate them qualitatively? We would be extremely interested to have and publish as much material as possible from your TRUTON theory. In the interim, we are creating an Appendix to your critical view article on Einstein's mass formula where your entire letter is being published. Finally, we cannot help but wonder, whether in fact, as you have alluded in your letter, you have mastered all the detail in explaining the origin of gravity. If this is so, then you are not only the first known human to understand why gravity exists, but also the only one in possession of that understanding and this, must be a truly awesome feeling!       E  n  d ...   [as of now] .. ~ S p e c i a l    T h e o r y   o f   R e l a t i v i t y ~

.

.