 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| English__---> | Espanol____/ | Deutsch____/ | Francais____/ | Italiano____/ | Portuguese |
Albert Einstein - spacetime relativity theory
Homepage .
Isaac Newton .
Rene Descartes .
William Gilbert .........
Einstein's continuum .
Blackbox Einstein .......
General Image Theory
- Site Search at bottom v -
|
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) developed a theory of the universe based on a spacetime continuum, somewhat like Descartes' earlier dead-matter mechanical universe with its ether. Gravity was an integral part of Einstein's spacetime continuum, and light and other electromagnetic signals propogated through it at a constant speed - the speed of light. This relativity theory chiefly derived from the relativity of signals conveying information to human observers. Einsteins theory of relativity did not include any explanation of electromagnetic action, though Einstein did seek in vain to find some way of including it. | |||
Einstein's science theory.
Up to Newton's time, and indeed for a good time beyond, physicists and astronomers were almost all agreed that the physical universe followed basically simple laws of behaviour, and that their observations and experiments showed that - though explanation of it was not so fully agreed. But by Einstein's time technology and experiments had become more sophisticated and seemed to be showing that the physical universe followed more complex laws of behaviour, perhaps even defying logic.
Forcefield theory was already taking the view that force or energy could have forms other than Descartes mass-in-motion. And Descartes mobile-mass ether was to H.A.Lorentz a rather different 'force-ether' present everywhere and basically immobile with light being an ether wave, and Einstein at first took that as proven and deduced that a
direct consequence of the stationary ether was that the velocity of light with respect to the ether is a constant, independent of the motion of the source of light or the observer. Lorentz took the ether as being the ONLY valid inertial frame of reference for light.
The Special Theory of Relativity
By 1905 Einstein had concluded that the immobile Lorentz ether was disproved by the Mitchelson-Morley experiment and that light was not an ether wave, and that any frame of reference in which Newton's law of inertia holds (for some period of time) is an inertial frame of reference.
All frames of reference (and only such frames) at rest or moving with constant velocity with respect to a given inertial frame are also inertial frames.
Einstein in 1905 asserted that all the laws of physics take the same form in any inertial frame, including them having the same constant velocity of light relating to time determination with time being a relative variable.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity universe was based on a new kind of 'force-ether' or 'field' that was a 'space-time continuum'.
Hence the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiments (on our moving Earth, to demonstrate its motion through an immobile light-ether) showed light apparently having no velocity variation in a vacuum when such was expected in the Descartes-style Lorentz ether assumed in vacuums. Many concluded that this disproved all Descartes' push-forces physics, and many wrongly thought that also meant all Newton physics - but it proved only that a vacuum does not affect the passage of light much, or at least its wave velocity, - or simply that measuring any velocity within a moving system cannot reflect the systems velocity ? Though it has long been taken that all objects on the Earth share the Earth's velocity, this experiment did weaken the then current modified-Descartes' Lorentz ether theory - but not maybe Descarte's own ether theory claiming the ether pushed the Earth along and so they would have the same velocity ? Somehow Einstein and his peers claimed that this experiment crucially proved his theory (eg. Einstein's 1912 manuscript on the special theory of relativity pp.18.) - though some other experiments were also perhaps more justifiably claimed to be proofs supporting at least Einsteins maths.
Michelson-Morley interferometer speed of light experiment ;
Newton and Einstein both produced substantial works on light being particulate or corpuscular quanta, rather than waves in any ether,
but Newton moved to his 'either push-particles or robot-particles might hold' black-box theory position while Einstein took a 'particle-wave duality' position on developing his own continuum ether theory with a Dualist light theory of light being both particle and wave (or more accurately perhaps Particle and medium-less EnergyPackets for which wave maths held). Newton and Einstein both gave gravity a substantial part in their physics but Einstein failed to integrate other forces and left magnetism and electricity to an isolated electromagnetic forcefield theory seemingly involving some other ether. Competing non-ether physics ideas continued in quantum theories.
Until he developed his spacetime continuum theory of relativity, Einstein had like Newton been a bit of a black-box mathematical laws physicist with leanings towards Descartes mechanical universe explanation, but his physics from then relates much to spacetime continuum localisations and curvatures. These Einstein ideas were to some extent along the lines of force field theory that had been developed for electromagnetism, and to which he also increasingly committed, and was basically a new energy-ether version of Descartes' all-matter mechanical view of bodies not being self-acting and with only humans doing any signal-response 'thinking' or 'observing'.
Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 defined his inter-convertability of mass and energy (or force) as two forms of matter, with c being the speed of light in a vacuum having to be invariant to any non-accelerating observer even if moving towards or away from the light. Einstein's matter was seen as involving dead-mass and somehow dead-energy as a form of that, though it perhaps better suits energetic-matter as allowing energy being located in bodies and activating bodies more than just being the motion of bodies as Descartes held. To Einstein, actual conversions between mass and energy perhaps really held only for 'electromagnetic' radiation emitting and absorbing, though the equation derives from bodies Descartes kinetic energy being half mass times velocity squared. Descartes kinetic energy remained, as one form of energy only, with normal changes in it giving bodies changes in 'potential mass'. Taking light, or more broadlyly 'electromagnetic radiations', as maybe more fundamental than time and space, maybe came close to adopting a Gilbert-style signal theory but Einstein went elsewhere with his spacetime relativity.
Heisenberg and others claimed that there were limits beyond which no observer could get exact knowledge of nature, so that scientific predictions could at most be predictions of probabilities and essentially blackbox. Einstein disagreed, supporting full-prediction laws of nature and held that a valid theory's necessary 'unseens' like his spacetime continuum would be observable if only indirectly. But force field and spacetime continua perhaps fit uneasily with eachother and uneasily with the many discrete quantum effects that nature seems to actually exhibit and have led to much work on developing a quantum mechanics physics generally including human observer uncertainty though not necessarily dropping all force field ethers.
The General Theory of Relativity
Einstein soon added gravity to his theory in his General Theory of Relativity now involving a space-time-gravity continuum. This addition came from Einstein's Equivalence Principle saying that acceleration was equivalent to gravity, a perhaps arbitrary limitation of Newton's force definition claim that force was whatever produced acceleration and applied to all gravity, magnetism, collision forces and all forces. However Einstein could now claim some consistancy with Newton on gravity maths at least -
though not a blackbox or all-forces theory and Newton would no doubt have strongly opposed Einstein's theory as requiring 'unscientific hypotheses about unseens'.
Einstein devoted years to trying to modify his theory to handle all forces for a non-arbitrary Unified Field Theory, but he could not manage this and neither has anyone yet. Einstein held to the basics of his continuum physics theory and, though agreeing that substantial evidence of quantal phenomena in nature did make his continuum theory doubtful, he thought that there must be one right theory and he never considered quantum mechanics a better physics theory option.
If we removed Einstein's continuum relativity explanation from Einstein theory then we would have a no-explaining black-box Einstein theory maybe more complex and so less easily understandable than Newton's as well as covering much less . Of course, though some may be happy with the general idea of black-box science, many will complain that 'they do not really explain anything' - which supporters will say is fine if they correctly predict everything, but the absence of an explanation can maybe also make them harder to understand. Some modern physicists support theories that involve extra dimensions as explanation, though to many this does not itself explain anything and such theories might be better presented as black-box ? There are certainly plenty of proven cases of maths needing extra variables for reasons other than dimensionality that such physics 'explanation' seems to ignore.
The maths of Einstein's theory certainly seems to predict better than the maths of Newton's theory in some limited areas, but that in itself is perhaps no proof of Einstein's postulated explanation - and as an explanation it maybe smacks of a mathematician's attempt at a logically simple universe basically like the early Harmonies and Geometries theories of Kepler which he abandoned ? Albert Einstein's relativity universe explanation even he considered to be at least incomplete, and now it perhaps is chiefly supported by cosmologists and astronomers.
Einstein repeatedly claimed that Newton's ideas supported his own, though it may merely have been that Einstein managed to construct his maths to match Newton's maths under some conditions.
Einstein badly misunderstood the real nature of the attraction theory that Newton used as one possible explanation theory (eg. thinking that it required faster-than-light action, and nothing being emitted by bodies) and Einstein largely ignored Newton black-box theory and the wider cover of Newton physics. Yet Einstein confidently claimed that he had disproved the basics of all Newton theory - and Einstein assumed that Newton had disproved all prior physics. But any real reading of Newton and Gilbert physics contradicts most of these claims.
In 1931 and 1952 a modern edition of Newton's Opticks was published with a Preface by Einstein in which he specifically also claimed that Newton's (blackbox) optics theory was a forerunner of the 'Wave/Particle' Duality theory that he supported (which is maybe better termed EnergyPacket/Particle duality as it generally involves no medium that can wave).
But this involves a silly interpretation of Newton's actual optics ideas, which were based on Newton's blackbox theory which only allowed of multiple theory explanations as possible but perhaps not provable IF they were consistant with the same maths - and Duality theory involves multiple theories with different contradictory maths. So this claim of Einstein of Newton-compatibility was plain ridiculous. If blackbox theory acceptance of alternatives leads to anything along those lines, it must be to an 'image theory' of science theories like that proposed elsewhere on this website. (PS. Newton's optics explained known light phenomena mathematically as well as did wave theory - the only 'problem' being that his 'light fits' when light passed close to atoms was not understood - and was presumably a microscopic quantal effect. Anyway, the fact that the initial write-up of a theory does not explain every phenomenon in the universe is no proof that it cannot be amplified to do that and certainly is not a sufficient disproof of any science theory)
In reality Einstein only disproved some of Descartes push-physics, adding to Newton's disproof of some of it. Relativity physics was actually a basic part of Gilbert signal attraction physics in its 'mutuality' which Newton physics also incorporated but Einstein ignored. William Gilbert 'mutuality' and 'coition' physics was basically relativistic and did not rest on fixed co-ordinate requirements or the like as Einstein supposed. And Newton's theory took such as only a matter of convenience and not a theory requirement either. All 'attraction' forces on a body and resulting motions are in both magnitude and direction relative to another body.
It is also generally not proven that Einstein-supported 'field physics' maths cannot also be derived from Einstein-opposed 'signal attraction physics'. And it is generally not proven that Einstein-supported 'relativity' maths cannot also be derived from Einstein-opposed 'attraction mutuality physics'. These may well involve image compatabilities.
Though signal observer relativity was central to Einstein's theory, it basically took light and other 'electromagnetic' signals as emissions from bodies that, a Gilbert robot-matter Attraction theory supporter might complain, do little substantial in the universe except happen to inform human observers. However, almost all that we now know about the universe has come from optical or other electromagnetic signals, and perhaps nothing has as yet been learnt from any mechanical or force ether or spacetime continuum indicators. And interestingly in modern signal theory, the difference between digital and analogue signals is basically the difference between particles and waves.
Atomic physics - what is an atom ?
Most early physicists assumed that gravity and the like were atom behaviours, and that atoms must be basically simple and improved knowledge of atoms would clarify the laws of physics for gravity etcetera. But atomic physics study has shown atoms to actually be complex, more in line with William Gilbert atom behaviour theory.
Early experiments seemed to show atoms as basically electromagnetic with electrons orbiting protons, but soon were taken as involving more parts and more behaviours. Atoms can absorb and emit light and other EM radiation, and can absorb and emit different particles, with some atomic events seeming simple immediate events and some involving cumulative excitement delay.
And the behaviour of atoms including the photoelectric effect and spontaenous radiation seem to show that generally hitting an atom with a large particle causes a large immediate clear atomic radiation effect while some small things may have a delayed cumulative effect that can be hard to link to cause. Most atomic experiment has been on hitting atoms with big stuff, and so on 'abnormal' atom behaviour, and
far from clarifying gravity and electromagnetic forces, atomic physics has been led to suppose two new additional very different atomic forces.
While gravity and electromagnetic forces can be demonstrated to have basically infinite range with strength decreasing with distance, the supposed Strong and Weak atomic forces are claimed to somehow have a limited small range - and a Nobel prize was issued to David Gross et al for the claimed discovery that the short-range strong atomic force INCREASES with distance.
The claim of a multitude of forces at work within an atom is problematic for Newton and Einstein physics, and atomic physicists generally adopt some version of quantum theory often with forces said to be based on particle exchange emission rather than on fields or space continua. Their 'particles' include as yet undetected gravitons for gravity, and others for electric charge and magnetism, as yet with little evidence.
If atoms physically appear mini-solar-systems, their behaviour and forces seem more complex rather than simpler ! Modern atomic science atoms are looking too complex for Newton or Einstein theory but are maybe looking better suited to being Gilbert signal emission robot behaviour atoms ?
There has long been debate in physics on whether the Graviton exists, but little debate on whether a Graviton might be a momentum-push particle, an energy quantum or a particle or energy quantum signal ?
But despite modern quantum physics development like string, loop and other quantal theories that seem supported mostly by 'particle physicists' and only some using field and particle-wave duality ideas, it can perhaps be said that nobody has yet successfully published a disproof of Einstein's physics theory ? In current physics, the first statement by C.A.Mead in his introduction to his 2000 'Collective Electrodynamics'
is that "the last 7 decades of the 20th centuary will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics" - and perhaps it has not ended yet. In the rest of his work Mead claims to prove that the universe consists only of electromagnetic waves and fields with no medium - his maths look good and others have backed such waves, but waves in nothing and fields of nothing as not nothing ? For other relevant views of physics theory now see our String Theory,
and our Black Hole, Dark Matter, Universe Expansion and other claimed Gravity phenomena sections.
Light
Gilbert claimed that the physical universe works 'like light', while Descartes' optics had light as a push in his material ether medium, and both Newton and Einstein produced works on light as particulate radiation (or 'corpuscular' or 'quantal') without committing fully to them - and both considered light as subject to gravity. Yet others produced theories on light as waves in a medium, and support has at times swung between different theories of light. Light certainly shows some complex radiation, transmission and absorption behaviours not all of which seem easily explained by one theory ? Hence it basically travels in straight lines while waves spread all around, and a denser medium makes normal pressure waves travel faster but makes light travel slower. Several formulations of wave-particle duality theory have not given anything agreeable, and some experiments claiming to follow light paths may involve light absorbtion and re-emission or combine responses to light with responses to some Gilbert signal emitted by light photons.
Einstein relativity theory has to assign to light only the unique absolute property of velocity invariance even relative to moving observers.
The normal almost-constant speed of light for stationary observers is reasonably understandable and may be simply the escape velocity from an attraction force as of the electron, as c = √ 2F/r , where F is force and r is electron radius. But if light emission is by a repulsive force as of the electron using acceleration force signals emitted at velocity c, then if the light emission reaches velocity c it would cease to receive the repulsive acceleration signals and would emit at the force signal velocity c. Both escape velocity and force signal velocity explanations of c raise the issue of exactly what forces they could relate to. But it is certainly not proved that stuff like water and glass are not largely vacuum. And if a 'non-vacuum' is simply a vacuum with a few bodies in it, then light slowed in a 'non-vacuum' is probably light slowed in a vacuum and so is probable evidence against a key part of Einstein's theory ?
But Einstein velocity invariance is an absolute property that is not a normal property of waves that wave a medium and is not a normal property of particles either. Yet Gilbert signal attraction physics has a simple natural relative property, signalness, that can apply to light and maybe some other things only when they are acting as signals in eliciting signal responses from another body. And signalness is a natural relative property, and looks much stronger than the unnatural absolute light velocity-invariance property needed by Einstein relativity. (If Einstein's observer was blind and had to rely only on sound signals then his relativity physics collapses.)
Light interacts with atomic particles and most is known about its interaction with electrons which look much like simple particle collision type interactions, though little is actually known about simple particle collisions if they exist at all. Logically perhaps light looks like a class of particles normally bound to electrons by some attraction force the escape velocity from which is c.
While light is said by some to be waves of a range of frequencies, it often acts like uncharged particles of a range of masses though perhaps not responding to gravity like normal matter. Neutrons were at first claimed to be light wave photons, but they act quite differently and collide with atom nucleons more than with atom electrons.
Two interesting types of light-electron interactions are those called the Photoelectric Effect and the Compton Effect :-
The Photoelectric Effect involves different atoms emitting electrons in response to incoming photons.
1. A quantal response threshold normally applies, no electrons being emitted if the energy/frequency of each photon received is too low. (so normally one 4ev photon gets a response but two 2ev electrons gets no response - however some lower-level of response is also produced in the latter case, seemingly whenever two lower energy photons are received almost simultaenously as Sipila et al 2007 )
2. If electrons are emitted, the energy of each emitted electron is normally proportional to the energy/frequency of each above-threshold photon received.
3. If electrons are emitted, the number emitted is normally proportional to the number of above-threshold photons received.
This 'Photoelectric Effect' is better called the Photoelectron Effect, as the electric charge seems to not be involved at all
The Compton Effect seems to involve light hitting electrons and losing energy/frequency and deflecting electrons in proportion to photon energy/frequency as though that was photon mass momentum. This is also affected by the energy state of the electron, and has a multi-photon effect as for the Photoelectric Effect.
Many take the Photoelectric and Compton Effects as proving that light is quantal, which may be true though generally responses being quantal does not require signals being quantal, but it certainly shows that atoms can respond to some subsidary properties of things.
Photoelectric Effect and Compton Effect responses show a directionality range similar to ball collision or to some spherical force repulsion. (and if a central attraction force has some emission Escape Velocity such as c, then a central repulsion force should have some equivalent absorbtion Entry Velocity such as c ? This might suggest emitted photons having some property differing from absorbed photons, but this does hold for emitted electrons and absorbed electrons.)
A signal theory of light that could explain both wave and particle properties might perhaps be a Particle Set theory of light, where light is emitted as a set of say 3 particles and 1 particle set is 1 photon. Some physical effects could then be to its set properties and some physical effects be to its particle properties. Set properties could include equivalents to wavelength but not have its relationship to velocity that simple waves have.
|
- a particle-set photon. - a wave. | |||
Indeed the logical particle theory interpretation of the photoelectric effect having a 'wavelength' requirement seems to be a particle-set interpretation. Light theory currently requiring duality is certainly unsatisfactory and suggests the need for new experiments, perhaps not just on light itself but on a range of particle beams and on a range of pressure waves in a variety of scenarios to clarify the actual properties of them. Pressure waves have perhaps been fairly thoroughly studied, but particle rays much less so - especially uncharged particle rays like neutrons that seem to react little with matter and so are almost unseens and hard to detect refraction, diffraction etc in. It may be that in similar circumstances both behave similarly or not to some extent, hence diffraction at material edges is a wave property but might also be a particle ray response to quantal signals from material edges. Astronomical 'evidence' of 'gravity bending light' or 'spacetime bending light' seem to not fully match laboratory experiment, and with our limited knowledge of the actual physics of extraterrestrial regions could be mere refraction or diffraction type events. Many key physics issues now seem not logic or maths issues, but experiment issue and all possible experiments have not yet been done. And interpretation of experimental results involving light acting as a signal certainly needs to consider signal theory interpretation.
PS. Isaac Newton demonstrated, and many experiments since have confirmed, that objects respond to gravity from other bodies as though gravity signals travel at a speed much greater than the speed of light. Hence moving-body gravity does not seem to show speed-of-light propagation abberation delays.
Objects give a gravity response to a moving body that is not directed to where the body was when light left that body but to a position ahead of that. The same seems to hold also for electric and magnetic forces.
One possible explanation of this fact may be that gravity, electric and magnetic signals actually propagate at a speed greater than the speed of light. But several other explanations have been suggested.
One possible explanation for this observed effect suggested by William Gilbert attraction theory could be that response to gravity, electric and magnetic signals involves a signal anticipation mechanism (akin to eg anticipator thermostats).
So a simple mechanism for this (tending to cancel at least some of the normal delay effect of a signal taking time to travel) could be response requiring a set of multiple signals and its directionality being to the last of the set ? - as below with response needing a set of three gravitons ;
Of course alternative anticipatory signal response mechanisms are conceivable, but anticipatory signal response mechanisms would involve specific testable predictions for astronomy and physics. Hence the above mechanism should show a decreasing effect at increased gravitation intensities. It would also of course involve the effect varying with the direction and angle of the motion trajectory.
A basic signal theory view of Newton 2-body gravitation might reasonably involve a background signal flux and 2 body fluxes something like below. And though a difference in background gravitation will have do direct force impact on the relative motion of 2 bodies, it could have an indirect impact if it changes the extent of gravity anticipation by the two bodies.
Some kind of signal response mechanism seems really needed in the perhaps dubious Shifting Gravity Theory proposed by Daniel Emilio at
Shifting Gravity. That basically needs particle gravity response to be basically a William Gilbert robot-response, but many signal-response mechanisms can have mechanical equivalents such as using valve, escapement and other mechanisms.
In most field and ether theories including Einstein's, forces are basically tied to their sources as the Sun's gravity and can only be modified by modifying the source (ie. the Sun). But in a Gilbert style signal theory when graviton signals are emitted by the Sun (like light) they are separated from it and may allow of signal modification as by gravity-shields or gravity-magnifiers - though none such have yet been discovered. And signal theory can offer other effects as signal thresholds, signal saturation, response maxima and reaction time are normal phenomena in any signal theory, but their equivalents in other forms of physics theory when present can often appear perhaps more arbitrary ?
Einstein, unlike Newton, Descartes and Gilbert, published none of his science in Latin - sticking largely to his native German. English translations to date seem largely to be on his relativity theories dealing with trickier phenomena. If we ever find a good explanation of his relativity theory for ordinary phenomena, as to how gravity works for planets and comets and how collision energy transfer between bodies works with his E=mc2 (how that works for emission and absorption of electromagnetic waves [or photons] seems obvious), then we will add it here.
As the closest I can find for now, you can read good English translations of Einsteins interesting 1920 lecture on Ether and the Theory of Relativity and his 1910 non-relativity lecture on Electricity and Magnetism here.
And you can read an English version of Einstein's 1916 Relativity, through the excellent Google Books -
Google Einstein - see more about using Google Books at the bottom of our History of Science section.
Or the best source of Einstein papers 'Einstein Archives'
Or you might want to buy books on Einstein or other physics in our
USA Einstein books or
UK Einstein books sections.
IF you like this site then
You can do a good search of this website, or of the web, below ;
Websites you may wish to visit ;
You might like to learn a bit about How to kiss, dating, love, marriage and more.
Or see an interesting website on
USA and UK poverty and bad housing.
For a website with an actually interesting forum, online puzzles and educational store - or if you or your children are into learning, poetry, stories or song
or if you suspect that your childrens school is not being really honest in saying your child is doing fine, visit :-
Learning, poetry, story forum - educational and games online store.
otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :- New Science Theory Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32 7AT.