----> 
----
----
----
----
English
----> Español ---- Deutsch ---- Français ---- Italiano ---- Português ... If translation leaves the
page bottom still English, copy and translate it HERE.
Albert Einstein - spacetime relativity theory
Homepage
. William Gilbert . Rene Descartes . Isaac Newton .........
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 propagated 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 and its apparent mathematics. Einstein's 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 physics theory maths was an advance over Newton's in correctly predicting more in astronomy and some other areas, and was mostly published as short papers in German science journals. But some of what are claimed to be its predictions, including time-travel, remain doubtful.
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. Little effort was put into
trying to develop Newtonian physics, and instead new physics theories were
developed - by returning to the early-Kepler method of trying to produce
physics theories from mathematics only.
Forcefield theory was already taking a view, more in line with Gilbert and
Newton, that force or energy could have forms other than just 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 non-accelerating
'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 Michelson-Morley experiment and that light
was not an ether wave, and that any observer frame of reference in
which Newton's law of inertia holds for that observer (for some period of time)
is an 'inertial frame of reference'. And all observer frames of reference (and
only such frames) at rest or moving with constant velocity with respect to a
given inertial frame of reference are also inertial frames of reference. An observer could determine that it shared some inertial frame of reference with things that it saw as following Newton's law of inertia.
Thus far is simple Newton, but Einstein concluded that for velocity it requires that, if an observer moving at some unknown absolute
velocity v fires a projectile at a known relative velocity u1,
and if some observer absolutely at rest sees the projectile relative velocity as
some unknown velocity u then ;
u1 = (u-v)/1-(uv/c²)
The unknowns involved prevent this equation from ever actually
being directly proved, but this is claimed to have been indirectly proved.
The nearest experimental equivalent will normally involve two observers
having unknown absolute velocities but a known relative velocity to
eachother and known relative projectile velocities.
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 ? Physical detectors/observers could
be even themselves be automatically adjusting reported signal
velocities for relative 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 ? Fitzgerald saw the likely explanation as being motion length
contraction as actually real, but some as being just apparent due to
using light for length measurement. 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 Einstein's 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 non-consistent theory of
light both being particle and being wave (or more accurately
perhaps Particle and medium-less Energy-Packets for which wave maths
held, with at least the latter not clearly defined). 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 or continuum.
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' matter-ether all-dead-matter push-physics with only humans
doing any signal-response 'thinking' or 'observing'. But with no push mechanism
for his spacetime continuum, Einstein's physics maybe favoured a type of
'field' physics that leaned more to some undefined 'information-field' or
'signal-field' than to any kind of 'push-field'. Yet not all who support his
physics seem to support that position.
Einstein's famous equation E=mc² defined his postulated
inter-convertibility of 'mass' and 'energy' 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 generally seen as involving
Descartes 'dead-mass' and somehow also a 'dead-energy' as a form of that,
though it perhaps better suits a Gilbert-Newton 'energetic-matter' as
allowing energy both being located in bodies and outside but activating bodies
more than just being the motion of bodies as Descartes held. For Einstein's physics,
actual E=mc² conversions between mass and energy perhaps really held
only for photon emitting and absorbing, though the equation E=mc² might
be claimed to also fit Descartes kinetic energy - or at least maybe a 'potential energy'
for a body if it is accelerated or decelerated. (and for eg graviton emitting and
absorbing, the equation might perhaps be E=mg² if gravitons have a
differing base emission velocity g ?) Descartes kinetic energy basically did remain
but now as one form of energy only, and with normal changes in it being claimed
to give bodies changes in 'potential mass' or 'relativistic mass'.
Most physicists from Gilbert and Galileo onwards had taken the measure of the amount
of matter or 'mass' of any object as being its resistance to motion change or its 'inertia',
though often this matter property was not precisely defined.This was generally considered
independent of an object's velocity or temperature and might today be termed 'rest mass'.
Einstein concluded that matter motion energy (and maybe other energy) was a property
of matter that is separate from but convertible into the 'rest mass' property of matter, so
any object should also have a 'relativistic mass' that increases with the object's velocity
or temperature. There then may be issues about whether the different effects that
objects can show (which eg might or might not include gravity production and/or inertia)
are due to their 'rest mass' or their 'relativistic mass'. And some physicists seem to take it
as two kinds of matter being convertible into each other, each with some largely
unspecified sets of properties.
Maybe energy generally is not gravitationally equivalent to mass, ie a faster
billiard ball does not gravitationally attract more than a slower billiard ball and a
hot billiard ball does not gravitationally attract more than a cold billiard ball ?
Energy in the form of photons may be a special case and be gravitationally
equivalent to mass, ie photons may gravitationally attract and be gravitationally
attracted ? But if that is the case, then should we expect that a beam of white
light passing close by a massive body would be split into its rainbow colours as
Newton showed happens with a prism ? Or might variation in photon energy
involve a non-gravitational component akin to matter motion energy ? Or photons
might perhaps just be smaller faster neutrinos, unique less in their speed than
simply in them being one of the basic building-blocks of which other
'elementary particles' are composed ?
Taking observers and light, or more broadly '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. And his theory has perhaps produced some confusion of the properties
of matter and the properties of energy, especially for matter-related energy like
gravity. Einstein perhaps began the modern physics ascribing of properties to
things without proof of such properties being consistent with other properties
they had been proved to have. And often failing to precisely define what 'mass'
and 'energy' exactly are in their theories.
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 Newtonian blackbox science. But science rests on multiple
observation and not just on individual observations. Einstein supported
full-prediction laws of nature science and held that a valid theory's
necessary 'unseens' like his spacetime continuum would actually be
observable if only indirectly. But force fields 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 always also
dropping all fields or continua.
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. He postulated
that masses somehow locally curve his spacetime continuum and that the
continuum curves somehow accelerate bodies in it. This
addition of gravity to his spacetime continuum 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 other forces. Of course if, as Einstein's theory required,
Gravitational Attraction is equivalent to Acceleration, then how is that
consistent with Electrical attraction or repulsion not also being equivalent
to Acceleration ? The strengths of such natural forces as elecric charge
and magnetism seem to have no relation to the mass of the objects
producing them, while the strengths of such natural forces as both
gravity and collision do seem to exactly reflect the mass of the objects
producing them. Not all physics theories seem able to account for,
or reconcile, these facts easily - if at all. There is also some evidence
that gravity has some relation to other forces that hold atoms together,
with increasing gravity maybe reducing 'spontaneous' radioactivity. To some
physicists Einstein's limited 'Gravity Equivalence Principle' like 'Time Dilation'
seems unnecessary extra assumption.
See eg
The Equivalence Principle
from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.3885.pdf
However Einstein could now claim some consistency with Newton
on gravity maths at least, though not with Newton blackbox or all-forces
physics, and Newton would no doubt have strongly opposed Einstein's
theory as requiring 'unscientific hypotheses about unseens'. Einstein's
maths does seem to better fit the well known precession of the planet Mercury,
but that remains a 1-off coincidence until it is compared with Newton's
maths for many bodies - as for the good number of moons of Jupiter that
have orbit gravities stronger than Mercury ? Planets maybe look better than
Suns at holding bodies in closer orbits, perhaps due to Suns emitting ignored
push-force radiations that most affect closer bodies ? 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 from General Relativity. 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 did not consider quantum physics a better physics theory option.
Of course there is motion in the universe so gravity is something variable, and
to Einstein that makes spacetime variable and measurement variable - giving
a much trickier science than assuming space and time to be fixed.
His theory did have some absolute rigid requirements chiefly of his
continuum and of the particular velocity termed the speed of light.
And 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
Harmonies and Geometries theories of the early 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.
To read of Einstein's limited understanding of Newton's physics, and
of his concern on quantal experiments disproving his own continuum
field physics, read Einstein
on Newton and Quanta.
(in this Einstein was also perhaps at the very least very tasteless
in unnecessarily bringing up yet again some of the early unsubstantiated
mud-slinging of Newton as being a claimed maths thief and liar)
Einstein's general relativity physics involved as necessary the acceptance
of contradiction in physics theory, though many physicists somehow came to
support it only as a non-contradiction theory. He took the acceptance of
wave-particle duality in light physics as the general acceptance of contradiction
in a physics theory. And not just allowing of contrary interpretations and contrary
mathematics, which Newton had allowed as a blackbox philosophical option, but
allowing of contradiction in actual experiments and in actual nature. Einstein said that nobody
fully understood his theory, seemingly meaning that everybody misunderstood
it. But, understood or misunderstood, key physicists proceeded to misrepresent
Einstein's physics as had happened with previous physics - and that continues.
In relation to gravity, the behaviour of Einstein's spacetime continuum
is commonly taken as not far from the behaviour of a Descartes' push ether
and so involving some of its problems that were well addressed by Newton.
However Einstein required that his continuum could not actually push objects
but somehow 'helped direct their motions' (maybe better with a signals-giving-responses
mechanism ?) It is not possible to directly detect his claime 'spacetime continuum' or its
claimed curvatures. It is another physics 'unseen' like the ethers of Descartes push physics and
the signal effluvia or spirits of Gilbert-Newton attraction physics, so that claimed 'indirect
evidence' for one of them can perhaps equally be taken as being indirect evidence for any
of them. And if bodies do somehow tend to move along lines of equal gravity or equal
space curvature (and not in a straight line), then should gravity and space curvature
around the Sun be spherical and cause planet orbits to be circular and not
elliptical as they actually are ? But really Einstein's gravity mechanism was poorly
specified and so was, and remains, misunderstood or misrepresented by most physicists.
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' light theory that he supported (which is maybe
better termed Energy-Packet/Particle Duality as it generally
involves no medium that can wave). But this involves a silly
interpretation of Newton's actual optics, which were fully based on
Newton's blackbox theory which did not allow contradiction within a theory and
only allowed of multiple theory
explanations as philosophically possible though unprovable IF they were
consistent with the same maths - and Duality theory involves
multiple parts of one physics theory 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, though trying to retain some
Cartesian fundamentals like its definition of 'mass' or 'matter'. And the
Descartes view of matter as dead stuff whose chief property is
fixed space occupancy requiring contact pushing, fits uneasily with
Einstein's space variability. General Relativity opposes and maybe disproves
some of the essentials of Cartesian physics but not really the essentials of
Gilbert-Newton physics. 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 compatibilities.
Though signal observer relativity was no doubt rightly central to
Einstein's physics, his was a physics which itself had only matter,
energy and continua and no observers or signals within it so that his
observers and signals are weakly defined. Most attempts to incorporate
observation and measurement into physics are maybe too narrowly
human-oriented or 'anthropomorphic'. In line with both Relational Quantum
Mechanics and Gilbert-Newton Attraction Physics, it can reasonably be
posited that no physical event can happen without some information or
signal being observed and responded to. Then the key requirements of
the physical universe would seem to be not particles and/or waves or humans;
but information emitters, information responders and response time ? Gilbert
response physics and its Newton derived attraction physics did include observers
and signals within the physics and Einstein might better have worked
from that to have observers and signals better defined. Relativity
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. Observers and
signals are really bodies outside Einstein's actual physics and not
essential bodies in it, unlike Gilbert signal theory or attraction
theory as used by Newton though not fully publicly committed to by
him. Einstein physics is really less a relativity physics than
Gilberts. And almost all that we now know about the universe has
come from electromagnetic or other 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.
Classical experimental physics theory certainly had holes so that
Einstein could push his fictional-experiment 'relativity' physics theory.
And some now think that real physics started with Einstein, though
there is a maybe stronger argument that Einstein ended real physics
theory and started a science-fiction physics theory based on his
'thought-experiment' or 'fictional-experiment' method. Of course there is some small chance that any
science based only on thought or fiction may be right, but generally science
based on experiments has a bigger chance of being right.
'Thought-experiments' can easily give results that conflict with the
results of real experiments. Einstein physics was challenged chiefly by
quantum mechanics and its standard model(s), which has involved
substantial real experiment on particles but has maybe struggled on its theory side.
To some at least, support for Einstein's relativity theory is
support for its mathematics only - in line with Newton's blackbox
theory position that science is only about predictive mathematical
description of natural phenomena, and that explanations are
unnecessary philosophy. From that position, Einstein's mathematics
might allow of several different explanations of the physical
universe - different image theories. Perhaps, in adopting duality physics
and contradiction in physics, Einstein thought that he was merely
expanding on Newton's black-box compatible alternative-theories
physics. But there was a rigorous logic to Newton blackbox physics, and
none to duality physics or contradiction physics. Einstein really rejected
real science for a sci-fi magic version, and has been followed in that by too
many who should know better.
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 than with Descartes simple billiard-ball atoms.
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 spontaneous 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, though no actual contacts have ever been observed.
And this is perhaps more 'abnormal' atom behaviour - and far from
clarifying gravity and electromagnetic forces, atomic physics has
been had to assume that two new additional very different unproven
atomic forces also exist.
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
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 been much debate in
physics recently on whether the Graviton exists, though no debate
on whether a Graviton might be a momentum-push particle, an energy
quantum or perhaps a particle or energy quantum signal ?
And our 'elementary particles' like electrons may yet be found to
themselves be complex systems. The mathematics of elementary
particles and of photons allows of a humble 5+ MeV electron
possibly being a complex composite system of eg 5,000,000+ 1 eV
photons and/or other components ?
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 only to light 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.
(that would require light to be a mass and be attracted by gravity or another force) Or
if light emission is by a repulsive force as of the electron using repulsion
acceleration force signals emitted at velocity c, then if the light
emission reaches velocity c it would then cease to receive the repulsive
acceleration signals and would so emit at the repulsion force signal velocity c.
Both attraction escape velocity and repulsion 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 ? And 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 relied only on sound signals
then his relativity physics would collapse.)
Einstein's theory seems to be supported by the fact that particle
accelerators to date generally cease to accelerate particles that
have reached speeds close to the speed of light. But this is
confined to only electromagnetic acceleration of charged particles,
which could be explained in a signal response physics by a response
time. Einstein non-response theory always assumes a zero response
time which looks maybe unlikely ? Signal saturation and other
established signal theory effects could also possibly be involved.
Numbers of astronomical observations and of physics lab experiments seem to have shown some massive particles moving at velocities very close to or even exceeding the speed of light. This evidence generally concerns neutrinos and appears to be some real evidence against Einstein's physics.
Of course Newton insisted that no fixed velocity, even the velocity
of light, can really be distinguished from rest - and so like
Gilbert based his science on acceleration rather than on velocity
with F=ma rather than F=mv² suggesting Einstein's E=mc²
may be shakier ground. Einstein's claim for c as a velocity limit for all
motion also seems confined to rectilinear motion and maybe does not
cover spin motion ?
His amazing c is linked to his view of time, as being
merely a property of his gravity-curved space ether or continuum and
as not being independant of space and gravity as most previous
physics held. If experiments indicate that two events seem always
linked and seem always to happen 'at the same time', then it seems
that one of the events is the cause of the other but also that such
experiments cannot prove which event is the causal event. If
anything indicates that one of the events is causal, then that event
must be taken to precede its effect by some 'response time' even if
too small to detect. And if causal events need not involve motion,
then this 'time' need not basically relate to motion or to space as
commonly assumed but rather to causation generally. If the pieces
of a magnet 'hold themselves together' by some forces involving the
working of some causes and effects, then that seems not to involve
any changes of motion or of occupancy of space, yet causes may be
deduced to be working and to be preceding effects so that 'time' may
be deduced here with NO observed changes being involved. Of course
such deduction may need to be backed by other evidence of such forces
from motion experiments, but that need not confine 'time' to only motion ?
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 much lower-level of
response is also produced in the latter case, seemingly whenever
two lower energy photons are received simultaneously 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 much bigger multi-photon response than
does 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 as Einstein concluded require signals being
quantal, though it certainly shows that atoms can respond to some
subsidiary 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.) It has been shown
that atoms can gain momentum by absorbing a photon of one energy
and re-emitting a photon of some different energy, the energies being
quantised, see -
Physics World
A quantal signal theory of light that could alone explain both wave
and particle responses 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.
But a wave theory of light could perhaps also alone explain both
wave and quantal responses using all-or-none response mechanisms as
a mechanical clock can convert continuous spring pressure to
digital rachet motion. 'Duality' theory, as in taking light or
matter as both being a wave and being not a wave, of course
involves blatant logical contradiction and as such should not be
unconditionally acceptable in science. Even if nature actually
behaves in apparently contradictory ways, good science seems to
require that there must be some non-contradictory explanation
behind it. So at most it may be reasonable science to say that
light seems to show both wave and non-wave behaviours and the
explanation for it is not known and not to support contradictory
'duality theory'. Or for multiple theories to be logically
acceptable they must fit the conditions set by General Image Theory
science.
 |
- 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.
If waves are motions of matter that repeat regularly and can be
described with wave mathematics, then maybe all events that repeat
regularly can be described with 'wave mathematics'. And maybe any
regular quantal signal or any regular quantal observation could be
described with wave mathematics.? Or if matter existence involves
regular repeat events then maybe matter can be described with
wave mathematics without matter being waves ? So proof that a
non-wave something can be described with wave mathematics is
maybe no proof that the something is a wave, and even less is it
proof that the non-wave something is both a wave and a non-wave.
(Or if time is itself something and is quantal such that it repeats regularly,
then maybe time can be described with wave mathematics. And then matter in
time can be described with wave mathematics, without time or matter
being waves ? Proof that a non-wave something can be described
with wave mathematics is no proof that the something is a wave, and even
less is it proof that the non-wave something is both a wave and a non-wave.)
In some circumstances a laser spot on a wall can be observed to
move along the wall faster than the speed of light. While here nothing
actual is moving faster than light, this is an observable illusion of
something appearing to move faster than the speed of light. But
strangely astronomy and particle physics seem to never report
observing this type of illusion, and that maybe raises an issue as to
the reliability of some astronomy and some particle physics ?
And 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. Also, pulsating quasars show redshifts in line with the redshifts
of other astronomical bodies, but their pulse timings do not seem to be
related to their redshifts as relativity theory should imply - see
New Scientist
Attempts to 'explain' this quasar problem have been weak and include positing invisible astronomical bodies.
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, as in our Light as a
signal section.
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 ;
The above anticipation mechanism could work both at a macroscopic
averaged level and at the microscopic quantal level. And there could also be response differences to approaching/receding signal source motions besides response to static-source signals. 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. Of course generally emissions including perhaps light and
gravity signals should be emitted in some direction with some velocity
in that direction, but with additionally also a velocity component that
reflects any velocity present in the emitter. Testing for such will present
problems, especially if one velocity is usually much smaller than the other.
There are related consequences for the emitter on an 'action and reaction
are equal and opposite' basis, and other consequences if an emission
does not involve such 'velocity-carrying'. And motion velocity or acceleration
of bodies may confer properties on them that motion direction does not,
though measurement is generally direction specific and direction dependent.
The 3-signals signal anticipation mechanism given above could perhaps also
explain both averaged macroscopic-body orbits and quantised microscopic-body
orbits. At macroscopic distances emitted signals will tend to being larger
numbers of signals averaged, but at microscopic distances emitted signals will
tend to be infrequent individual signals. If receiver response to a signal-emitting
object orbiting around it requires the receiver sending a directional response signal,
that signal will be received by the orbiting emitter (and not miss the orbiting emitter)
only if it is orbiting at some specific appropriate velocity so that possible orbits
would be confined to some specific quantal values and so give a new quantal atomic orbits explanation.
(The above illustrates only the one point made, and not any actual scenario,
and the shape of quantal orbits might actually have to be polygonal.)
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 ?
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 century will be characterised 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.
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 Einstein's 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.
Or to read another physicist view of Einstein's relativity see
Many-Minds Relativity.
IF you like this site then
or tell your friends on Google that you like this website - OR maybe make a small donation ; (it will help with site development, and just possibly with some experiments long planned but never afforded.)
You can do a good search of this website, or of the web, below ;
Or 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
children's 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.
Hosted by :-
