Dr. Omar A. H. Shabsigh
This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be restudied, then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.
Real Science - First Article
By the advent of the space age in the 20th century, scientists started thinking about the existence of extraterrestrial life and travel into space. Billions of dollars were spent on such programs and are still going on.
When NASA spends all that money and time on such projects as Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), it means that they are expecting to detect coherent signals from other possible civilizations in outer space, and by that I mean beyond the solar system.
Another NASA project is its program for discovering habitable planets that are similar to earth outside the solar system (exo-planets). This of course is an indication that somebody is thinking of going there. Humans must not be bound to earth only.
Cosmos is there to be discovered and exploited, not just to look at beautiful galaxies from earth. Deep space exploration cannot be achieved by the use of today’s technology of space travel.
Two factors hinder real cosmic travel, namely:
· The impossibility of communicating at speeds beyond the speed of light using electromagnetic waves.
· The wrong belief of a limit of light speed on mass movement.
a) References: This paper discusses many viewpoints about Special Relativity (SR). We start discussing some pertinent to us references as follows:
b) The problem of the speed of light:
Another question might come to mind. Why did Einstein choose the speed of light as the reference speed in all Lorentz transformation equations? In his words: ‘an outside observer perceives the light of the moving body”. And we must not forget the true meaning of “the outside independent observer of the moving object”. That term means exactly what it says: it is about an independent observer outside the moving object frame of reference. No more, no less.
Light is there. It could be seen by the human eye, and it could be measured.
Einstein writes about what would happen when v = c, in spite of the fact that his theory is built on the assumption that v <<< c; look at what he says: “Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again traveling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less.” But he does not elaborate for the case when v = c, and just says that it is impossible.
However, all these restrictions should have led to thinking of BSOL movement.
In this article, the possibility of BSOL within Einstein’s theory will be shown to be valid. And on the other hand, if SR is not valid, then there will be no question of restrictions on BSOL.
The discussion in this manuscript is about real travel of a real mass when v > c . A hypothetical particle like the tachyon is not relevant here. It is supposed to be a sub-atomic, hypothetical particle and we here treat bodies with real mass.
c) Scrutiny of SR.
Here the Special Relativity Theory (SR) is scrutinized. We try to understand it much better and put the basis for some changes in results. We adopt the rule of Special Relativity being fully based only on an outside independent observer looking at a moving object, and we shall come up with the result that all effects of SR are apparent and not permanent nor real.
Before going into the subject matter, I would like to emphasize some of the progressive ideas of Einstein, to which most of our physicists today do not adhere, taking only what they understand of special relativity in their own minds . Most of these ideas are part of Einstein’s philosophy of science. Unfortunately, he was iterating such ideas but he was not applying them himself to what he called relativity theory. The way of thinking of nowadays followers of Einstein does not match with what Einstein understood about science in general. Most physicists stick obstinately to what they understood and are not open-minded to accept other views.
Here are some excerpts from “Einstein’s Philosophy of Science” published by Stanford University.
a) Not well known, though of comparable importance, are Einstein’s contributions to twentieth-century philosophy of science. Of special note is the manner in which Einstein's philosophical thinking was driven by and which contributed to the solution of problems first encountered in his work in physics [11]. He wants the physicist to be provided with an “independence of judgment” through a philosophical habit of mind. How? He explains: “Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “apriori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.” (Einstein 1916, 102). Einstein’s phrase “achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens.” , is a very clear direction given to other physicists (and scientists) not to become prisoners of their science “apriori givens” and to stay open-minded.
b) That Einstein meant what he said about the relevance of philosophy to physics is evidenced by the fact that he had been saying more or less the same thing for decades. Thus, in a 1916 memorial note for Ernst Mach, a physicist and philosopher to whom Einstein owed a special debt, he wrote: “How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this.” (Einstein 1916, 101). Here again Einstein stresses that independence of judgment should prevail.
c) The place of philosophy in physics was a theme to which Einstein returned time and again, it being clearly an issue of deep importance to him. Sometimes he adopts a modest pose, as in this oft-quoted remark from his 1933 Spencer Lecture: “If you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don't listen to his words, examine his achievements. For to the discoverer in that field, the constructions of his imagination appear so necessary and so natural that he is apt to treat them not as the creations of his thoughts but as given realities.” (Einstein 1933, 5–6). Einstein here wants to show how important thought is.
d) More typical, however, is the confident pose he struck three years later in “Physics and Reality”: “It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.” (Einstein 1936, 349)
The physicist according to Einstein should “try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.”
e) Late in 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American philosopher of science who had just finished his Ph.D. under Herbert Feigl at Minnesota and was beginning a new job teaching physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce “as much of the philosophy of science as possible” into the modern physics course that he was to teach the following spring, (Thornton to Einstein, 28 November 1944, EA 61–573).[1] Here is what Einstein offered in reply: “I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574). Einstein here complains about the way scientists (and he means physicists) have become dogmatic and prejudiced with their own beliefs not wanting to see alternatives. He forgets himself and his advocates of relativity theory.
All the above shows what the concerns of Einstein regarding the future of science were. Unfortunately, the majority of physicists, including himself, dealing with relativity are suffering from all the illnesses that were described above. They have actually forbidden deep space travel and made humanity earth-bound or bound to the solar system. What I shall do in the following is to liberate human-kind from earth into deep space.
Real Science - First Article
a) Einstein in his thought experiment about time dilation, started with the assumption of a velocity v immediately upon departure. He came up with the formula for time dilation at that speed. He did not start the journey at v = 0 and did not say what is happening while climbing to full speed. Nor did he end the journey by slowing down until the relative velocity v = 0. Actually time dilation starts as v increases with respect to the fixed independent outside observer. Time dilation increases with the increase of relative speed. On the other hand when v starts decreasing, the moving clock starts speeding up with respect to the outside observer until the two clocks synchronize with each other at v = 0 and time dilation vanishes.
Therefore, not taking the starting and finishing periods into consideration led to wrong conclusions in both the twin paradox theoretical problem and in the results of the Hafele-Keeting experiment. The declaration made in the case of the twin paradox that the returning space traveler was younger than his earth-bound brother is wrong. This declaration has two missing facts:
In the Hafele-Keeting experiment results, a big oversight happens. Similar to the mistake committed in the twin paradox, no analysis was carried on about the beginning and the end of the journeys of the two crafts. At the beginning of their journeys, the clocks in the two airplanes were synchronized. Figure (1) shows a sketch of the routes followed.
Irrespective of the periods of acceleration and deceleration, we shall look at the routes followed. Assuming that the speed of both aircraft with respect to earth is v, at the start at point (A), the relative velocity of any of the two aircraft with respect to the other is 2v . And according to SR there is some time dilation.
As the two aircraft go around the globe, their relative velocity decreases until when they reach points (B) and (C), their relative velocity becomes zero and time dilation disappears.
Continuing their journeys around the globe, the relative velocity starts to increase and maximum time dilation appears at point (D).
At the end of the journey, as the crafts decelerate and land down, the two clocks will synchronize.
Time dilation appears only when there is a relative movement and disappears when that stops. Therefore, all the deductions made based on this experiment are false. Any discrepancies noticed in the synchronization of the two clocks should be attributed to something quite different than time dilation.
If we analyze all the experiments done to prove time dilation, we shall come to the same result:
TIME DILATION AND LENGTH SHORTENING ARE THEORETICAL APPARENT PHENOMENA ONLY TO AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER, RELATIVELY MOVING WITH RESPECT TO US, THEY ARE APPARENT TO HIM ONLY, THEY ARE NOT REAL.
b) Almost all physicists studied special relativity, without paying attention to every word Einstein wrote and how he formulated every sentence and chose every word to mean something specific. As an example let us take the following sentence from his section VII of his 1905 thesis: “In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school.” Einstein takes this as an assumption in his own words and builds on this assumption his theory.
As we see, the special relativity was based on an assumption and a supposition about which Einstein later in the section says:”For, like every other general law of nature, the law of transmission in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.” transforming an assumption into a law.
At the end of page 20, Einstein tries to prove his theory by saying that: “no empirical data had been found which are contradictory to this principle.”
Yes, this missing empirical data could be a way of proof, but does not cancel the probability of proving the inverse when such data becomes available.
At the end of that section, Einstein says:”it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at.”
Here Einstein jumps to a wrong conclusion by turning his assumptions of relativity to a law and his assumption of the propagation of light to a law. That is not logically nor scientifically true.
All of this is a logical theory, meaning: mental exercise: if I do one thing, something will result but the first supposition could be wrong, leading to a wrong result. This is logical induction and could be wrong.
In order to be sure that I am not doing any mistakes, I read the original German text of Einstein and found that the English translation was correct.
This is what led me to say that we should pay more attention to every word or phrase used by Einstein. German language is an analytical language which Einstein used to express his very important ideas on the subject, a wording to which enough attention was not paid!
Special Relativity seems to be theoretically true for the outside observer, taking the limitations put up by Einstein into consideration especially v <<< c. This includes all its parameters such as time dilation and length shortening with velocity, relative to the outside observer.
The limit on speed of a moving body, put by Einstein as the speed of light as seen by an outside observer, and called the cosmic speed, was deduced by a mistaken interpretation of the basic equations of the special relativity (SR) and did lead to a halt in more serious studies of beyond-speed-of-light (BSOL) transport which is necessary if mankind has to explore the universe in person.
Let us see what Einstein himself says in [1] in his own words: “ From this we conclude that in the theory of relativity the velocity c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can never be reached nor exceeded by any real body. Of course this feature of the velocity c also clearly follows from the equations of the Lorentz transformation, for these become meaningless if we choose values of v greater than c.”
Here the word “meaningless” is actually not adequate as shown below. Thus Einstein contradicts his own basic assumption of v <<<c.
The deduction that “c can never be reached nor exceeded by any real body” is not explained except in a non-direct way when Einstein talks about “the kinetic energy of a material point of mass m being equal to:
this expression approaches infinity as the velocity v approaches the velocity of light c. The velocity must therefore always remain less than c.”
Again Einstein contradicts his own assumption of v <<< c, when talking about v approaching c.
Here again the deduction is not correct. He is talking exactly about apparent (relativistic kinetic) mass seen by the outside observer, which has nothing to do with the (rest) mass seen by the traveler inside the moving vehicle.
All these conclusions of Einstein and his followers are physically wrong even according to the principle of Special Relativity (SR).
In the first instance, Einstein took the velocity of light c as a reference speed to relate all speeds to it. Consequently all Special Relativity phenomena had to relate to it. The constancy of the speed of light irrespective of the speed of the source was an also assumption by Einstein. It was never proven. This assumption resulted from the then prevalent idea that, human speeds will always be much less the speed of light. Einstein stressed that v <<< c always. But why take c as a reference? Simple Einstein was using the human eye to watch events and the eye only detects light. Now let us suggest that, Einstein could have taken any arbitrary speed S >>> c as a reference. Then he would have said: “that in the theory of relativity the velocity S plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can never be reached nor exceeded by any real body.” But again as will be shown, no matter what the reference speed is, nothing forbids us from traveling above that. The expressions for time elongation, shortening of length and increase in mass are for what an outside observer sees looking at a moving body. These phenomena are apparent only to the outside observer. As for the person riding in the moving vehicle, none of the quantities of time, length nor mass will change. Irrespective of the contradiction with his assumptions, Special Relativity (SR) considered, that as the quantity:
goes imaginary mathematically, when v > c, then that is an indication that it is physically impossible and the velocity c hence shall play the role of a limiting universal velocity. While in actual fact the imaginary number can be physically explained as going into another aspect or realm of matter; invisibility by the earth-bound outside observer, time warping (TW), where the laws of special relativity (SR) are applicable in a speed vector normal (orthogonal) to the below- speed-of-light (BSOL) speed vector.
Special relativity dictates that as an object moves faster, its relativistic (kinetic) mass increases, but faster here, is measured relative to an observer who is also measuring the mass. If the person measuring the mass is moving alongside the object, this observer will not observe any change of mass. Therefore, the increase of mass is an only apparent increase to the observer from outside, not a real increase.
From the equation of time elongation:
It is clear that as v approaches c, then ( t’1 ) tends to infinity. At v = c , for the outside observer the clock inside the vehicle will seem to have stopped, while it is still working normally inside the vehicle. The length of the vehicle will seem to be zero for the outside observer, which makes the vehicle invisible relative to the outside observer. At the same moment the relativistic mass and its energy will seem to be infinite relative to the outside observer.
When v > c, t’1 becomes an imaginary number to the outside observer. Physically that does not mean that v cannot exceed the value of c, but that the outside observer cannot measure t’1 anymore. Imaginary numbers and complex numbers are extensively used not to show impossibility, but to indicate a different physical aspect. Applying this to our case it can be readily seen that crossing the speed of light barrier can be possible and cannot be denied just because the outside observer does not see the object traveling at v > c.
The same logic can be applied to the law of shortening the length:
Here, at v = c , the vehicle length will seem to be zero to the outside observer which makes the vehicle invisible to the outside observer, but inside the vehicle all is as usual. At v > c, L will seem to be imaginary to the outside observer and he cannot see the vehicle.
Again the same logic can be applied to the change of relativistic (kinetic) mass with respect to the outside observer for v = c and v > c.
Of course as we indicated all this is theoretical and vanishes when the relative speed tends to zero.
From the above discussion we can very easily start a new way of thinking, which comes as a natural result.
Special relativity is based on what Einstein himself calls a “theory”.
A theory by definition is “an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events.” Or “an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.” And that is what Einstein meant in his own words. If we want to be generous with Einstein, then we can say that SR was not known or proven to be true
Consequently SR was a set of ideas i.e. mental mathematical exercise based on several assumptions made by Einstein namely: the constancy of the speed of light with respect to any observer irrespective of the velocity of the carrier of the light source. He called this assumption a postulate which by definition is: “a thing suggested or assumed to be true as the basis of reasoning, discussion or belief.” Which I understand as a tool for further thinking and discussion. The second assumption of Einstein for writing his theory was that v <<<< c. That means that he never intended it for speeds near or above the speed of light.
That result gives the option of superluminal speeds some credibility.
The result of SR about time dilation has never been proven experimentally and can never be proven. As mentioned above the Hafele-Keating results were wrongly interpreted. The same applies to all other experiments.
As for the GPS being a proof of SR, the people who built the GPS did not do that based on SR. It was a pure engineering project for measuring the time difference between two signals following two different trajectories and has nothing to do with SR. The big delusion of the TWIN PARADOX indicates an unnatural way of thinking where everybody forgot to say that the space ship returning to earth stopped and there was no time dilation at that moment.
Time dilation with respect to the outside observer can theoretically exist only when there is a relative movement. This has never been experimentally proven. The same result applies to length contraction and to the increase of inertial mass.
Am I saying that SR is wrong? No, what I have proven here is that SR is not a scientific theory. Nevertheless and unfortunately it affected and is still affecting scientific thinking in many branches of science and engineering, negatively because it was not taken for what it is: A SCEINCE FICTION, and a good one at that. An example is what was written by Sten Odenwald who suggested that we are bound in our space exploration to the solar system.
Richard Feynman has a correct statement: “The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”.” Einstein arrived at his theory of special relativity by guessing that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames. Actually it was not a guess but an assumption. He did not prove it mathematically or experimentally. It would be impossible.
One must also note that Einstein’s manuscript of relativity does not contain any references.
As a final result of this study, we can easily write the following: Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity cannot contend to any influence on pushing science and technology forward or on a better understanding of nature. It is based on thought experiments which are extensively used in science fiction. In that sense Einstein is no better than H. G. Wells or Isaac Asimov.
This result is true and final and cannot be proven otherwise.
Fans of SR unfortunately, slowed down the progress of science by declaring the sanctity of Einstein’s good science fiction. They refuse to allow serious research into the subject. They are able to do all that harm by taking control over universities, research centers and scientific publications such as the Royal Society.
By their actions, they declare that SR is sacrosanct and discussing it is the biggest scientific sin and is a taboo. THIS IS THE BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL COMMITTED EVER.
Sorry state of affairs in science for over 100 years.
In science nothing must be distanced from scientific scrutiny and criticism. Had there been such a censorship at Newton’s time, the Royal Society would not have published for him.
The most important result is that Beyond the Speed of Light (BSOL) movement is possible when the needed thrusters are found.
Studying SR was easy because of the mathematics that Einstein used even if his deductions were false. The general theory of relativity (GTR) was a totally different problem as we show in the following.
I started with Einstein’s text published 1920 [1].
I used the same methodology as I did with SR before, that is to follow the logic of Einstein’s text and to try to decipher it through the mathematics he used, i.e. the tools employed by him to prove what he wanted.
Reading the GR, I was struck with an only text thesis. No mathematics.
Einstein, in his writing uses a sarcastic humorous style, which has nothing to do with science. An example is what he writes on page 19 where he says: “Every child at school knows or believed he knows that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity equal to 300,000 km/s.” He uses the same style in GR.
The following are examples of Einstein’s un-explained, un-proven statements:
Finally, GR wants us to understand that the diffraction of light when passing at the edge of the sun is a proof that light is bent due to the attraction of the gravity of the sun. Diffraction of light and electromagnetic waves in general is well known since before the GR and is not due to gravity. It is called edge propagation. The same applies to Fresnel zones.
Having gone through both SR and GR in [1] and not finding any mathematical tools for the GR as was done by Einstein for the SR, I had to find some mathematical foundations for the GR that Einstein himself used.
After a long search, nothing satisfactory came out. I discovered a web site where supposedly physicists exchange ideas. I wrote to them the following message: “I need a person who can show me where to find the Relativity Theorem of Einstein not as a descriptive text as he wrote it for us but as a full-fledged scientific text with all the pertinent mathematics. PLEASE. I have been looking for that on the web for sometime to no avail.” A few minutes later, I was in shock. The first answer was: “Good question. I believe you will never find one for the simple reason that it does not exists.” !!!
Other messages followed telling me about the suffering of Einstein and advising me to read documents not written by Einstein but his disciples such as: “Einstein's road to General Relativity was a long and tortuous one, ……. The starting point would have to be the book Subtle is the Lord, by Abraham Pais ……….. Next, I would recommend The Genesis of General Relativity ………..” and “If you have the mathematical background, try the first three chapters of Hawking and Ellis, _The large scale structure of space-time_, or the first four chapters of Wald, _General Relativity_. I like Carroll, _Spacetime and Geometry_, but if that's too advanced, try Hartle, _ Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity”. Also and most importantly “I recommend: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation”.
To justify the absence of proof by Einstein, another wrote: “For ancient manuscripts such as the writings of Einstein, this is KNOWN to be a rather bad idea. That's because such manuscripts were written in a different cultural context, and the meanings of many important words have changed since then. It requires a MAJOR effort to understand their context before Einstein's original papers become understandable. It's also true that he made some mistakes, and we NOW know why. It is MUCH better to get a good, modern textbook on the subject. Its author(s) will have handled the cultural context for you.” What a silly answer! Does he mean that Einstein wrote in German a text that people cannot understand now? Or that text was translated to an English that cannot be understood now? Does this person think people are fools? Here I have the two texts in front of me and they are very clear.
1. As mentioned in Part I in which we proved that SR was a thought and mathematical exercise valid within the impractical restrictions Einstein himself put. The result was that super–luminal movement of matter is possible.
2. In the case of the GR, we have proved that it is based on fantasies by Einstein without any proof. His disciples reach the point of believing his fantasies and trying to justify his ideas by adapting some mathematics to his ideas. They failed. The result is that GR has nothing to do with real science and should be taken out from the curricula of physics in universities and research institutions and for the scientific media to stop supporting it. It can remain in the curriculum of philosophy courses as an example of failed philosophy. Or they can be part of science fiction studies in departments of arts at universities.
3. Had the theory of relativity (TR) been a really scientific achievement that has the extremely great importance attributed to it and to the great genius of all time Einstein, he would have been awarded the Nobel Prize for each of the SR and GR. So how come then that these two achievements became sacrosanct, untouchable?
4. The grand total result of this current research is that Einstein and others laughed at the whole world. See his unproductive Princeton years of preceptorial classes.