Einstein's Missed Implication: His TEST Shows Relativity's Reference Frame To Us
Monday, November 20, 2006 (02:52:28)
Posted by admin
2-10-17 This article explains the background leading to my conclusions which is necessary but long, so here is the summary version. Once you read this short version of his TEST, what follows will be much clearer.
Train car with two lights, one at each end with a detecting screen in the exact middle goes down the track past an observer on the embankment. When the detecting screen is exactly opposite the observer the two lights flash simultaneously.
1. Since speed of c is independent of speed of emitting object, the light flashes from each end of moving car arrive at observer simultaneously;
2. but at the 'detecting screen' the light from rear of car takes a little longer to hit rear side of the screen as the car has moved a bit in the time c takes to reach the screen;
3. conversely, the light flash from front of car arrives sooner at front of the detecting screen as the car has moved a bit towards the front flash in the time c takes to arrive at the screen;
4. ergo, the time difference between the arrival times of the simultaneous flashes on the front and back of the screen can be used to deduce how fast the car is moving down the track with respect to c, the speed of light.
Notice, this is completely independent of the observer on the bank.
Ergo, a self-contained measuring device can be constructed for
an object like a satellite or spaceship or whatever that measures its speed as a percentage of c and its vector in real time
12-16-12 I added "To Us" to the title to reinforce that it is from where we sit that we create a picture of how the universe works. A scientific theory begins and ends with its creators = Us. I have not done any other changes below except for minor editing. There are philosophical and epistemological implications that are better served with a separate article.
11-3-09 It is from Einstein's second postulate that relativity is derived; i.e. it is well confirmed by observation that 'c', the speed of light, is a constant with respect to all observers. Ergo, this 'constant' gives a base reference frame to measure our location and speed with respect to anywhere else in our universe. All we need to know is how to measure our speed with respect to 'c'.
At the bottom of this article I show why Einstein's conclusion from his lovely thought TEST was mistaken and that this implies how we can measure our local speed with respect to 'c' the speed of light.
'Einstein's Missed Implication' TEST Shows Relativity's Base Reference Frame To Us
It is Einstein's second postulate from which relativity is derived and is well confirmed by observation: 'c', the speed of light, is a constant with respect to all observers. Ergo, this 'constant' gives a base reference frame to measure our location and speed with respect to anywhere else in our universe. All we need to know is how to measure our speed with respect to 'c'. This must mean that relativity does have a base 'frame of reference', which Einstein explicitly denies. The 'test' below shows how we can measure our local speed with respect to 'c' the speed of light. The necessarily implied Third Postulate shows what/where the boundary is in our universe between Slower Than Light (STL) and Faster Than Light(FTL) movement(e.g. entangled particles). (2-1-17 This boundary is discussed in the patent application for the measuring tool needed to 'see' this boundary.) This boundary also shows where we can go FTL without violating causality. Conclusions include other necessary inferences.
What Fundamental Question Did Einstein Try To Solve?
Is There A Fundamental Point of Reference For Time and Space Common to All Life forms? "In his special theory of relativity, Einstein had rejected Newton's "metaphysical" postulate of absolute space and time, which resisted any empirical confirmation."; said Palle Yourgrau. But Einstein was wrong. The answer is yes, of course; or we would not be alive.
Palle Yourgrau explains the question well. On page 31 in his book "A World Without Time, the forgotten legacy of Goedel and Einstein", explains this question clearly.
"In his special theory of relativity, Einstein had rejected Newton's "metaphysical" postulate of absolute space and time, which resisted any empirical confirmation. Time, Einstein insisted, was physically real only to the extent that it could be measured by a clock........ Since physical experimentation demonstrated that not all clocks could be definitely synchronized(2-10-17 now we can entangle clocks), Einstein declared that time was not after all absolute, as Newton had believed, but rather relative to the frame of reference of the clock by which it is measured. Similarly, since there existed no definitive empirical method to detect whether an object's motion through space was absolute. Einstein declared that all spatial relations were also relative to a given reference frame (following italics are mine) chosen by convention, as the 'rest frame."
As the test proposed below will show -- There is an absolute "empirically verifiable" rest frame for any objects motion through space. It is not one chosen "by convention". Once we can measure any objects "absolute" speed with respect to c, then we can deduce a way to synchronize all clocks with respect to one another. This test, once confirmed, must vastly expand our theoretical understanding of space and time and thus our control over them.
12-19-2006 What Specific Problem Did Einstein Solve With His Equations?
12-17-2006 Einstein was trying to solve a fundamental problem for physicists in the nineteenth century: They had discovered that all observers measured the speed of light c as a constant no matter how fast they were going with respect to one another; further it was completely independent of the speed and direction of the light emitter. This raised this question in Einstein's mind: Start with both observers moving at equal speeds with respect to each other then, "Assume each observer used the same units of time and distance and c is seen as a constant by all observers; then how must the two base parameters of each observers 'frame of reference' i.e, Time(frequency of movement per unit distance), & Line length unit of Distance, change as the speed difference between our observers changes from zero?" Logically, for each observer to continue to measure c as a constant even though their speed changed with respect to one another, then their perceived units of distance and how fast their clocks moved must change predictably by the Lorentz transformations.
In Einstein's relativity papers he worked out the equations showing that as one observer increased speed with respect to another observer, the unit of distance perceived in the other observers 'frame of reference had to shorten and the clocks had to slow as the speed difference increased between them. It was logically required given his postulate that c was a constant with respect to all observers. In fact, clocks in satellites that have returned to Earth have slowed.
12-08-2006 For further detailed explanation of Einstein's reasoning on relativity; read his 1920 "Relativity, the Special and General Theory" is a good start. He is clear and concise.
12-17-06 The two fundamental scientific issues that he implicitly raised are:
How do we locate ourselves within the universe? i.e. What fundamental geometry is our universe based upon and how do we demonstrate that?
Answering this question requires that we first answer a second question: What common fixed 'objective' reference point do all observers share? It is, by Einstein's postulate; c, the speed of light. From answering these two questions; I deduced an operational postulate = measure how fast we are going with respect to c. I give some background on how I reached this deduction, and then show and tell how to actually do the measurement.
Third Postulate: Moving at zero speed with respect to c defines the boundary between FTL/STL travel, on the surface of STL space/time and between the two sides of our Moebius universes surface = FTL. Thus there must exist two fixed points of reference with respect to c, the speed of light and any observer, from which any observer(frame of reference) can measure their relative time, speed, and location from any other observer(s)(frames of reference(s),
Proof of this postulate can be demonstrated by the TEST proposed in the article below.
12-8-2006 My conclusion above and the test proposed below came about because Alan Lightman in "Great Ideas In Physics" page 142 repeated a description of Einstein's train experiments that Einstein did not make. Einstein described his train experiments in section IX Page 30 in "Relativity, The Special And General Theory" 1920 3rd ed. Dover reprint. Einstein started with showing that the difference in arrival times from two simultaneous flashes of light was seen by the observer inside the moving train car, and not by the observer on the embankment as Lightman's example showed. However, given Einstein's conclusion, "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." Thus Lightman's description is apparently permitted by Einstein's above statement, but Lightman's made my head hurt; thus allowing me to conceive the test showing why Einstein's above statement is NOT true and some of what that implies.
11-15-2006 Einsteins's theoretical predictions are correct, just incomplete because he concluded "there is no fundamental frame of reference" to see the universe from.
He deduced his conclusions from the wrong observing point; from outside his 'moving frames of reference' (outside the universe) instead of inside.
Body and Title of original article finished 11-13-2006. The last edit date is in front of URL title.
Einstein's "Overlooked Implication"
The bell could not ring from inside the moving train car, EXCEPT when the car is at zero speed with respect to c = speed light.
12-09-2007 Original ABSTRACT
11-13-2006 This article explains why this "Overlooked Implication" is important? It directly demonstrates there is, in fact, a fixed frame of reference shared by all observers in our conserved universe. 12-08-2007 [Once any observer with appropriate technology can measure their speed with respect to c; then it directly implies another geometry must be used to describe our universe. In addition, it implies a special 'space' where FTL travel is possible as long as one does not try to go into the past from where you start FTL travel.] A testable implication: Dropping an objects speed to zero with respect to c will cause it to disappear between the two sides of our moebius strip shaped universe's surface. Where it reappears is not predictable yet. Other implications are listed below.
5-5-2008Once we confirm that by going zero with respect to c makes that object disappear between the two sides of the surface; then a Moebius geometry for our universe is confirmed. This conserved geometry means that Life Forms can only change directions arbitrarily by splitting matter into plus and minus parts; thus allowing the creation of a A-M conservation debt. More added on mechanics in equation log.
Einstein concluded there was no common fixed point of reference for any observer within our universe, i.e. there is no universal place of rest from which we all can observe the universe from. Strange, his postulate that the speed of light travels at 299,793 kms in a vacuum regardless of the state of motion of the emitting object directly implies the opposite (c will be used to refer to the speed of light also from now on). There is such a universal place of rest = 'Not moving with respect to the speed of light.'. This rest point with respect to c can now be demonstrated by experiment which also gives us the ability to measure ones relative velocity with respect to a constant velocity of c. Ergo, we can measure the size and shape of the universe with respect to ourselves and each other; thus we can navigate and travel at any speed between any two points within it as long as we do not go behind ourselves(life forms) in time on the surface of our Moebius universe. [12-4-2006 By inspection, demonstrating our speed with respect to c gives the ability to synchronize our clocks with respect to c and any future locations regardless of future speed changes as long as we can track speed changes.]
Einstein had two possible observing points from which he could deduce his conclusions about relativity: a) inside the moving train car(Earth); or, b) outside the moving frame of reference, at rest a stipulated distance away. He unconsciously put himself outside of what he was modeling theoretically by using an assumed non-moving outside observer both 'outside the moving train car' and the 'embankment'; that is why he went to such great pains to define what he meant by 'simultaneous' clocks. We are inside the moving train car(Earth) are we not, as I write this and as you read this now.
Experiment To Confirm
This experiment requires that Einstein's second Postulate about the speed of light be true. To quote his second paragraph from his landmark paper on relativity, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," in the German journal Annalen der Physik: "and also introduce another postulate...namely that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.".
We can reconstruct the train thought experiment using off the shelf materials. We must make sure that there is no ping pong(back n forth between mirrors or receivers) as in the Michelson-Morley experiments which used mirrors to lengthen the distance light traveled. Ping ponging between mirrors cancels out the difference we are trying to measure; because inside a moving object the light going in the direction of movement goes a little farther to the 'middle' mirror moving away from the emitter, then bounces back towards the 'back' emitting mirror which is moving towards the returning light ray. Ergo longer/shorter, longer/shorter and the differences cancel out. Thus you can not see how fast the object(inertial frame of reference) moves with respect to c.
Methods and materials:
1. Use a laser, two synchronized atomic clocks, one each at emitting and receiving end, with a sensitive enough receiver(camera shutter?)at receiving end. We need not measure it in opposing directions simultaneously as the Earth rotates and 12 hours later the sign of all differences is reversed. e.g. We start measuring with the direction of Earth's orbital motion and 12 hours later the same measurement will be against the Earths orbital motion.
2. Separate laser and receiver by a kilometer(or more) Exactness as to distance apart is not required as long as we keep the distance apart constant over all measurements within the same inertial frame of reference(Earth). To ensure equal distances for all measurements we must first do this calibration measurement to ensure same distance apart of emitter and receiver = a ping/pong that gives the same time before we do each ping measurement. Since c is a constant, the difference we seek to measure with a 'ping' is canceled by the pong so the average of the two gives an exact distance apart. Thus we can adjust distance apart until our ping/pong calibration is accurate to within 1 picosecond.
3. Line up East-West and measure ping differences throughout the day every six hours or at other fixed intervals.
4. Do the first test when our laser beam is parallel to Earth's orbit around the sun. Do every six hours, more frequently if desired.
We should get a smooth sine curve varying over 24 hours going to almost zero at the sixth and 18th hours and showing maximum difference at zero(1st test) and 12th hour. We should get same difference with opposite sign every 12 hours. The variance will be caused by Earth's revolution around the sun at 28.13 kms. The other various Sun-Earth-Galaxy system movements must also show up as our laser beam varies from parallel to right angles, etc. to these movements. These last speeds are estimated by our astronomers and this test will be a good way to measure them by implication.
Expected differences for Earths rotation and orbital velocity: On Earth's rotational speed at 47 degrees North latitude is about .22 KMS; so
1. at 'dawn' or 'sunset'; when we can exclude Earths 28.13 kms around the Sun as we are perpendicular to Earth's orbital rotation(actual times can be adjusted for Earth's wobble); Earth therefore rotates .22 Kms/300,000 in the time it takes light to travel one kilometer or .73 micrometers;
2. Six and Eighteen hours later, we would expect to see 28(3.3) micro + .73 micros = 94 micrometers in direction of Earths revolution around the sun, and 92.5 micrometers in opposition for a difference in time receiving laser impulse of about 3.2 picoseconds. A micrometer takes a 300,000,000,000,000 of a second for light to travel it i.e. one three hundred trillionth of a second.
Einstein's based all his deductions on two up to now confirmed Postulates, so where did his error come from?:
Postulate 1. The Laws of the universe treat us all alike, regardless of how fast we move with respect to one another, as long as we are not being accelerated = we move at a constant speed. e.g. I do an experiment and you do the same experiment, even though we are moving at different speeds, the results will be the same for both of us as long as our speeds are constant. Physicists call this property Isotropy.
Postulate 2. The speed of light is the same for all observers = 299,793 kms; and IT IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE SPEED AND DIRECTION OF THE EMITTING OBJECT. e.g. If emitting object is going 1/2 speed light(c) away from us, when we see c moving at 299,793, not 1/2 c; and if emitting object is going 1/2 c towards us, we measure c at 299,793, not 1.5 c. If emitting object is going 1/2 c at right angles to us, then c comes straight at us and we do not see it going sideways at 1/2 c. Michelson-Morley did confirm this, it is just that they excluded using the inside observer because of using mirrors that ping ponged the signal back n forth between mirrors canceling out the ping difference with a pong.
This second postulate is the one Einstein mis-applied. Since he needed a fixed point of observation to see the difference he argued from, he set up his thought experiment correctly to demonstrate his conclusion and then assumed there was only one possible observing point to see the difference his arguments required. In fact, by inspection, there are two observing points. First, beside the train track; and Second, inside the moving train car at the midpoint between the two simultaneously emitted light flashes.
I started reading Einstein when I was 14 and it always made my head hurt when I got to the train experiment. I could not understand or accept his arguments. even though many of his deductions have been amply confirmed by experiment. Now I know why my head hurt and also why almost all his deductions should still be true. [12-4-2006 In reading Einstein's own 1920 "Relativity The Special And General Theory" 3rd edition in which he carefully explains his reasoning I found he did not use "the bell rings" to show the independence of the two observers; but that example has been taught for many years while he was alive so it stands as refuted below. Alan Lightman's "Great Ideas In Physics" is where I got the description of special relativity used below.
Why? Demonstration of Error = The bell could not ring.
Einstein used 'thought experiments' because in the late nineteenth century c moved to fast for us to measure the differences he was postulating directly as described above.
1st thought train thought experiment. He shows a train moving along the track past the observer and demonstrates that the speed of train does NOT affect speed of light as measured by observer.
2nd train thought experiment. Same train moving down track, except that this train has a detecting screen in exact middle which will ring a bell IF light strikes the screen Simultaneously on both sides.
Next Einstein asserts that we arrange to set off lights at each end of railroad car simultaneously, therefore he asserts the light beams emitted must strike the screen Simultaneously, causing The BELL to ring.
3rd thought train experiment: Same train but Einstein adds an observer sitting by the track(himself) and then the train with the screen comes by and EXACTLY where the observer is perpendicular to the car as its middle passes by The Observer, we set off the lights simultaneously and THE BELL Rings.
Therefore Einstein argues that since the train was moving independent of the speed of light that the light reaching the observer could not hit the observer beside the track at the same time, because the train had moved a little in the time it took to reach the screen and ring the bell, thus the observer beside the tack must have seen the light emitted at different times from the ends of the train car. He drew his conclusions about relativity from this purported, but NOT tested difference.
BUT this contradicts Postulate 2. The observer beside the track is an exactly equal distance from the ends of the car when the lights are simultaneously emitted. By postulate two, the two lights move at the same constant speed and are going equal distances to reach the observer; therefore equal speed traveling equal distances equals arriving at Einstein's observer beside the train track at the SAME TIME. The BELL must have rung at the observing point beside the track, not inside the car.
For an observer inside the train car with genetically modified eyes moved to their temples so this observer can sense whether the light arrives simultaneously or not; the lights can not arrive simultaneously by his second postulate. For in the time it takes for the lights turned on simultaneously to arrive at the observer in the middle of the car the train car has moved. The light from the front travels a slightly Shorter distance, and the light from the rear of the car travels a slightly Longer distance = unequal distances ; therefore The Bell Could Not Ring inside the car.
This is a Testable conclusion: When found to be true, then this difference in arrival times inside a moving 'frame of reference', by inspection, gives us a way to measure our speed with respect to the speed of light implying that we can locate ourselves within our universe with respect to each other and all other parts of the universe.
IMPLICATION, this difference is the same one Einstein did his deductions from, so his logic and implications are correct as far as they go; but since he asserted that the wrong observer saw the difference, 'the stationary observer beside the moving train', he excluded using the difference inside the car to measure where the car was with respect to c, our one physical constant with respect to all moving observers inside our universe, and inferentially, everything else in the universe that we can MEASURE with respect to the speed of light, i.e; since two possible observing points exist to see the difference Einstein used to make his deductions, then it makes an error possible when you use the wrong observer = outside one or inside moving object. Use the wrong one and you, by construction, exclude seeing and using the real difference needed to measure your location with respect to the speed of light.
By excluding the difference from inside the car, he was forced to conclude that observers could not determine their absolute speed because of the Michelson-Morley experiments. From Page 136 in "Great Ideas in Physics", "If, in contradiction to the second postulate, observers with different speeds did measure different relative speeds of a light ray, then they could determine their own speeds through the ether, the frame of absolute rest for eletro-magnetic phenomena. However, such determination of absolute motion are impossible according to the relativity principle and the first postulate.".
1. However, Alter's hypothesis absolutely requires that the speed of light be measured as c by all observers and above all, be "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.". The difference between Einstein and Alter is that Alter is measuring an observers motion with respect to c, not the ether, which is not excluded by relativity.
2. Question (= implication 12-9-2006), but changing the observational difference used, must also change a sign somewhere basic in Einstein's equations. See 11-23-2006 discussion above and in "Deriving base equation....log".
3. This means we can infer our location with respect to the (local) surface of our Moebius universe, since we can observe the difference we are moving with respect to the speed of light from inside any moving object with a sensitive enough measuring tool; i.e. from inside our moving(or 'at rest' surface of 2-20-07) universe.
4. This implies we can locate where we are (globally) within the universe and directly (by inference from local measurements) determine its geometry and size = Moebius strip shaped universe.
5. By construction, now non-simultaneity isn't. Where we are with respect to one another is now deducible in real-time with respect to c.
6. Slowing down to a point of complete rest with respect to the c is now possible = drop off of surface of space-time. Probably to a predictable point elsewhere on the surface of the Moebius.
7. Faster Than Light(FTL) travel is now possible with the constraint that we can not go behind ourselves in time.
8. For present physicists who accept Einstein's train experiment without critical logical and observational examination, by construction, he excluded the above six conclusions from real consideration.
A PRACTICAL APPLICATION:
11-14-06 A real-time Speed/Direction of Movement Meter for spaceships derived from my first proposed but Incorrect Experiment to prove my hypothesis.
2. Einstein unconsciously constructed an outline for a mesuring tool to determine the speed and location of any object within universe with respect to the speed of light with his moving train car example.
We can reconstruct the train experiment. By using (long enough)optical fiber tubes we can slow down speed of light to create an outside observer within our inertial frame of reference to make the differences more detectable. (11-14-06) Just as an optical fiber slows up light by ping/ponging down the fiber and hence can not be used to measure the 'ping' difference or recreate the 'screen' in the middle of the moving train car; this ping/pong property, in effect, creates our outside observer.
September 30-October 6, 2006 New Scientist page 38, article named "What's done is done..." page 36 see John Cramer University of Washington, device shown on Page 38. Two 10 Kilometer coiled optical fiber tubes that can easily be placed facing each other(thus replicating our outside observer 11-17-06). Since Earth moves at 28.13 kms and Sun-Earth system moves much faster, this device combined with others listed below will easily see our movement and direction with respect to c.
11-17-2006 This speedometer/direction meter is built using four different aspects from above described experiments, a} entanglement, b} lasers, c} the shape of Einstein’s train experiment, and d} a interferometer that will give instantaneous location, vector direction and speed of movement with respect to speed of light for any 'spaceship'. It cam be built into any ship. This can be built with present known technology rather quickly I would think.
11-23-2006 Equation Implication It is not enough to deduce what his error was and why; for a real scientific leap, one must also still explain his extremely accurate predictions regarding 'relativity' i.e. by rewriting his equations to incorporate the predicted measurements described below. We must keep the baby and replace the bath water with a wider set of predictions. This requires that one create a new set of equations whose core is relativity, e = mcc. Lucky for us, Einstein must have touched on the form of these equations, as his equations are 2nd degree polynomials. The second solution would require that he incorporate the complex plane into his equations, which of course, he does mention in "Relativity, The Special And General Theory" on pages 62 and 110. After all, by visual inspection, a Moebius is a single surface with two sides, each side defined by the fact that any point on the surface has a pair point exactly 180 degrees perpendicular to itself. Further it has a single continuous edge. With the addition of a single term and a new operation, we can create a new set of 'complex' equations that we can use to 'locate' ourselves within our universe.
11-01-2008 (edit 10-21-09)I will describe this third postulate geometrically from where any observer sits on the surface of their particular Moebius universe. The speed of light is what keeps us from going behind ourselves in time, but that implies that on a large Moebius; then light from most of its surface has not reached us yet. Ergo, by dropping between the two sides of surface by dropping to 'zero speed with respect to c'; then with proper energy input you can go to that area of surface from which light has not reached us yet; then make changes etc. without violating causality with respect to oneself. Notice that life forms move to change things to their advantage, i.e. change the past as it were. Going to where light has not reached us yet is but an example of the same process on a 'faster scale'. Ergo, we can go to anywhere light has not reached us from yet.
An immediate most crucial implication: We can drop a vehicle or any objects speed down to zero with respect to c. On the surface of a Moebius universe, this means we drop between the two sides of the surface and move at a speed much greater than c to any other permitted point on the M surface. This makes our A-M debt disconnection possible, and makes FTL travel possible as long as we do not go behind ourselves in time. Enough for now. Dan Alter n1cl-1
Questions and Comments please.
11-13-2006 ACKNOWLEDGMENT: I thank Keith Davis Phd Physics, for his suggestions on the experimental method and materials described in the initial article below. I had no idea it could be done so easily and cheaply. Further he has argued with me and in so doing clarified my thinking. Whether he agrees with my conclusions remains to be seen. Tests speak.