Revised Theory of Relativity
Sven Gelbhaar
sven.gelbhaar@gmail.com
31.10.2007 – 4.11.2008
In 1905 Einstein dazzled the physics community with the introduction of the
Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein’s theory broadened the scope of Galileo’s
Principle of Relativity to include not only motion of large bodies but also
electrodynamics, and included his postulate that regardless of how fast and in
which direction the observer is going as he measured the speed of light, it
would always stay uniform in its velocity. This brought about a tremendous
change in how we perceive the world, for previously we were under the assumption
that Newtonian Physics was the correct way of making sense of our observations;
fortunately Einstein didn’t negate this Weltanschauung (worldview), but rather
added on to it so that it still applies for every-day objects moving far below
the speed of light.
This theory dealt primarily with acceleration of objects, and how this would
effect the experience of both said object and an observer who doesn’t share the
object’s speed and course (or rather its “inertial frame”). “Special relativity
reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon – light – but
rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are tied together.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_special_relativity, October 30, 2007)
In 1915/1916 Einstein published another paper to expand his Theory of Special
Relativity to encompass gravity, arriving at the Theory of General Relativity.
In General Relativity, Einstein points out the similarity in gravity and
inertia, what we refer to as G-force, and posits that gravity is the result of
matter warping the very fabric of reality, which he refers to as ‘spacetime’.
Several prominent physicists have added contributions to their field, such as
the Shapiro Effect which illustrates that as light itself can be bent around
gravimetric fields resulting from large bodies of matter, as observed by
Gravitational Lensing, that spacetime itself is warped (as follows from
Einstein’s General Relativity), and we’ve come to accept the notion of Time
Dilation; that is, our understanding of gravity dictates that around large
bodies of matter the fabric of time is altered to appear relatively slower than
in a vacuum. From this, and Special Relativity, we thought up the Twin Paradox,
where if one twin were to remain on Earth, and the other were to take a trip
through the universe at, or near, the speed of light and return to Earth, less
time would’ve passed from the second twin’s perspective than the first twin’s.
However, we’ve recently come to believe that the speed of light, which Einstein
claims to be constant regardless of the observer’s inertial frame (speed and
direction), is actually variable. This was debated even as Einstein proposed his
theory of Special Relativity, but was debunked under the false premise that if
the speed of light is variable it would only be so because light must travel
through a universal luminiferous ether (an omnipresent transmission medium),
which was disproved shortly after the conception of Special Relativity by
sampling the Sun’s light from various positions of the Earth where their
measured speed of light should’ve differed because the Earth was assumed to
displace and drag this hypothetical transmission medium. The false assumption
was, of course, that for the speed of light to be variable that there must be a
universal transmission medium.
The speed of light has been artificially altered in lab environments through
various methods. By shining light through different mediums, such as glass and
certain gasses, it has been drastically reduced. Another recent experiment
wherein a laser was beamed through a Caesium atom resulted in its photons
accelerating to 300 times the speed of light, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#.22Faster-than-light.22_observa
tions_and_experiments. It merits repeating that the constant observed speed of
light was a key premise in Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity.
One of the paramount tests for Special Relativity was an effect termed
Gravitational Lensing. During a full eclipse of the sun, the light observed from
stars in the background of the sun was noted to be bent toward the sun in its
journey to Earth. Newtonian physics did not predict this, as it didn’t
distinguish light as being made up of particles, having mass, and therefore
being effected by gravity. The theory of Special Relativity, on the other hand,
predicted the results observed in this experiment and it was therefore taken to
be yet another proof thereof.
In the early 1960s a physicist by the name of Irwin Shapiro decided to test
Hendrik Lorentz’s prediction of time dilation, which stated that gravity could
effect time. By 1964 he confirmed this by calculating round trip radar pings
from Earth to Mercury and Venus (separately) both when the Sun was nowhere near
the projected course of the radar ping, and when it was close to blocking the
path between Earth and Mercury and (Earth and) Venus. This confirmed that it
indeed took longer when the Sun was nearby the radiation’s path, and allowed him
to prove his theory of time dilation called the Shapiro Effect in the framework
of both theories of Relativity.
Unfortunately, all theories have their limits. The extent of the applicability
of a theory can be determined by when it invokes a Singularity – when the theory
can no longer make predictions as to what happens in reality given a set of
hypothetical circumstances. One such circumstance was thought up as a result of
Shapiro Effect, where it was speculated whether or not an object’s gravitational
impact could be massive enough to ‘stop time altogether’, an instance which
would be dubbed a Black Hole. As I’m sure the reader is well aware, the presence
of Black Holes have been observed in space. This should warrant us to reconsider
our premises.
As a corollary to the common hypothetical Twin Paradox that Special Relativity
begets, I present what I’l refer to as Gelbhaar’s Evil Twin’s Paradox. Suppose
you’re in a spaceship traveling at relativistic speeds (near, at, or above the
speed of light) passing by a large planet traveling along a parallel trajectory
but at slower velocity. Now suppose there’s a second observer of this planet
passing by it on a scenic tour. Because of your speed while approaching this
planet you would be seeing what to the second observer’s inertial frame is the
future position of the planet in its journey through spacetime. All of a sudden
a giant gravity well in the form of a high velocity microscopic black hole comes
along and alters the course of this planet, whose future position in space
you’ve been observing. As the course of this planet has just been changed by
this new gravity field, would the planet’s perceived position jump from its
perceived current coordinate in space into the new future position as dictated
by this new gravitational influence, and what would all of this look like to the
second observer? This and other temporal paradoxes should make us question the
veracity of our current theories which permit an objective relative view on
time.
Special Relativity has proven its utility in cases like GPS, so we can induce
that it’s more or less correct. The problem, I posit, is our predilection to
confuse perception for reality. I propose we stick with our assumptions as
pertains to the particle/wave duality nature of photons, but unlike Einstein not
to fall prey to the assumption that the fabric of reality (or ‘spacetime’)
shares all of the characteristics of light. His mistake was to assume that if
light is affected by gravity that all of reality in the field that said light
occupies follows suit. However, contrary to Einstein’s theory, time does not
slow in strong gravimetric fields, only light does.
Another interesting flaw in General Relativity is its claim that matter bends
spacetime, thereby creating the force of gravity. This is a powerful visual aid,
but nothing more. The analogy tends to follow this formula: “Imagine a pillow,
which will represent the very fabric of reality, or spacetime. Now you place a
bowling ball on top of said pillow. You should notice a large indentation in the
pillow immediately around the bowling ball. This is how matter warps spacetime.
Now lay a couple of small marbles closely around the bowling ball. The marbles
will, because the warping of spacetime (or in this case the pillow), roll toward
the bowling ball.” What is never brought up is that without gravity this analogy
doesn’t work, as without gravity the surrounding marbles would not be inclined
to roll toward the bowling ball. It presuppose gravity to prove gravity, and as
such is nothing more than circular reasoning.
Where do these new assumptions leave us? Black holes are no longer
singularities, satellite telemetry still works through calculations based upon
Special Relativity, but unfortunately the Twin Paradox is now broken, meaning
that if we are ever able to travel at nearly the speed of light we won’t, as was
previously thought, be able to slow time from an outsider’s perspective. This is
not to say that from the perspective (or inertial frame) of someone going at or
near the speed of light that their perception of time concerning outside events
in a different inertial frame won’t be warped, but at least now we know that it
is just an illusion.
There are still ample mysteries for physicists to discover. How to account for
apparently ever-increasing cosmic expansion, to prove that an originally
entangled photon-pair actually stays entangled once one of its constituent
elements is manipulated (this would go beyond the Bell Lab Experiments), what
actually causes the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation we’re still observing
(for I have discounted the Big Bang Singularity as being the origin of this in a
previous paper), just to name a few. What is of especial interest to me is how
to get around my postulate which states:We can’t know the universal speed limit,
as anything faster than c would be unobservable to us, but that doesn’t
necessitate that it can’t exist.