Relativity Principles and Theories from Galileo to Einstein

called the special theory of relativity, no doubt one of the boldest and most interesting theories ever designed.' Generations of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers were inspired by it. Bitter battles were fought over its principles and deductions which clashed with many an honourable idea backed up by honourable philosophical and scientific traditions. Yet all the knocks and bites from left and right seem to have left Einstein's theory unshaken. Today the battle-grounds of yesterday look rather deserted. The critic is likely to be silenced in the face of the theory's spectacular success. In the following I shall try to throw some new light on one or two old problems which Einstein's theory gives rise to. Section z is concerned with the obstacles we are faced with when we try to combine Einstein's special theory of relativity with a causal account of relativistic phenomena. The argument does not show, of course, that Einstein's theory is false, but it points to a possible incompleteness and to certain limitations inherent in the special theory of relativity. In section 3 a substratum theory of relativity is outlined which seems to be as simple and coherent as Einstein's special theory of relativity; the Lorentz transformations are deduced from two basic principles without making use of the principle of relativity. Finally, in section 4, the two theories are compared and some general conclusions are drawn. But let us first have a short look at the ideas underlying Einstein's theory. To begin with, the special theory of relativity is a transformation theory. This is its most fundamental aspect. Suppose we know the space and time co-ordinates of an event particle e (event with negligible spatiotemporal extension) in an inertial frame of reference F; then the theory

The theory of special and general relativity causes a “schizophrenic” dilemma in physics. It undeniably provides mathematically correct values, but it is undeniably epistemologically wrong in many respects. Including the relativistic explanation of the gravitational “time dilation” and the curvature of light beams at the surfaces of large masses, the author demonstrates the illogical character of relativistic physics. When one thinks the relativistic explanations of gravitational time dilatation and of the curvature of light rays by masses through to the end, they lead to absurd and contradictory logical conclusions.

Based on special relativity, we introduce a way to develop a new field theory from (1) the relativistic property of the particle coupling coefficient with the field, and (2) the field due to a static point source. As an example, we discuss a theory of electromagnetic and gravitational fields. The results of this special relativistic gravitational theory for the redshift and the deflection of light are the same as those deduced from general relativity. The results of experiments on the planetary perihelion procession shift and on an additional “short-range gravity” are more favorable to the special relativistic gravitational theory than to general relativity. We put forward a new idea to test experimentally whether the equivalence principle of general relativity is correct.

Two radically different views about time are possible. According to the first, the universe is three dimensional. It has a past and a future, but that does not mean it is spread out in time as it is spread out in the three dimensions of space. This view requires that there is an unambiguous, absolute, cosmic-wide “now” at each instant. According to the second view about time, the universe is four dimensional. It is spread out in both space and time—in space-time in short. Special and general relativity rule out the first view. There is, according to relativity theory, no such thing as an unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide “now” at each instant. However, we have every reason to hold that both special and general relativity are false. Not only does the historical record tell us that physics advances from one false theory to another. Furthermore, elsewhere I have shown that we must interpret physics as having established physicalism—in so far as physics can ever establish anything theoretical. Physicalism, here, is to be interpreted as the thesis that the universe is such that some unified “theory of everything” is true. Granted physicalism, it follows immediately that any physical theory that is about a restricted range of phenomena only, cannot be true, whatever its empirical success may be. It follows that both special and general relativity are false. This does not mean of course that the implication of these two theories that there is no unambiguous cosmic-wide “now” at each instant is false. It still may be the case that the first view of time, indicated at the outset, is false. Are there grounds for holding that an unambiguous cosmic-wide “now” does exist, despite special and general relativity, both of which imply that it does not exist? There are such grounds. Elsewhere I have argued that, in order to solve the quantum wave/particle problem and make sense of the quantum domain we need to interpret quantum theory as a fundamentally probabilistic theory, a theory which specifies how quantum entities—electrons, photons, atoms—interact with one another probabilistically. It is conceivable that this is correct, and the ultimate laws of the universe are probabilistic in character. If so, probabilistic transitions could define unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide “nows” at each instant. It is entirely unsurprising that special and general relativity have nothing to say about the matter. Both theories are pre-quantum mechanical, classical theories, and general relativity in particular is deterministic. The universe may indeed be three dimensional, with a past and a future, but not spread out in four dimensional space-time, despite the fact that relativity theories appear to rule this out. These considerations, finally, have implications for views about the arrow of time and free will.

The problem of periastron advance, which is the basis of one of the three classical tests of relativity theory, is revised with respect to both Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity and updated in the light of recent astronomical measurements of binary pulsars. We show that in Newtonian mechanics the addition of a corrective term to Newton’s law of gravitation, consistent with the principles of Newtonian mechanics, leads to the same formula of periastron advance as that used in General Relativity, which proves to be valid in all astronomical cases known, even in the cases of binary pulsars such as PSR B1913+16, PSR J1141-6545 and the so-called double pulsar PSR J0737-3039A and PSR J0737-3039B, which are considered as natural relativity laboratories. Thus, among the relativistic phenomena, the periastron advance is one that can be also understood in Newtonian terms by means of an ad hoc assumption.

The purpose of the present study is to develop a counterpart of the special relativity theory that is consistent with the existence of a preferred frame but, like the standard relativity theory, is based on the relativity principle and the universality of the (two-way) speed of light. The synthesis of such seemingly incompatible concepts as the existence of preferred frame and the relativity principle is possible at the expense of the freedom in assigning the one-way speeds of light that exists in special relativity. In the framework developed, a degree of anisotropy of the one-way speed acquires meaning of a characteristic of the really existing anisotropy caused by motion of an inertial frame relative to the preferred frame. The anisotropic special relativity kinematics is developed based on the symmetry principles: 1) Space-time transformations between inertial frames leave the equation of anisotropic light propagation invariant and 2) a set of the transformations possesses a group structure. The Lie group theory apparatus is applied to define groups of transformations between inertial frames. Applying the transformations to the problem of calculating the CMB temperature distribution yields a relation in which the angular dependence coincides with that obtained on the basis of the standard relativity theory but the mean temperature is corrected by the terms second order in the observer velocity.

Science sets itself apart from other paths to truth by recognizing that even its greate practitioners sometimes err.

A theory of relativity, along with its appropriate group of Lorentz-type transformations, is presented. The theory is developed on a metric withR×S3 topology as compared to ordinary relativity defined on the familiar Minkowskian metric. The proposed theory is neither the ordinary special theory of relativity (since it deals with noninertial coordinate systems) nor the general theory of relativity (since it is not a dynamical theory of gravitation). The theory predicts, among other things, that finite-mass particles in nature have maximum rotational velocities, a prediction highly supported by recent experiments on 14 nuclei, such as159Yb that survives fission with angular velocities of up to 0.9 of the predicted value but does not reach it.

This chapter discusses how relativity theory affects our ideas about space, time, and motion. The special theory of relativity does not introduce the idea that motion is relative: it combines that idea, already present in Newtonian physics, with the idea that the speed of light does not depend on the motion of the source. This combination has surprising consequences: that moving clocks run slow; that moving rods shrink. This is apparently in flat contradiction with the relativity principle. The resolution of this paradox looks very different depending on one’s view of what spacetime is: is it simply a codification of physics, or can it do explanatory work in its own right. Thus the paradox lets us get clearer on what is at stake in these questions about the nature of spacetime. Relativity also imperils the idea that simultaneity—the relationship between two events when they occur at the same time—is relative and/or conventional. The epilogue of the chapter briefly discusses the general theory of relativity.

The topic of this chapter is the debate between adherents to respectively relationalism and substantivalism in the settings of relativity theory. In special relativity theory one may consistently hold that spacetime intervals are mere attributes of pairs of material objects. Even though spacetime often is treated as an object in relativity theory, there is no reason to think that it is a physical object; we may very well accept it as a mathematical object without concluding that this mathematical object has a counterpart in the physical world. By the same argument one may conclude that even if string theory is a nearly correct theory, the fact that there are 10 (or 11) spacetime dimensions in this theory doesn’t say anything about the number of spacetime dimensions in the real world.When we go to general relativity we have no obvious way to distinguish between object and attribute. Einstein’s equation, the fundamental principle in general relativity, tells us that a function of the spacetime metric is equal to the matter-energy tensor. The equation merely relates two quantities to each other. One is then inclined to ask which object are these quantities attributes of and the answer is that general relativity doesn’t make any distinction between object and attribute. One may say that either we can treat matter-energy distribution as a description of what exists and the function of the spacetime metric an attribute of that object, or reverse and hold that spacetime with its metric is what exists. The structure of general relativity transcends the structure of our common sense thinking in terms of objects with attributes.

The non-inertiality of Faraday’s unipolar generator’s rotating system forces us to confront this issue using general theory of relativity principles. The purpose of this study is to compare the theoretical quantitative estimates of induced electromotive force with the experimental results obtained from the corresponding measurements and to settle the dichotomy among members of the scientific community regarding this scientific question. Theoretical elaboration of this issue demonstrates that the differences between the results of the general theory and those of the special theory of relativity are some negligible terms caused by the rotating reference system’s non-inertiality. Because of this finding, we can fairly accurately compare theoretical estimations based on special and general relativity. As a result, a very serious reflection arises from the comparison of the results generated on the basis of the general theory of relativity and the measurements of induced electromotive force, because, as previously demonstrated in the literature, the experimental data are not as expected from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity.

Traditionally, certain physical theories have been thought to have relativity principles associated with them. Associated with Newtonian mechanics is the principle of Galilean relativity, associated with special relativity is the special or restricted principle of relativity, associated with general relativity is the general principle of relativity, etc. Such relativity principles are often expressed in terms of groups of transformations. The principle of Galilean relativity is expressed by the ‘invariance’ of Newtonian mechanics under the Galilean group, that of special relativity by the ‘invariance’ of special relativity under the Lorentz group, and that of general relativity by the ‘invariance’ (or ‘covariance’) of general relativity under the group of all 1–1 transformations with non-vanishing Jacobian. Unfortunately, just what these various groups are groups of, and exactly how they are associated with given physical theories, has been far from clear. Similarly, the nature and role of the various relativity principles has been correspondingly unclear.

This article refutes the Time Dilation Equation and Length Contraction that are derived in the Special Theory of Relativity. The conclusion reached in this article is that Time Dilation and Length Contraction cannot be characterized by simple equations due to repulsion gravity. The conclusion follows from gravity being a natural force of repulsion rather than the assumption that gravity is an attraction force. That gravity is a repulsion force follows from the Sir Arthur Eddington experiment designed to prove that gravity affects light. Few looked at that experiment as anything other than proving Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity that suggested gravity would affect light. The experiment went beyond what most imagined it accomplished. It surely verified that gravity affects light. But it did more than that. The experiment showed that gravity is a force of repulsion and not attraction as most believed. That gravity is repulsion and not an attraction force indicates that the relativity time dilation equation derived in the Special Theory of Relativity is intractably undecidable likely subject to Godels Incompleteness theorems

Originally, relativity in physics meant the abolition of absolute space. More particularly, it has come to mean either of Einstein’s famous two theories: his special relativity (SR) of 1905, and his general relativity (GR) of 1915. SR abolished absolute space in its Maxwellian role as the “ether “—the carrier of light waves and of electromagnetic fields in general—whereas GR abolished absolute space also in its Newtonian role as the standard of nonacceleration. (Even more importantly, though not by design, Einstein’s theories abolished the concept of absolute time; that we shall discuss in the next chapter.) Since these ideas are fundamental, we devote the first chapter to a brief discussion centered on the three questions: What is absolute space? Why should it be abolished? How can it be abolished?

A Mysterious Universe introduces the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, and cosmology to a lay person in as simple a language as possible. This book is intended for readers, young and old, who would like to understand the incomprehensible laws that govern the universe without any prior background in physics and mathematics. This book is much lighter (and concise), but accurate, in dealing with deep issues related to the mysteries of modern physics. Both quantum mechanics and relativity are highly mathematical subjects and are not easily accessible. In 2020, I wrote a book Quantum Mechanics for Beginners (Oxford University Press, 2020) with the aim of introducing the fundamentals of quantum theory to someone with elementary knowledge of physics and algebra. Here I go one step further and introduce these ideas to someone with no prior knowledge of physics and mathematics. In the first part of the book the topics like wave–particle duality, the probabilistic nature of measurement, the possibility of multiple universes, and the nature of reality are discussed. In the second part, Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity and their amazing and mind-boggling consequences are presented. The impact of the theory of relativity on cosmology is immense. The big bang model of the universe, black holes, and the current hot topics of dark matter and dark energy are explained and discussed. These fields that may hold key to many unanswered questions about the universe are still evolving.