-
Email An Imagineer
Blog Search
Loading...20
By Ravil Kalmykov
Ravil8@yandex.ru
Abstract
A fact of principled compatibility of a measured rod in one inertial system of coordinates and a measuring ruler in moving by other system only in the unique point by means of the elementary space-time diagram was proved evidently and convincingly. The methodological inadmissibility of intersystem comparison of any spatial or time pieces is accented. A conclusion on a methodological incorrectness Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks and all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz transformations on this basis is drawn. The other variant of space-time transformations is offered and its compatibility with the Michelson-Morley Experiment is shown. Philosophical reflections of the author about the true cognitive status of Lorentz transformations are adduced.
1. About a technique of comparison of spatial segments
Unfortunately, all former fair critical remarks of considerable number of sane fair researchers to address of Lorentz transformations customary in special relativity have not been perceived by scientific community to the right degree. Reasons of the author of this article about a methodological incorrectness of the process of deducing of these transformations have not considered too [1]. Apparently these failures should be referred on special world outlook and methodological complexity of a situation and for the present bad persuasiveness of the critical argument. We shall try to be more convincing well.
Not a secret, that the significant role of the invention of special four-dimensional Minkowski space-time in business of giving greater pictorial presentation to Special Relativity Theory (which have specially received by distortion of usual four-dimensional space-time by means of a doubtful way of synchronization of clocks and the artificial imposed thesis about invariance of an interval) in one’s time has played. We also shall resort to the elementary geometry for giving pictorial presentation to our reasons, but without specially invented elaborate distortions.
As it is accepted in all elementary textbooks, we shall consider a standard situation with mutual movement of two systems K and K ‘ with high speed along the combined axes x and x ‘. (See Fig.1):
Fig.1
In the further we shall exclude axes y, y ‘, z, z ‘ from consideration for simplicity and we shall represent a situation in the Cartesian orthogonal system of coordinates, on a bidimentional space-time plane. (See Fig.2).
Fig.2
By analogy to Minkowski space-time we shall consider, that each point on this plane, having the spatial and time coordinate, corresponds to world event in a described situation.
Here xOt – system of a stationary observer. During the initial moment of time as it is usual, reference marks of two systems O and O ‘ it is considered conterminous. Point O ‘ will move in the course of time on an axis x’ in this figure, representing the direct line located under a corner φ in relation to an axis t. At that φ = arctgV, where V-speed of movement of system K ‘ in relation to system K from the point of view of observer from system K.
Let’s consider, how movement of rod AB based in system K ‘ and located along an axis x’ will look here. Obviously, the rod in the course of time will slide on an axis x’ with all own points too. We shall note, that all points of a rod in system K ‘ coexist simultaneously, are in one temporal "section" or temporal "echelon".
From thought experiment with « Einstein’s train » we know, that the infringement of a principle of simultaneity of events in spatially divided points in two systems moving with high speeds takes place. This phenomenon has received the name « a relativity of simultaneity ». The essence of a phenomenon is evidently visible on Fig.2. All simultaneous events in system K lay on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox. For example, simultaneous events in points Ax and Bx here are. Nevertheless events, simultaneous in system K ‘, lay already on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox ‘. In particular, it is points A and B. It turns out, that two events, simultaneous in system K, do not be such in system K ‘ and on the contrary. Each schoolboy knows about it today.
Now we shall try to make the act of measurement of length of this rod, using opportunities and tools of stationary system K. In system K along axis Ox we shall arrange a measuring bar by means of which we shall try to measure length of a moving rod. We shall note, that all points of this bar coexist simultaneously (in one time section) on axis Ox into the combined moment of time t=0 and on an axis parallel to it into any other moment of time.
The standard technique of contact sensing of length of a line segment means superimposition its ends with point labels on a measuring bar. Means, a rod and a measuring bar should have two joint (coincident) world events. How business with it at us in this case is?
On Fig.2 it is evidently visible, that the rod can be superposed without effort by all own points or at least by two extreme with all measuring bars located in systems, moving with the same speed in relation to K. These bars are displayed on the lines parallel to axis Ox ‘ (for example, DE). However it is impossible to tell the same about axis Ox. It is obvious, that axes Ox and Ox ‘ are not parallel, therefore cannot be completely superposed, and can be crossed only in one point. This consequence of the elementary Euclid axioms. It turns out, that the rod can meet a bar into the certain moment of time per only one own end (generally – per only one point of own body). Superimposition of other end of a rod (generally – any its other point) with a bar becomes possible only into other moment of time, through a certain time interval. However it means that the second event occurs in other time echelon. During the specified time interval the first end of a rod and all other points of its body, certainly, "will depart" on significant distance so it will not turn out as the correct act of measurement. Essentially important fact is that all points of a body of a rod, except for one superposed, appear in other time echelons. Each point of a body of a rod for a meeting with a bar should wait exclusively the especial time echelon. The transparent conclusion from here follows, that the rod and a measuring bar cannot have two or more joint (coincident) world events and consequently their lengths essentially cannot be compared. This conclusion is so important, that deserve get-up in the form of special cognitive restriction or an interdiction that we shall make later. We already described this situation in details earlier [1], now this extraordinary occurrence is evidently visible per geometric visualization.
Perhaps, something will be changed with attempt of contactless remote measurement with use of transfer of the information by means of any signal? However signals from the ends of a rod, being are let out simultaneously in system of a stationary rod, with identical speed will move ahead to a measuring bar, being during any intermediate moment of time on direct, parallel axis Ox ‘ and consequently also cannot meet her simultaneously in system Ox. These signals during all time are within the limits of the own time echelon and cannot replace one time echelon with another at will. The situation will be similar at attempt of transfer of a signal in the opposite direction, from a measuring bar to a rod. Both these variants we already considered in details earlier [1].
For a case of usual small speeds this fact, maybe, has no so big methodological value. During described « defect of a simultaneity » the rod has not time "to depart" too far so distortion of its length observable from another system will be insignificant. However when the rod and a measuring bar mutually move with high near-light speeds, the problem gets basic value. If to adhere to strictly scientific objective methodological approach, it is necessary to ascertain, that
act of exact measurement of length of a rod and, in general, lengths of any line segments " in the air ", by measuring means of moving system turn out impracticable in principle.
Moreover, the objective methodological interdiction on any intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments and other extensive parameters along a line of moving of two systems takes place. As these pieces can have only one general world event, as we saw it on Fig.2, those parameters in these two systems which are entirely defined by frameworks of this dot event, for example, its spatial coordinates are supposed to comparison only. So, it is admissible to intersystem compare in moving systems with coordinates only one point.
2. Transformation of a time scale
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
Ravil8@yandex.ru
Abstract
A fact of principled compatibility of a measured rod in one inertial system of coordinates and a measuring ruler in moving by other system only in the unique point by means of the elementary space-time diagram was proved evidently and convincingly. The methodological inadmissibility of intersystem comparison of any spatial or time pieces is accented. A conclusion on a methodological incorrectness Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks and all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz transformations on this basis is drawn. The other variant of space-time transformations is offered and its compatibility with the Michelson-Morley Experiment is shown. Philosophical reflections of the author about the true cognitive status of Lorentz transformations are adduced.
1. About a technique of comparison of spatial segments
Unfortunately, all former fair critical remarks of considerable number of sane fair researchers to address of Lorentz transformations customary in special relativity have not been perceived by scientific community to the right degree. Reasons of the author of this article about a methodological incorrectness of the process of deducing of these transformations have not considered too [1]. Apparently these failures should be referred on special world outlook and methodological complexity of a situation and for the present bad persuasiveness of the critical argument. We shall try to be more convincing well.
Not a secret, that the significant role of the invention of special four-dimensional Minkowski space-time in business of giving greater pictorial presentation to Special Relativity Theory (which have specially received by distortion of usual four-dimensional space-time by means of a doubtful way of synchronization of clocks and the artificial imposed thesis about invariance of an interval) in one’s time has played. We also shall resort to the elementary geometry for giving pictorial presentation to our reasons, but without specially invented elaborate distortions.
As it is accepted in all elementary textbooks, we shall consider a standard situation with mutual movement of two systems K and K ‘ with high speed along the combined axes x and x ‘. (See Fig.1):
Fig.1
In the further we shall exclude axes y, y ‘, z, z ‘ from consideration for simplicity and we shall represent a situation in the Cartesian orthogonal system of coordinates, on a bidimentional space-time plane. (See Fig.2).
Fig.2
By analogy to Minkowski space-time we shall consider, that each point on this plane, having the spatial and time coordinate, corresponds to world event in a described situation.
Here xOt – system of a stationary observer. During the initial moment of time as it is usual, reference marks of two systems O and O ‘ it is considered conterminous. Point O ‘ will move in the course of time on an axis x’ in this figure, representing the direct line located under a corner φ in relation to an axis t. At that φ = arctgV, where V-speed of movement of system K ‘ in relation to system K from the point of view of observer from system K.
Let’s consider, how movement of rod AB based in system K ‘ and located along an axis x’ will look here. Obviously, the rod in the course of time will slide on an axis x’ with all own points too. We shall note, that all points of a rod in system K ‘ coexist simultaneously, are in one temporal "section" or temporal "echelon".
From thought experiment with « Einstein’s train » we know, that the infringement of a principle of simultaneity of events in spatially divided points in two systems moving with high speeds takes place. This phenomenon has received the name « a relativity of simultaneity ». The essence of a phenomenon is evidently visible on Fig.2. All simultaneous events in system K lay on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox. For example, simultaneous events in points Ax and Bx here are. Nevertheless events, simultaneous in system K ‘, lay already on the straight lines parallel to axis Ox ‘. In particular, it is points A and B. It turns out, that two events, simultaneous in system K, do not be such in system K ‘ and on the contrary. Each schoolboy knows about it today.
Now we shall try to make the act of measurement of length of this rod, using opportunities and tools of stationary system K. In system K along axis Ox we shall arrange a measuring bar by means of which we shall try to measure length of a moving rod. We shall note, that all points of this bar coexist simultaneously (in one time section) on axis Ox into the combined moment of time t=0 and on an axis parallel to it into any other moment of time.
The standard technique of contact sensing of length of a line segment means superimposition its ends with point labels on a measuring bar. Means, a rod and a measuring bar should have two joint (coincident) world events. How business with it at us in this case is?
On Fig.2 it is evidently visible, that the rod can be superposed without effort by all own points or at least by two extreme with all measuring bars located in systems, moving with the same speed in relation to K. These bars are displayed on the lines parallel to axis Ox ‘ (for example, DE). However it is impossible to tell the same about axis Ox. It is obvious, that axes Ox and Ox ‘ are not parallel, therefore cannot be completely superposed, and can be crossed only in one point. This consequence of the elementary Euclid axioms. It turns out, that the rod can meet a bar into the certain moment of time per only one own end (generally – per only one point of own body). Superimposition of other end of a rod (generally – any its other point) with a bar becomes possible only into other moment of time, through a certain time interval. However it means that the second event occurs in other time echelon. During the specified time interval the first end of a rod and all other points of its body, certainly, "will depart" on significant distance so it will not turn out as the correct act of measurement. Essentially important fact is that all points of a body of a rod, except for one superposed, appear in other time echelons. Each point of a body of a rod for a meeting with a bar should wait exclusively the especial time echelon. The transparent conclusion from here follows, that the rod and a measuring bar cannot have two or more joint (coincident) world events and consequently their lengths essentially cannot be compared. This conclusion is so important, that deserve get-up in the form of special cognitive restriction or an interdiction that we shall make later. We already described this situation in details earlier [1], now this extraordinary occurrence is evidently visible per geometric visualization.
Perhaps, something will be changed with attempt of contactless remote measurement with use of transfer of the information by means of any signal? However signals from the ends of a rod, being are let out simultaneously in system of a stationary rod, with identical speed will move ahead to a measuring bar, being during any intermediate moment of time on direct, parallel axis Ox ‘ and consequently also cannot meet her simultaneously in system Ox. These signals during all time are within the limits of the own time echelon and cannot replace one time echelon with another at will. The situation will be similar at attempt of transfer of a signal in the opposite direction, from a measuring bar to a rod. Both these variants we already considered in details earlier [1].
For a case of usual small speeds this fact, maybe, has no so big methodological value. During described « defect of a simultaneity » the rod has not time "to depart" too far so distortion of its length observable from another system will be insignificant. However when the rod and a measuring bar mutually move with high near-light speeds, the problem gets basic value. If to adhere to strictly scientific objective methodological approach, it is necessary to ascertain, that
act of exact measurement of length of a rod and, in general, lengths of any line segments " in the air ", by measuring means of moving system turn out impracticable in principle.
Moreover, the objective methodological interdiction on any intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments and other extensive parameters along a line of moving of two systems takes place. As these pieces can have only one general world event, as we saw it on Fig.2, those parameters in these two systems which are entirely defined by frameworks of this dot event, for example, its spatial coordinates are supposed to comparison only. So, it is admissible to intersystem compare in moving systems with coordinates only one point.
2. Transformation of a time scale
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
Now we shall try to make the act of measurement of length of this rod, using opportunities and tools of stationary system K. In system K along axis Ox we shall arrange a measuring bar by means of which we shall try to measure length of a moving rod. We shall note, that all points of this bar coexist simultaneously (in one time section) on axis Ox into the combined moment of time t=0 and on an axis parallel to it into any other moment of time.
The standard technique of contact sensing of length of a line segment means superimposition its ends with point labels on a measuring bar. Means, a rod and a measuring bar should have two joint (coincident) world events. How business with it at us in this case is?
On Fig.2 it is evidently visible, that the rod can be superposed without effort by all own points or at least by two extreme with all measuring bars located in systems, moving with the same speed in relation to K. These bars are displayed on the lines parallel to axis Ox ‘ (for example, DE). However it is impossible to tell the same about axis Ox. It is obvious, that axes Ox and Ox ‘ are not parallel, therefore cannot be completely superposed, and can be crossed only in one point. This consequence of the elementary Euclid axioms. It turns out, that the rod can meet a bar into the certain moment of time per only one own end (generally – per only one point of own body). Superimposition of other end of a rod (generally – any its other point) with a bar becomes possible only into other moment of time, through a certain time interval. However it means that the second event occurs in other time echelon. During the specified time interval the first end of a rod and all other points of its body, certainly, "will depart" on significant distance so it will not turn out as the correct act of measurement. Essentially important fact is that all points of a body of a rod, except for one superposed, appear in other time echelons. Each point of a body of a rod for a meeting with a bar should wait exclusively the especial time echelon. The transparent conclusion from here follows, that the rod and a measuring bar cannot have two or more joint (coincident) world events and consequently their lengths essentially cannot be compared. This conclusion is so important, that deserve get-up in the form of special cognitive restriction or an interdiction that we shall make later. We already described this situation in details earlier [1], now this extraordinary occurrence is evidently visible per geometric visualization.
Perhaps, something will be changed with attempt of contactless remote measurement with use of transfer of the information by means of any signal? However signals from the ends of a rod, being are let out simultaneously in system of a stationary rod, with identical speed will move ahead to a measuring bar, being during any intermediate moment of time on direct, parallel axis Ox ‘ and consequently also cannot meet her simultaneously in system Ox. These signals during all time are within the limits of the own time echelon and cannot replace one time echelon with another at will. The situation will be similar at attempt of transfer of a signal in the opposite direction, from a measuring bar to a rod. Both these variants we already considered in details earlier [1].
For a case of usual small speeds this fact, maybe, has no so big methodological value. During described « defect of a simultaneity » the rod has not time "to depart" too far so distortion of its length observable from another system will be insignificant. However when the rod and a measuring bar mutually move with high near-light speeds, the problem gets basic value. If to adhere to strictly scientific objective methodological approach, it is necessary to ascertain, that
act of exact measurement of length of a rod and, in general, lengths of any line segments " in the air ", by measuring means of moving system turn out impracticable in principle.
Moreover, the objective methodological interdiction on any intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments and other extensive parameters along a line of moving of two systems takes place. As these pieces can have only one general world event, as we saw it on Fig.2, those parameters in these two systems which are entirely defined by frameworks of this dot event, for example, its spatial coordinates are supposed to comparison only. So, it is admissible to intersystem compare in moving systems with coordinates only one point.
2. Transformation of a time scale
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
In the classical mechanics with its small speeds axes t and t ‘ consider conterminous. Here transformations of coordinates of a point are reduced to transition from rectangular Cartesian system K to oblique-angled (affine) system K ‘ with one conterminous axis t (t ‘). Galilean Transformations are those:
x ‘ = x – V·t t ‘ = t
However we know that Galilean Transformations are not compatible to Maxwell’s Equations. For a case of movement with velocity of light or nearly other formulas should be found. Here again in all growth there is a following methodological problem: how to deduce formulas of transformations in conditions above the discovered objective interdiction on intersystem comparison of lengths of line segments? We shall recollect that all known variants of a conclusion of Lorentz Transformations are based on intersystem comparison of observable fragmentons, including infinitesimal (dx, dr, dS). Obviously, all this should be refer to incorrect procedures from the point of view of objective scientific methodology. Moreover, there is all the bases to assume, as Lorentz Transformations, being are deduced by the mentioned incorrect ways, cannot be necessary correct formulas of transformations. The scandalous circumstance appears.
How such methodological disorder could happen? Obviously, in days of creation special relativity the intuitive aspiration to prefer transformation of a spatial component to transformation of a time component has played with physicists a spiteful joke. The second, apparently, was too frightening theirs of the uncommonness. Therefore physicists have taken Lorentz’s idea about spatial "flattening" of objects at high speeds of movement and the corresponding formula of this deformation practically without alternative.
In those days empirical criticism was reign over the minds of physicists. And favorite of empirical critics the principle of economy of thinking in this case, apparently, has become a principle sparing their mind, leading thinking on a way of more habitual, less shocking schemes. But it has appeared, that this "sparing way" has brought as a result to the big bog of shocking consequences: as a result of Lorentz Transformations of coordinates have undergone to distortion both of space and time, and plus a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity in addition. And only now the fact of a methodological incorrectness of these transformations was found out. Obviously, it is necessary to search for other methodologically correct way, as well as possible really saving thinking and not leading to so grandiose transformations.
We have earlier already found out [1], that correct formulas can be received without any problems directly from the analysis of mental experiment with « Einstein’s train ». The saving thinking observer at station comes to conclusion, that the problem of a relativity of a simultaneity, that is a problem of a mismatch of hours in two systems can be easily solved if to admit the fact of presence of time displacement in spatially divided points. Hence, it is necessary to correct the formula of transformation of a time scale by means of addition of spatially dependent component.
We earlier already calculated size of a mismatch of scales t and t ‘ from the analysis of this mental experiment [1]:
xV
Θt = 2 2 , where x – distance between described points on scale Ox
(c −V )
From the formula it is visible, that in case of coincidence of a direction of vectors x andV , the displacement will have positive size, and in case of discrepancy – negative. That is, for example, in case of a direction conterminous with movement of observable object, the relative delay of events on a time scale, and in case of an opposite direction – a relative forestalling will take place. One end of a train in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » is for the observer along movement of a train, and another – against. So a relative forestalling of events on one end and a relative delay on other end compensate effect of displacement of a train during movement of a ray of light.
Thus, the situation for movement with near-light velocity on the elementary space-time plane will look geometrically as follows:
Fig. 3
As axes Ot and Ot ‘ are directed under a corner to each other, the above-stated reasonings for axes Ox and Ox ‘ will be fair for them too. It is necessary to ascertain, that pieces on a time scale or time intervals in two mutually moving systems too can have only one point of crossing. Thus, time intervals in two systems cannot be methodologically correct comparing with each other too. It is permitted an overlapping only one coordinate on a time scales.
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
3. Lorentz Transformations and the Einstein’s way of synchronization of clocks – outside of the law
Let’s sum up. On a way of attempt of correct measurement there is a basic methodological barrier. It appears impracticable in principle. It is found out, that superposition only one space-time point in two moving past each other systems (in case of four-dimensional space-time superposition on a cross-section plane y, z ) is admissible. Using terminology of Minkowski, it is necessary to approve: two such systems can have only one general world event. As such world event a start or a finish of light beams in the combined beginning of coordinates of two systems (See Fig.2) as it is made in Michelson-Morley Experiment or a meeting of two beams in the middle of a measured line segment in mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » can be chosen. But any second event in any second point is already cannot be correctly superposed. So mutual comparisons of lengths of spatial or time pieces in two such systems become absolutely impossible.
From here a particular conclusion: all calculations in which comparison more than one point in bidimentional and more than one plane in four-dimensional cases takes place, it is necessary to consider incorrect, to tell more precisely, in general wrongful. If to consider, that all variants of "conclusion" of Lorentz transformations for a bidimentional case are based on comparison of a different sort of pieces (spatial and time pieces, vectors, radius-vectors and intervals), let even infinitesimal (dx, dt, dr, ds) it is necessary to recognize all of them incorrect. Accordingly, it is necessary to recognize wrongful all transformations, received in this way. It is necessary to consider incorrect also the way of synchronization of the clocks offered by Einstein, based all on the same intersystem comparison of space-time pieces. Let’s repeat, we already brought these facts to attention earlier. Now all this is visible descriptive-geometrically.
Knowing size of a mismatch of time scales, it is possible to write the formula of transformation
x ⋅V
t’ = t-. It will mean on the bidimentional space-time plane, that the axis t ‘ will take up c2 −V 2 position under a corner ψ to an axis t. V
At that ψ = arcctg . c2 −V 2
So, correct formulas of transformations for two moving systems will look like:
x ‘ = x – V·t x ⋅V
t ‘ = t -22c −V
And it is not necessary to think out anything anymore here.
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
4. New system of transformations and the Michelson-MorleyExperiment
Obviously, it is necessary to show, as proposed system of transformations will be coordinated with experimental data. We shall consider it on an example of Michelson-Morley Experiment (See Fig.3):
Fig. 4
We accept that unique possible general world event for two systems – a meeting in space and time of two beams, longitudinal and transverse in a point O takes place. For the system connected with experimental installation, all it is so obvious. In system, concerning which this experimental installation moves with speed V, events occur in the same space points, but with displacement on the time. Size of displacement is considered of known mental experiment with « Einstein’s train » and equal:
r
Θx = xV , where x – distance between investigated points on scale Ox. (c2 −V 2) The observer to whom there "has arrived" the center O from point A, understands, that time spent for a way by a transverse beam, is equal
t1 = 2l/c + ΘAO (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and O). Time spent by a longitudinal beam on passage АВ, is equal
tAB = l/c + ΘAB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points A and B). And time spent for passage ОВ, equal
tOB = l/c – ΘOB (Taking into account a displacement of a time scales between points O and B and changes of a sign at movement in an opposite direction). In sum АВ and ОВ are the general way of a longitudinal signal so time of longitudinal passage t2 will be equal, taking into account a difference of two displacements ( ΘAO = ΘAB – ΘOB ):
t2 = tAB + tOB = 2l/c + ΘAO = t1
Thus, times of passage of longitudinal and transverse shoulders of interferometer are equal for the moving observer too. The consent with experience obviously. One should think that similarly can be explained and results of all other experiments illustrating "relativistic" features.
Against the received formulas of transformations charges in their seeming "asymmetry" are possible. Really, the requirement of symmetry for record of transformations leads to the following:
x= x’ + V’ ·t’x′⋅V ′
t = t’ + c2 −V ′2
However, it is necessary to pay attention, that V and V’, the speeds of mutual moving from the point of view of each of two systems, are the absolutely different parameters. Presence in two systems of only one conterminous world event excludes for us an opportunity of intersystem comparison of speeds which are defined by means of private from division of spatial and time pieces V = dx/dt, V’ = dx ‘/dt ‘. So formulas of direct and inverse transformations do not contradict each other, and no problem with a form of inverse transformations is present.
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
5. The Cognitive Status of Lorentz Transformations
The situation with an interdiction on comparison of space-time pieces should puzzle the researchers, wishing, nevertheless, to possess enough by the capacious information on events in other system. Perhaps, Lorentz transformations all the same will be useful to us in any cases? On Fig.1 it is visible, that moving rod AB casts the projection AxBx on axis Ox, and projection AtBt to axis Ot. In case of methodological inaccessibility of exact correct measurement the researcher, wishing definiteness and pictorialness, obviously, neglecting losses on displacement of a rod during time defect, can to set for itself a problem quasi-correct displays and to take advantage of the specified projections as substitutes of real parameters. For the lack of a normal mirror it is possible, alternatively, to try to use a distorting mirror. Lorentz’s formulas just it is necessary to reckon among such ersatz-representations. They obviously deform real characteristics of observable object and cannot be used in strict calculations; however nobody forbids using the approximate representations for the approximate calculations. But for all that it is important to remember about this quasi-correctness, to hold it in mind. It is necessary to recognize as the mistake of authors and adherents of the Special Relativity the fact, that they raise this quasi-correct representation in a rank of a unique reality with which it is necessary to deal. Actually with the aid of Lorentz Transformations it is possible to judge only scale of observable distortion of real parameters of moving by objects. It is solely the characteristic of a specific aberration of an observable picture at high speeds of movement – and no more that.
Lorentz Transformations give a local picture of observable distortions, it is a specific « observational physics», a version of the descriptive science, aspiring to absolutize the narrow private vision, to limit itself only to that is obviously found out in experience and by that to oppose with itself to the explanatory science opening causal bases of the phenomena. Strictly speaking, it should be referred to crude intermediate semi-empirical knowledge, poorly processed by scientific system of theoretical thinking, to an under-science.
At the article of D. Bohm [2] the bright example with two recessive travelers is made, each of which in opinion of another eventually decreases in the observable sizes. However everyone know, that in this case the observable angular sizes decrease only, and for nobody will come to mind to insist on the fact of real reduction of the sizes of travelers. It is possible to give an example also with heard distortion of a sound from a moving by source, known as Doppler’s effect: everyone know that it is only specific phenomenon caused by mutual movement of a source and the receiver, and it has no attitude to the basic physics of a sound. If to use photo-or the video equipment with the big exposure moving by subjects merge on a picture in one blurry stream. However, thankfully, nobody yet did not do a terrible conclusion from this fact about real loss of the precise outlines by the moving objects. For certain it is possible to give many examples of specific distortions and the aberrations, accompanying situations of mutual moving of a subject and the observer, it is possible even for the refined aesthetes to describe a special exotic local picture of the observable phenomenon, it is possible even to write the special exalted philosophy of the fascinated observer. However it is not necessary to try to absolutize it, try to substitute this perversion for the strict objective physical essence.
Unfortunately, we live during an epoch of domination of philosophy of empiricism in its several modern versions today. One of its branches is relativism, aspiring inadequately to overestimate a position of the observer and to belittle objective characteristics of objects of the nature. However in the milieu where the strict exact science have respect, nevertheless, there is strong an intuitive aspiration to a recognition of the fact of objective existence of the real world, independent of the observer and his cognitive situation. This spontaneous materialistic impulse, unfortunately, has not found a worthy embodiment in the traditional materialistic philosophy, proved unable to answer a number of key questions. However today it is possible to breathe with relief because, at last, appeared a healthy doctrine of the materialistic orientation, capable to overcome traditional stumbling-blocks of materialism and thus to develop the hand about a hand with other progressive philosophical currents. It is the synthesizing realism which is based on use of idea ring determinism [3, 4].
The situation with relativism, in our opinion, is evidently illustrated by a following example. We shall imagine the big branchy tree on each branch of which sits a raven, considering itself as wisest. It is clear, that each of them observing for world around under the special foreshortening, has before itself a special picture of the events and events pattern differing from others. If to stand up on a way of absolutization of an observable picture, favorite for relativists and other empiricists, it is necessary to deal with a great many of variants of the reality differing from each other that can lead to chaos in knowledge. Much more reliably and more conveniently, professing a principle of polyhedral (many-sided) monism [3, 4] to admit the fact of existence of a unique objective reality, visible different observers under specific foreshortenings and consequently naturally differing in their descriptions.
6. New Cognitive Situation
Following the great philosopher Kant we should inquire ourselves once again: what I basically can know about world around, in particular, on its extremely distant boundaries? Obviously, this situation has features of a basic originality and consequently should be characterized with use of a special principle which project is offered below.
Principle of the limited accessibility: in two systems moving rather each other with high speed cannot be compared (with a view of measurement or other purposes) anything more than one space-time point in a bidimentional case and anything more than one space-time plane, transverse to movement, in a four-dimensional case. Accordingly, in these systems those parameters which are completely defined in this point, for example, its space-time coordinates can be compared only. All other parameters appear inaccessible to comparison.
It, certainly, at all does not mean, that they disappear somewhere in "native" system, actually their exact value becomes inaccessible for moving by "relativistic" observer. If this observer adheres the philosophy of empiricism in its modern versions he can draw a conclusion, convenient for him, about real absence of these parameters inaccessible to him in general, completely exclude them from sphere of the consideration. However thus he risks subsequently colliding with them under the changed circumstances (for example, in case of alignment of speeds) and, besides, he can himself appear in a similar situation when parameters of his own system will be ignored by other observers.
It is necessary to note, that this situation is not so surprising nowadays and partly reminds that, which has developed in the mechanic of a microcosm where the significant set of combinations of some parameters describing movement of micro particles, becomes inaccessible to the macro observer. Unfortunately, unlike our case there the micro particle is deprived an opportunity « to stand up for itself », therefore physicists absolutely unpunishedly deprive it of right to possess these combinations of parameters objectively. In particular, they had taken away at it the right to have own trajectory of movement. There till now profess a primitive empirical principle: I do not observe – means, it is not present in the nature. And the principle of the limited accessibility which was assuming at them view as Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, they treat, as real absence of parameters, inaccessible to measurement, in the nature of micro particles.
Mankind collides with the specific restrictions in access to a number of interesting parameters in cosmology too. It too have objective character: limitation of speed of the signaling, not allowing to receive the current information on much removed objects, limitation of term of human life and mankind in comparison with cycles of passing of mighty space processes and the inaccessibility of supervision of the last concerned with it and so forth.
Anyway, speech in all these cases goes about one general cognitive problem: occurrence of specific objective restrictions on ways of knowledge of extremely distant areas of life of the person and the nature. It is necessary to ascertain, that the mankind at once on several sites of knowledge has clashed against a specific cognitive fencing, behind which it is possible to observe directly only a part of an interesting objective reality, to find out the incomplete, limited set of its parameters. Now comprehension of importance of an indisputable truth should come, at last: the person learns reality through a prism of special area of the contact with it, and from specific properties of this area depends, what picture of this reality he can depict for himself as a result. And the area of contact at times appears objectively enough narrow and uncomfortable. Thus objectively limited accessibility of direct empirical research opportunities creates a situation promoting growth of a topicality of substitutional ways of research: significance of dimensions of indirect parameters and more resolute and wide-ranging designing of system theoretical knowledge on this base increases. A topicality of this problem will be inevitable to increase with the further progress of knowledge on its remote boundaries, and it is necessary to be considered with this fact both to researchers, and philosophers of a science. So supporters of empirical and positivistic approaches to cognition inevitably should make place seriously. If to continue, as the empiricists recommend, to be limited to consideration of only those parameters that are accessible for direct supervision, excepting others from consideration, it is possible in general to lose ability to comprehend deep essence of the natural phenomena and to stop at a level of cleanly descriptive knowledge, to get confused in huge volume of poorly sensible information as it, for example, has occurred today in the physics of a microcosm.
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
References:
- Ravil Kalmykov. Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects. Jul. 4, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
- David Bohm. The special Theory of Relativity. 1965. W.A.Benjamin Inc. N.-Y.-Amsterdam
- Ravil Kalmykov. Ring Determinism: Solving the Problems of Scientific Materialism . Sep.30, 2007, in “The General Science Journal” http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov3.pdf
- Ravil Kalmykov. The personal Internet-site in Russian. http://www.globalfolio.net/main/CMprov-p-336.phtml (the mirror http://sinthes.boxmail.biz/ )
In Thomas Kuhn book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", he defines a new paradigm as one that replaces a previous worldview with a new one, which changes our fundamental understanding of reality.
History has shown that most if not all new paradigms are opposed by the establishment when first presented.
The Church at the time of Galileo tried to prevent his ideas from being seen by forcing him to recant because they contradicted what they believed in.
Although many will not admit it; today’s scientific establishment is not too different. Today one must have an idea published in a peer review journal before it can be "seen" by the scientific community.
Unfortunately, the existing scientific community determines which ideas are seen by them because they determine which ones are published.
In some cases they justifiably refuse to publish ideas because they are not back up by scientific facts however, in some cases they may prevent them from being published because they contradict what they believe in.
Science dictates that a theoretical model of our environment must explain and predict all observations. If it cannot it must be modified or discarded.
For example in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy the existence of epicycles were used to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.
It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus and advancements in observational technology, which allowed for direct observations of planetary motion did scientists realize epicycles did not exist.
This is true even though many Greek, Indian, and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.
However, why did it take almost two thousand years for science to realize that their ideas were correct?
The reason may have been that the scientific community assumed the existence of epicycles based only on their predicative powers. Therefore, they were able to justify suppressing the correct Greek and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years because, using them, they were still able to make accurate predictions a planet’s position. This was true even though there was a more logical and accurate predicative methodology based as mentioned earlier on observations of the Greek, Indian, and Muslim cultures.
If one looks very closely one can see similarities between then and now.
The validity of Quantum theory is based primarily on their ability to make accurate quantitative predictions of our environment.
However, observations of Dark Matter appear to contradict the assumption made by it that all matter must be contained in particles.
This is because even with our advance observational technology, we have been unable to observe a baryonic or particle component.
History has shown the fact that a theoretical model can make accurate quantitative predictions does not justify not looking for a new paradigm when there are observations that contract its foundations,
Later Jeff
The crises of our time, it becomes increasingly clear, are the necessary
impetus for the revolution now under way. And once we understand
nature’s transformative powers, we see that it is our powerful ally, not a
force to feared our subdued.
Thomas Kuhn
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009
(In a PDF format)
is probably one of the most important images ever taken.
Recent advances in technology, such as the Hubble Space Telescope have enable scientists to observe macroscopic environments with the same precision as the microscopic. This opens a door to for a new direction in the search for understanding of the laws that govern the evolution of our
universe.
Presently scientists need two theories to define our universe.
The first or Einstein’s define the macroscopic properties of the universe, mass, space, time and gravitational forces in terms of the continuous properties of a space-time metric.
While quantum theories define microscopic property of particles, mass and energy in terms of probability functions.
However, for the past 50 years the brightest minds in the scientific community have tried to unify these environments by extending the domain of one to the other without success.
The problem is their domains do not appear to overlap. In other words, quantum theories can only be applied only to the microscopic properties of particles while Einstein’s theories can only be applied to the macroscopic gravitational world of galaxies.
The reason this diseconomy exists is that Quantum theories were developed by mathematically analyzing the microscopic environment of particles without considering the macroscopic gravitational world of galaxies. While Einstein’s gravitational and relativistic theories were developed without taking into consideration the observations regarding the world of particles.
However, history has shown most if not all paradigm shifts in understanding are enabled by developing an observational understanding of environment and not by mathematically analyzing it.
For example, in the15 hundreds many in the scientific establishment assumed the earth was the center of the solar system. Using a theoretical model based on those assumptions, they were able to mathematically make accurate predictions of the position of the observable planets.
However, as observational technologies advanced and more planets were discovered, the mathematical equations required to predict their positions became more and more complex.
Even after the telescope enabled Galileo to observe some objects in the solar system were orbiting Jupiter not the earth, many did not accept it. They ignored the direct visual evident that the earth was not the center of the solar system and continued to derive more complex mathematical equations, which could accurately predict the position of all objects including those orbiting Jupiter based on the assumption that it was.
What finally caused the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric perspective was not the fact that they could not make accurate mathematical predictions of the position the objects in the solar system using it, because they could but the direct visual evidence of its inaccuracy provided by the telescope.
This reason, as mentioned earlier most if not all paradigm shifts in understanding are enabled by developing an observational understanding of an environment and not by mathematically analyzing it is because the abstract nature of equations allows them to define a non-existent environment or reality.
For example, scientists before 15th century were able to use the abstract properties of equations based on a geocentric model to predict the positions of the planets. However, what forced them to change was not the fact that they could not accurately predict their positions because as mentioned earlier they still could but the direct observations showed them, in reality the sun not the earth was the center of the solar system.
The reason the Hubble Deep Field image may be one of "The Most Important ones Ever Taken" is that it significantly expands our observational environment and provides a way of checking the abstract equations that science uses to define our universe against its reality.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009
(In a PDF format)
In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is a way of understanding why the observations of our physical universe must be compatible with the life. Many feel it is the only way to explain the observations that the laws of nature and its fundamental physical constants remarkably take on values that are consistent with conditions for existence of life, as we know it. It states that this apparent coincidence is actually a necessity because living observers would not be able to exist, and hence, observe the universe, were these laws and constants not constituted in this way.
However, there may be another reason why they take on these values.
We have shown throughout The Imagineer’s Chronicles that all forms of mass and energy including life are related to the existence of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time
For example, in the article "Why Space-time?" Sept 27, 2007 we conceptually derived the laws governing the relativistic properties of motion, space, time, gravity and its equivalence to acceleration in terms of a curvature in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
While the articles "The geometry of quarks" Mar. 1, 2009 and "Why is mass and energy quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 showed the laws governing the properties of particle are also related to the existence of four *spatial* dimensions.
However, this provides a testable mechanism for defining the why the fundamental physical constants of nature support life based on the existence of only four *spatial* dimensions. It is testable because we have assumed that each of the four *spatial* dimensions have unvarying identical properties. Therefore, there can only be one solution using these ideas, which must define what we observer the universe to be.
However there are multiple solutions regard the physical constants of the universe if one assumes the universe is composed of four-dimensional space-time because the integration of space and time defined by Einstein do not allow for defining an invariant relationship between them.
For example, the two-dimensional "surface" of a balloon stretches and curves uniformly as it moves in three-dimensional space. Similarly the "surface" of three dimensional space would curve and stretch uniformly as it moves in fourth *spatial* dimensions
As was shown in the article “Why Space-time?“ the movement of a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold though a fourth *spatial* dimension would define the physical constants associated with gravitational and accelerated reference frames. This is analogous how the movement of a balloons surface through three-dimensional space defines its physical constants.
In the article “The geometry of quarks” it was shown the fundamental constants associated with the 2/3 fractional charge of the Up, Charm and Top is related to the energy directed along a "surface" of a displaced three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimension while those of the -1/3 charge of The Down, Strange and Bottom is associated with the energy that is directed perpendicular to that "surface". Therefore, because quarks are the fundamental components of particles one should be able, using those concepts to derive the fundamental constants governing particle formation and why they interact with an environment of four *spatial* dimensions to generated life as we know it.
In other words it may not be a coincidence that the laws of nature are such that they support life it may be the fact that the existence four-dimensional space will only support the laws of nature that allow life to form in it.
However, this would mean science would not have to rely on the Anthropic principle to understand why the fundamental physical constants our universe are such that they support life because it may be an inevitable outcome of the existence of only four *spatial* dimensions.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2010
(In a PDF format)
History has shown the most successful theories are those based on what has come to be called Occam’s razor or that "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory".
Newton applied it when he defined the properties of planetary motion in terms of a single concept called the law of gravity which assumes that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.
| How Newton Discovered Gravity A Comets Tale |
He could have complicated it by assuming the existence of other perimeters such as a repulsive force acting between each point mass and then make a proportional increase the magnitude of the attractive force so that their movements corresponded to observations but he chose not to.
However, a law of gravity based on this assumption would be just as successful in predicting their motion as the one he proposed.
But as technologies advance and more accurate measurements of planetary motions were made scientists realized not all them can explained by Newton’s laws.
This led to the acceptance of more universal explanation of planetary motion based on Einstein’s assumption that space and time can be merged into a single entity called space-time.
However, Einstein also applied Occam’s the principal of the eliminating all assumptions "that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory" because he based his redefinition of Newton’s laws only on the single assumption that space and time can be merged to form space-time.
Unfortunately the assumption that space-time is responsible for the macroscopic motion of the planets cannot be used to explain the movement of microscopic or quantum particles. To predict their movements Quantum theories had to assume they are defined by the probably they will be found at specific point at a specific time and that there is an infinite number of paths a particle can take while moving between two points in space.
However, this presents a problem for scientists who believe, as Occam’s did that "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible because presently it takes two assumptions instead of one to completely explain the phenomenon of motion.
But we may find the key to why we have not been able to explain motion in terms of a single assumption by understanding the reason science develop theories.
Most would agree one of the primary goals of physics is to provide us with an understanding of the physical relationships and interactions between different aspects of our unobservable environment by extrapolating observations of an observable one to it. Therefore, the assumptions used to define those relationships should be based or have a foundation in our observable environment.
For example, Einstein conceptually defined the movement of planets by assuming a physical interaction of time with the dimensional properties of space even though no one has ever observed time to have physical properties.
Therefore, the assumption that a time or space-time dimension physically exists has no bases in our observational environment.
Similarly, Quantum Theories assume the movement of a particle is defined by the mathematical probability it will be in a specific place at a specific time. However, even though this may give a very accuracy analytical solution to its position, it defines its movement in terms of the properties of an abstract of a mathematical environment.
Mathematics is an abstract tool that physicists can use to analytically quantify the validity of a physical model of our environment. However, the abstract probabilistic environment defined by the equations of Quantum Mechanics does not have any physical properties. Therefore, as with a space-time dimension the assumption made by Quantum Theory of the physical existence of a probabilistic mathematical environment have no bases in our observational environment.
We have shown throughout "The Imagineer’s Chronicles" that one can explain and predict the movements of both the planets and particles by extrapolating the observable properties of three-dimensional space to a fourth *spatial* dimension. However, we define the existence and properties of a fourth *spatial* dimension in terms of the observable properties of three-dimensional space.
Therefore, our assumption that the movement of both planets and particles is defined by the existence of a four *spatial* dimension has a foundation in the observable environment of three-dimensional space.
However, we could have chose to complicated it by assuming, as String theorists have, that up to ten dimensions are required to explain the movement of particles and planets. We did not because even thought the existence of ten dimensions can explain the phenomenon of planetary and particle motion six of them can be eliminated because as we have show here "they make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory"
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009
(In a PDF format)
What is falsifiability and why is important to the advancement and growth of science.
Karl Poppers answers this in his book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by explaining how and why only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observations add value to a scientific community.
Theories are a result of creative imagination. Therefore, the growth of scientific knowledge rests on the ability to distinguish the reality of the "real world" from one created by imagination. Therefore, only theories, which are testable and falsifiable by observations of the "real world" add to science since they are the only ones distinguishable from an imaginary one.
In the earlier article Causality, explanation, and deductions of predictions Nov-01-08 we discussed the two basic components or statements Karl feels all theories must have to be falsifiable and therefore add value to a scientific community.
The first or as he calls it the "universal statement of laws" apply to the entire universe. These are more commonly called laws of nature. Newton’s law of gravity would be an example of a universal statement because it can be applied throughout the universe.
The second or singular statements are defined as ones that apply only to specific events. My car stop because it ran out of gas is an example of a singular statement because running out gas of applies only to that event.
In this article, we will discuss why adopting Karl’s definition of falsifiability with regard to these "laws" or "statements" is important for the advancement of science.
As mentioned earlier Karl feels the value of a scientific system should be dependent on the ability of its "statements" to be falsified and not on their ability to be verified. This is because it is possible to logically proceed from one true singular statement to the falsity of a universal statement even though all other singular statements may verify it.
However, determining which singular statement can result in the downfall of a scientific system is not easy as Karl points out because it is almost always possible to introduce an ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses to successfully integrate a singular statement into almost any scientific system.
Therefore, Karl proposes that we adopt certain rules regarding how we define falsifiability with respect to theoretical statements.
The first is all ad hoc or auxiliary hypothesis added to a theory to explain a specific observation must not decrease the falsifiability or testability of the system in question. Putting it another way, its introduction must be regarded as an attempt to develop a new system which if adopted would represent a real advancement in our understanding our world.
An example of an acceptable auxiliary hypothesis is Pauli’s exclusion because it increased the precision and the testability of older quantum theories.
An example of an unacceptable one would be the contraction hypotheses proposed by Fitzgerald and Lorentz to explain the experimental findings of Michelson and Morley because it had no falsifiable consequences but only served to restore agreement between theory and experiment. Therefore, it did little to advance our understanding of the "real world".
However, advancement was achieved by Relativity because it explained and predicted Michelson and Morley’s observations along with providing new consequences and testable physical effects thereby opening up new avenues for testing and falsification of the theory.
Karl also feels the same rules of falsifiability should apply to the universal statement of laws or theories that apply to the entire universe.
For example he would , as mentioned earlier consider Newton’s law of gravity to be of value to the science community because it explained and predicted "real world" observations of planetary motion along with providing new consequences and testable physical effects thereby opening up new avenues for testing and falsification.
However, I believe he would feel that string theories have no scientific value because they hypothesized the universe is composed of one-dimensional strings in an attempt to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. However, the existence of strings is not falsifiable by observations of the "real world" because by definition they are too small to be observed. Additionally, the mathematical arguments used to support their existence have no falsifiable consequences because in most cases they can be modified to restore agreement between them and experimental findings. Therefore, there is no way to verify if the mathematical worlds created in the minds of string theorists exist in the real world.
Physics is by definition an observational science. Imagination is a very important component in its advancement however; it must be tempered with the "reality" of the observable world.
Later Jeff
‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any
hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination,
but does not advance our knowledge.’
J Black,
Copyright 2009 Jeffery O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
One of the primary goals of science is to develop a detailed picture of our environment that encompasses all of it properties.
Recent advances in observational technologies have allowed scientists to make broader more accurate measurements of our environment while computers have allow them to integrate these observations into a big picture that encompasses a much larger proportion of its properties than previously possible.
With the activation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) they will have the ability to probe the microscopic particle properties of mass to resolution approaching 2.17645 × 10−8 kg or Planck mass and energy to 1.22 × 1028 eV or Planck’s energy.
While the images from the Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescopes have given them ability to make detailed measurements of universe’s macroscopic properties back almost to its beginnings.
However, even with these advances in measurement technology science has been unable to define a common mechanism that can explain the microscopic properties of mass and energy probed by the Large Hadron Collider and the macroscopic properties of the universe as seen by the Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescope.
This may be because science defines the microscopic environment probed by the LHC in terms is defined in terms of quantum mechanics while macroscopic environment observed by the Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescopes in terms of Einstein theories.
Einstein’s theories define mass and gravity in terms of a curvature in a continuous space-time metric while quantum theories define mass and energy in terms of the discontinuous properties of particles. However, no one has been able to define a common mechanism that can account for the continuous properties of gravitational forces predicted by Einstein’s theories in terms of the discontinuous properties of mass defined by quantum theories.
Therefore, scientists must rely on two seemly incompatible theories to completely define the observations of our environment.
 |
However, as Dr. Robert Hert shows in this NASA video advancements in technology have not only allowed science to make more detailed measurements of our environment but also greatly improved our the ability to integrate them into a larger setting.
Einstein’s theories predicts the position of an object such as a star, planet or particle by assuming it is defined by the forces it experiences as it moves along a well defined trajectory whereas quantum theories predicts its position in terms of the probability it will be at a specific point at a specific point in time. Therefore, quantum theories assume there are an infinite number of trajectories a particle can take while Einstein’s predict there is one for its movement from one point to another, which is defined by the forces it experiences
However, recent technological advances indicate the assumption of quantum theory that particles take all possible trajectories to reach a specify point is not supported by experimentation.
This is demonstrated in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider that use magnetic forces to direct particle along a predetermined circular path so they collide with other particles. This provides experimental verification their positions and trajectories are definable in terms of the forces they experience because operators determine them by adjusting the strength or force of the magnetic fields they move through.
This appears to contradict quantum theories assumption that a particles trajectory in undeterminable.
Granted there is an uncertainty in their trajectories before the particles are created due to the Uncertainty Principle but after, their trajectories are observable and completely determinable down to the limits imposed by that principle.
However, it agrees with the assumption made by Einstein that the trajectory and position of a particle should be determinable by the forces it experiences as it moves through space.
The NASA video shows that we now have the ability to integrate many different types of databases to give a "Big Picture" of our environment. For example, they were able to merge the invisible inferred and ultraviolet light with the visible by assigning each a color in the visual spectrum. This allowed them to integrate or overlay the images of the invisible inferred and ultraviolet environments into a visual one. As Dr. Robert Hert suggests this "Big Picture" may improve our ability, to "see" how and why these environments interact.
As mentioned earlier, recent advancements in measurement technology such as those given to us by the Large Hadron Collider and Spitzer Space Telescopes allow scientists to observe the macroscopic and microscopic aspects of our environment in a detail that was unheard of in the past, while advancements in computing technology give them the ability to integrate them into a "Big Picture" as NASA has done with spectral properties of light.
Perhaps we should try to directly overlay the data bases or images given to us by them instead of indirectly using Quantum and Relativistic theories to explain their environments because, as video shows it may allow us to better understand or "see" how and why they interact.
"The Imagineers chronicles" has and will show that reanalyzing current and past observational data, unbiased by the assumptions made by quantum mechanics that a particle moves through an infinite number of trajectories point new physics, which may allow us to define a link between macroscopic world of gravity and the microscopic world of particles.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
Can we see the invisible? Of course not because if we could it would not be invisible.
|
Credit: |
However, one of the primary goals of science is to extend our knowledge of nature’s processes by "seeing" the invisible.
For example, Isaac Newton showed the position of a planet could be predicted if one assumed that mass generated an attractive gravitational force on all other objects that was directly proportional to their combined masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
However, no one can "see" a gravitational force. How then can scientists be sure that the "thing" called a "gravitational force" really exists?
The answer is they cannot. They can only assume that it does based on the fact that using it they can make accurate predictions of a planets position.
But history has shown, assuming the existence of something based only on its predicted powers is fraught with danger.
For example in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, the existence of epicycles were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.
It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus’s publication of his heliocentric theory did scientists realize epicycles did not exist.
This is true even though many Greek, Indian, and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.
However, why did it take almost two thousand years for science to realize that their ideas were correct?
One reason may have been that the existence of epicycles was based solely on their predictive powers and not on the observations of the environment. If the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to see or observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem with that concept because, at least on earth, objects do not "naturally" follow a curve path.
However, because the scientific community was still able to make accurate predictions of a planet’s position based on the existence of epicycles they were able to ignore these observations and suppressed the correct Greek and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years. This happened even though it was a more logical and accurate predicative methodology.
For the past 100 years scientist have used two theories to define the universe.
Einstein theories use the unobservable concept of a space-time manifold to explain the macroscopic universe while Quantum Theories use probability functions to explain particle interactions, which are not based on physically observing those interactions.
However, similar to the geocentric model of the solar system the acceptance of these theories is not based on observations because no one has ever observed a probability or a space-time dimension, but only on their the predictive abilities.
But as mentioned earlier history has shown, assuming the existence of something based only on its predicted powers is fraught with danger.
It has been shown in "The Imagineer’s Chronicles" one can, by extrapolating the observable properties of our three-dimensional environment to a fourth identical *spatial* dimension explain and predict the quantum properties of mass and the relativistic properties of motion.
For example, the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" Oct, 4, 2007 showed that one can predict the quantum or particle properties of mass and energy in terms of a resonant system or "structure" generated by a matter wave on a "surface" of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, even though we may never be able to see a fourth *spatial* dimension we can observe how dimensions interact in our three-dimensional environment to give us an observational basis for understanding how it would interact with it.
This is not possible in terms of time a space time dimensions because we do not observe time as having observable physical properties
We as scientists we should remember that we can never prove the existence of the invisible.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright 2009 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
By now most of our readers know that we are concerned about the direction science is taking.
Due to advancements in observational technologies, the scientific establishment has discovered inconsistencies with many of the presently accepted theoretical models. These inconsistencies may be due to omissions but as more and more are found one has to wonder the validity of the assumptions they are based on.
For example, there does not appear to be a way of integrating the force called Dark Energy into current theoretical models even though, since its discovery in 1998, some of the brightest minds in the scientific community have tried.
Does anyone else think we may be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?
There are several historical precedents that would appear to support this conclusion.
One of these can be found in the 15 hundreds when the scientific establishment believed the earth was the center of the entire universe. Using a theoretical model based on this assumption, they were able to accurately predict the position of the observable planets.
However, as observational technologies advanced and more planets were discovered, the equations required to predict their positions became more and more complex.
|
|
Even when Galileo directly observed the orbits of Jupiter’s moons were centered on Jupiter and not the earth, many in the scientific establishment did not accept it. They continued to ignore the direct observational evidence that it was not and derived more complex equations, which could accurately predict the position of the planets, including Jupiter’s moons based on the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe.
What is so troubling is that they were able to succeed for a quite a while even though they had direct observational proof that the theoretical basis for it was wrong. This resulted in delaying scientific progress and new theories because they reasoned, “Why should we explore new theories when the old ones still could explain most observations regarding the universe?”
Does anyone else feel that something very similar may be occurring today?
There are observations, other than the one mentioned earlier regarding Dark Energy that also suggest that there might be a flaw in the foundation of modern theories.
For example, as was pointed out in the article "Dark Matter and the Pioneer anomalies" Nov.19, 2007 the anomalous accelerations NASA has observed in its deep space probes appear to be inconsistent with the fundamental structure of the currently accepted theoretical models. In the New scientist article, “Flybys may be key to Pioneer anomaly“ it was even suggested that these observations may possibly (be) pointing towards new physics”.
However, many of today’s scientists are not willing to consider that possibility because they point out the equations based on the present theoretical models can still make extremely accurate predictions almost all of the observable properties of the universe except, as was mentioned earlier the observations of Dark Energy and the anomalous accelerations of NASA’s space probes.
We have shown throughout “The Imagineer’s Chronicle’s” that one can theoretically predict the observations mentioned above and the quantum and relativistic properties of space and time in terms of existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass and four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time.
For example the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?" Oct, 4, 2007 showed that one can predict the quantum or particle properties of mass and energy in terms of a resonant system or "structure" generated by a matter wave in a continuous non-quantized form of mass moving on a "surface" of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Additionally, the article "Why Space-time?" Sept 27, 2007 showed that one can make predictions identical to those made by relativity in terms of a curvature in a "surface of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension instead of curvature in four dimensional space-time manifold.
However, the article "Dark energy: the cosmological constant" Jan. 15 , 2009 showed that one can predict the repulsive force associated with dark energy if one defines gravity as we have done in terms of the same curvature in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as defined the relativistic properties of space and time in the article “Why Space-time?”. This is, in part due to the fact that when stars convert mass to energy the magnitude of that curvature would decrease. This would result in the expansion of a "surface" three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension analogous to how removing the coils or curvature in a rope causes a physical expansion of its two dimensional length when measured with respect to three-dimensional space. Since this expansion would be in addition to the expansion associated with the Big Bang, it would be perceived as acceleration.
This cannot be done in terms a space-time dimension because it does not have spatial properties required to support the spatial expansion associated with Dark Energy.
Additionally the article mentioned earlier, “
Dark Matter and the Pioneer anomalies” showed one could explain and predict the anomalous accelerations NASA has observed in its deep space probes in terms of the "drag" generated by the existence of the continuous non-quantized form of mass that defined the quantum properties of mass and energy in the article "Why is mass and energy quantized?."
This clearly shows one can logically and consistently interpret a broader range of observation data by adopting the new physics we are proposing than the presently accepted one.
However, similar to the fifteen century physicists, scientists are ignoring direct observational evidence their current paradigm is incorrect and attempt to derive more complex equations to extend its life.
Could history be repeating itself?
Later Jeff
The “Shadows” of four spatial dimensions
Copyright 2008 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)
Sometimes it can be just as important to understand what makes a theory valid, as it is to understand what it predicts.
This may be why we found Karl Poppers book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" so interesting because in it he describes how the advance and growth of science rests on a doctrine of falsifiability and only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observations add value to a scientific community.
 |
On page 39, he writes:
"To give a casual explanation of an event means to deduce a statement which describes it, using as a premise of the deduction of one or more universal laws together with certain singular statements, the initial conditions."
He later goes on to define these statements and how they are related.
The first or as he calls it the "universal statement of laws" apply to the entire universe. These are more commonly called laws of nature. Newton’s law of gravity would be an example of a universal statement because it can be applied throughout the universe.
The second or singular statement is defined as statements that apply to specific events. The temperature in Boston on the 15 of June was 75 degrees is an example of a singular statement because it applies only to that date.
Karl believes for a theory to be valid these singular statements must be deductible from the both the universal statements and a set of initial conditions defined by singular statements that establish a cause of an effect.
This may seem simple however, as Karl points out defining how these parameters are related is not.
Most modern scientists believe in the principal of cause and effect or "the assertion that any event can be causally explained."
However, the fact that an event can be causally explained can have two different meanings depending on your interpretation of the word can.
One can, by using deductive logic define the "reality" or causality of an individual event by analytically observing that event. However, because the prediction is based on observations of that individual event it is always possible to find a set of statements and initial conditions that will satisfy that prediction.
Therefore, this definition of cause and effect is unfalsifiable because the causality of each is based on individual parameters of an event and therefore will always be true for that event.
However, one can also define the causality of an event in terms of what Karl calls a "synthetic" reality or theory based on inductive logic by saying the "world is governed" by strict laws that are constructed so that every single event has a "universal regulation" or causality.
This definition of cause and effect is also unfalsifiable because if an event was discovered that did not fall into its definition of "universal regulation" it is possible to redefine it because it is based on a "synthetic" reality, which does not have a rigid structure of its own.
Karl dismisses the validity of most theories that are based on what he calls the "synthetic" reality of inductive mathematical logic. For example, the predictive powers of the Standard Model of Particle Physics are based on defining their properties in terms of what he would call the "synthetic" reality of inductive mathematical logic.
He would consider this a "synthetic" reality because it is based on the abstract or inductive logic of equations and not on the deductive logic derived from observing how particles interact in a "real" or non-abstract environment. This would make them unfalsifiable because it is always possible to insert new equations in a theory to validate any observation because they are not physically connected to the environment they define.
However, our ability to make detailed analytical observations of our environment has increased significantly in recent years. This means we do not have to rely as much on the "synthetic" reality of abstract equations to define the structure of our theoretical models as we have done in the past.
Summing up, Karl Feels theories developed on deductive logic derived from observing how particles interact in a "real" or non-abstract environment as we are doing in “The Imagineer’s’ Chronicles” would more likely to add value to scientific community because they would be testable and falsifiable by them whereas ones based on abstract mathematical logic are not.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan
(In a PDF format)