A revolutionary Finding awaits the final Clinch: c-global
Otto E. Rossler
Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany
(December 22, 2014)
Abstract
The global nature of the speed of light in the vacuum, c, was given up by Einstein in December of 1907. A revival of the status c had enjoyed during the previous 2½ years, from 1905-1907, is in the literature for several years. The consequences of c-global for cosmology and black-hole theory are staggering. Since black holes are an acute concern to date, the question of whether a c-global transform of the Einstein equation can be demonstrated represents a vital issue.
********
Imagine Einstein’s c were not just a local constant of nature everywhere, as one reluctantly believes since late 1907, but rather a global constant. The return to this 1905-1907 view would revolutionize physics. For example, cosmic expansion which requires its speed to be added to the local c would no longer be a physical option. Secondly, quantum mechanics would cease to generate problems in its unification with general relativity. Thirdly, black holes would be stable and hence be voracious at any size.
But is the speed of light c not a global constant anyhow? While every layman and most every physicist believes so, this status was lost by c in late 1907. To witness, just look at the famous “Shapiro time delay”: Light from a distant satellite has, when grazing the sun on its way towards earth, an increased travelling time compared to the sun’s absence [1]. This experimentally verified implication of Einstein’s theory is canonically believed to reflect a locally reduced speed of light c [1]. With c-global, however, an increased depth of the space-time funnel around the sun is keeping c constant along the whole path [2].
Is this unfamiliar proposal physically correct? There are two pieces of evidence, each sufficient. First, the famous Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations was shown to possess a global-c transform [3]; hence the global constancy of c exists mathematically. Second, the famous “equivalence principle” between ordinary kinematic acceleration and gravitation – postulated by Einstein in late 1907 – is based on special relativity alone with its global c. The equivalence principle was indeed recently proved not to imply a reduction of c downstairs in the constantly accelerating Einstein rocketship [4]. The third piece of evidence exists by implication: a global-c transform of the full Einstein field equations. It only waits to be written down.
Why not rather wait with granting c-global a broad visibility in the scientific community, given the embarrassing cosmological consequence mentioned? It is the other implication (regarding black holes) which justifies the visibility. Black holes currently have a chance to get produced down on earth. Only an absolutely un-ignorable global-c transform of the full Einstein field equation can possibly force the 6 years old LSAG “safety report” of the most prestigious experiment of history to be renewed in time, before the start at twice world-record energies planned in two months. The reward to the representative of Science magazine who accepts this paper for publication will lie in the emergence-in-time of the existing but not yet made-explicit “global-c Einstein equation.” This task is literally superhuman because finding the transform requires a unique strength of mind or else serendipity and hence predictably takes decades. Therefore, the manpower – the many alerted readers – of Science represents a planetary resource needed for once in the face of the self-closing time window.
I thank Wolfgang Müller-Schauenburg and Boris Hagel for a discussion. For J.O.R.
References
[1] I.I. Shapiro, Fourth test of general relativity. Physical Review Letters 13, 789-791 (1964).
[2] A half-pseudosphere replaces the Flamm paraboloid.
[3] O.E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: Gothic-R theorem demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric. Fractal Spacetime and Noncommutative Geometry in Quantum and High Energy Physics 2, 1-14 (2012). Preprint on: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/chaos.pdf
[4] O.E. Rossler, Equivalence principle implies gravitational-redshift proportional space dilation and hence global constancy of c. European Scientific Journal 10(9), 112-117 (2014).
(Oct. 22, 2020)
For 6 long years is humankind overtaxed in the sense that it bets its existence on its admitted lack in collective IQ?
Dear Prof. Rössler,
a few days ago I put a paper on this platform online, describing how a global speed of light is compatible with many confirmed predictions of relativity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344751140
To make this theory falsifiable, I predict under which conditions absolute motion is measurable.
Best regards,
Klaus Pourvoyeur
Dear Prof. Rössler,
I have to confess, that I had not thought on the cosmological consequences regarding a global constant light speed. Doubtless there will be some and most probably more severe than not.
My current activity is to explain the Shapiro effect and gravitational clock dilation for an absolute motion and a global constant light speed. I intent to put the paper online any time soon; I am already in the proof reading stage.
Kind regards
Dear all,
As previously announced, I just put a paper online discussing the Shapiro effect and the gravitational clock dilation for an absolute time and a global constant light speed.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344950720
The paper makes a measurable prediction regarding the combined effect of gravity and movement regarding the clock dilation, making it falsifiable in principle - in addition to the measurability of absolute motion as alredy discussed in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344751140
Kind regards,
Klaus
Indeed and someone might say the same regarding a global light speed.
The good thing on a claim like the measurability of absoltue motion under certain condition is that it is falsifiable. The Michelson-Morley (M&M) experiment had no null result; the result was "only" by a factor of 20 smaller than expected. Over the decades several researchers took the burden to conduct a one-way light speed measurement with an unexplainable isotropy of light speed with respect to a sidereal day - unexplainable according to special relativity. My personal impression is, that some of these experiments "smell right".
There are too many theories arounds, which are not more than a good story telling. Absolute motion might be right or wrong, at least it can be decided.
In my opinion global light speed and absolute motion are two sides of the same coin. They have also in common, that in a pure interpretation of special relativity, both are forbidden.
There is an old saying: "Beware of Swiss bearing gifts." ... or something like that.
Dear Prof.,
inspired by your question regarding Zwicky, I read the recently published biography "Zwicky: The Outcast Genius Who Unmasked the Universe". Zwicky postulated a non-expanding universe and wanted to explain the observed redshifts by Hubble via a "tiered light". My impression is that a redshift can be caused by three different reasons, either alone or in combination with one another:
1. Due to velocity
2. Due to ascension in a gravitational potential
3. Due to variable speed of light
I am fully aware that the third possibility is highly disputed and also difficult to verify by a measurement. How can someone measure the speed of light a billion years ago? Even the statement that the universe is 13.8 billion years old is in contradiction to special relativity that there exist no such thing as a now.
On the other hand, a universe seems to be unstable due to gravity and has to contract or expand. Hubble interpreted the measured redshift as a pure expansion, but I do not have the impression that the available data would be able to distinguish a pure expansion and a mixture of contraction/expansion and a variable light speed. From a more abstract point of view, a variable speed of light might be interpreted as a "tiered light", as Zwicky stated.
Thank you for your creative contribution.
There is a fourth possibility: Gas theory. According to it, a light ray negotiating randomly moving attraction centers paradoxically loses energy.
Very few people saw this possibility before apart from Zwicky.
To my knowledge, even Zwicky himself acknowledged, that any sort of scattering would blur very distant objects. The observed pictures from galaxies and other objects far far away are too crisp to support this possibility.
Thank you for your argument, dear Klaus.
Gentle curvatures do not generate what I would call "scattering," though. Right?
Dear Prof.
I should have stated in my last post that you obviously know about this line of reasoning and have something in mind for it. The question I was thinking about is, with which doable experiment in a near term future can it be distinguished between a reduced light speed and a scattering at light speed?
Something like putting clocks e.g. close to the event horizon of a black hole (as Susskind did) cannot be considered as doable in the near future and I severely doubt this can ever be done. To my opinion, it's much more likely that the Sun runs out of fuel before that will be possible.
So the question is, if there is no such experiment possible, may both alternatives have to be considered as equivalent?
Dear Klaus:
The problem you pose arises because you reckon with a variable (non-global) light speed.
I now happen to be the perhaos only person in the world who is sure that c is globally valid. In this case, none of the complications previously considered arises. Okay?
Cordially,
Otto
Dear Prof.
please do not interpret my questioning that I don't believe in a global constant light speed. As you perhaps know, I put two paper myself online touching this topic.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344751140
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344950720
Since the time of Karl Poppers, any scientific theory must answer the question how to falsifiable it. My conclusion is that the existance of a global constant light speed makes absolute motion detectable.
The two big theories of quantum mechanics and relativity are structurally incompatible with one another. Since the founding of both theories, a century long quest was conducted unsucessfully to aligne both theories with one another. The missing link could not be found.
Perhaps the discrepancy between both theories is much older than the origin of both theories. Unaware of the difficulties arising from a universal speed limit of light speed, Newton defined velocity as the rate of change of position. Might the abbreviation in special relativity /beta=v/c be re-defined as a probability to travel with light speed?
Is velocity as we know it an illusion?
Your sentence "My conclusion is that the existance of a global constant light speed makes absolute motion detectable" is central. It is very deep, but it is not supported by special relativity
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Theoretical Chemistry