Lorentz's space transformations are valid only for smallest speeds with respect to the speed of light (v

Thank you, I was asking about the violation of Lorentz invariance (even if apparently) at high energy physics experiments so this means at the ranges of v approaches c.

At high speeds Lorentz's transformations aren't valid and therefore also for at high energy particles.

Dear Prof Sasso if it is not valid at such speeds this means that there will be differences of the speed oflight value according to directions is your theory agreed with that?

Yes, in TR the speed of light has a vector behaviour like other speeds.

Special Relativity negates the existence of any static extended reference that could be used as a universal reference and thus it is irremediably limited to the observer itself as the unique possible reference. So, its elective postulates castrate SR from any other potential issue and its conceptual lack of any static reference force it to consider factual dynamical observers as being static observers. Also, it is quite foolish to think that moving objects would adjust their kinetic behaviour relative to arbitrary observers. Moving objects ignore observers and are only dependent on their environment, i.e. on their speed through space and not on their speed relative to any arbitrary observer. But how come SR works out quantitatively in spite of being conceptually artificial? The answer is quite straightforward. As long as observers move relatively slowly through space, the gamma factor is insignificantly affected by their factual motion. Since observers on Earth have a quite low motion (its net speed is about 370 km/s) relative to space or equivalently to the CMB or to the stellar network, the gamma factor is not significantly affected. However, if the speed of Earth would change and reach a speed close to that of light relative e.g. to the CMB, then Earthlings observers would evidence the failure of Lorentz invariance. Einstein artificial trick based on the assimilation of factual kinetic observers to imaginary static ones stands only for low speed observers.

Those open to this viewpoint may get more insights from the paper “Beyond the Fundamentals of Special Relativity: Full Lorentz gamma factor” at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Georges_Sardin/

It is true that "moving objects ignore observers and they don't adjust their kinetic behaviour relative to arbitrary observers". The problem nevertheless is that observers, and not moving objects, have to understand and to describe with scientific method the dynamic behaviour of moving objects. From this viewpoint it is undeniable for instance that two different inertial observers, in relative motion, measure a different speed and therefore a different kinetic behaviour for the same moving object. I think in the preceding comment the importance of the reference frame and of the relation among different reference frames is underestimated but it is the heart of the concept of relativity.

I see a tendency to wanting to define an universal reference, for instance when a net speed of the earth of 370km/s is considered with respect to an universal reference defined " by the space or equivalently by the CMB or by the stella network". This universal reference nevertheless has no scientific base and it is like the absolute reference of classical physics. I agree then, but for other reasons, that the Lorentz's factor is wrong.

“This universal reference nevertheless has no scientific base and it is like the absolute reference of classical physics”: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is a physical entity, not an abstract one, which is highly isotropic, more than enough to be used as an extended universal reference. Look at the CMB as a photonic gas filling the whole Universe. Its isotropy implies being uniform in all directions and in turn this implies that CMB photons are distributed homogeneously in the whole cosmos. Since they move in all directions and all have the same speed the resultant speed of the whole CMB is necessarily null, (otherwise it would not be isotropic) and therefore it is a motionless physical reference.

The CMB is not an intelectual entity but a physical one made by an isotropic distribution of very low energy photons, with an energy spectrum corresponding to a black body. Its features allow using it as an extended reference by means of the Doppler shift observed by any dynamic observer. An observer at rest within the CMB would not observe any Doppler shift in whatever direction. The induction of any proper motion would imply the appearance of a Doppler shift in the direction of the motion. According to the magnitude of the Doppler shift the proper speed can be defined, and more completely through the degree of departure of the CMB from the black body spectrum.

The negation of a universal extended reference is just a dogmatic prejudice imposed by Special Relativity. Einstein died in 1955, i.e. one decade before the CMB was discovered by Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson in 1965. Since then the huge doctrinal imposition from relativists, who have biasly refuted the existence of any extended reference, has amputated conceptual progress. It would have been interesting to know the attitude of Einstein if he would have known the existence of the CMB. Anyway, the CMB is used as a reference by many physicists, in particular from NASA, who have e.g. defined the speed of our galaxy relative to the CMB (about 600 km/s toward the Virgo cluster). However, they usually refer to the CMB only as a preferred reference, instead to a physical motionless extended reference, due to the conceptual atavism resultant from the SR doctrine.

“I agree then, but for other reasons, that the Lorentz's factor is wrong”: I am quite sure there are other approaches than the one I have exposed to evidence that the Lorentz factor is only adequate for slow observers (a concept foreign to SR).

The special relativity Lorentz factor can be cosidered to describe an ideal hypothetical case. in practical situation it needs modification. The modefication can be different from problem to.another according to factors affecting observers motion.

I didn't deny the physical existence of CMB, I criticized the possibility that it can be considered an universal reference frame.

So, I would appreciate a formal demonstration of why the Cosmic Microwave Background cannot be considered an universal reference frame.

though, CMB frame is distinguished one, but that does not mean it is special or favorable (like any other frame) while the symmetry is exact.

Existence of preferred frame only means some kind of violation of the symmetry, is not it?

Reference frames are physical-mathematical structures that have definite technical characteristics. An universal reference frame would have extra exclusive properties that other reference frames don't have. The CMB is a phenomenon concerning an electromagnetic radiation that the observer measures in the microwave band. This phenomenon is due to a relativistic effect of departure among reference frames in which no reference frame has a predominant and exclusive position and whose relative speed can be calculated by the Doppler effect. Besides the claim that the CMB is an universal reference frame is based above all on the fact that chaotic motion of photons in all directions generates a zero resultant velocity and so a resting reference frame. In that case nevertheless also two moving objects, that are endowed with equal and opposite velocity, have a zero resultant velocity and therefore they would generate a resting reference frame. But nobody would make use of these two moving objects like resting extended reference frame. In the end there aren't elements for claiming the CMB is an universal reference frame.

it is known that Lorentz transformations does not respect certain things. for example : electric field of the point charge has spherical symmetry only in the frame where it has zero velocity. Could it be an argument enough to think that this frame is universal even if it is only charge in the universe? to my mind no, because in this case no matter what, physical properties obey same rules and i think same goes for CMB frame as well unless some Lorentz non-covariant phenomenon is observed in CMB or cmb frame.

And anyway, folks, Special Relativity doesn't hold beyond the Plank energy, E_planck=sqrt( hbar c^5 / G) ~ 1.22 * 10^19 MeV... (Here G is the gravitational constant.)

Dear professors Sasso and Sardin

If we make our experiment at earth and the result shows a difference or violation in Lorentz factor , if we want to explain such results using the CMB , Do you think this will make any benifit in calculations?

Please, see the paper: Beyond the Fundamentals of Special Relativity: Full Lorentz gamma factor https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Georges_Sardin/contributions/?ev=prf_act

Calculations about the influence of the observer speed are presented in it. For the speed of Earth the gamma quantitative variance is negligible when the Earth speed is neglected, but it would not be so if the Earth would reach a speed close to that of light.

Observe that when the observer speed is supposed to be null then the formulation of the full gamma factor becomes that of the standard one. Clearly the standard gamma is an amputated form that does not take into account the actual motion of any observer.

ABSTRACT: Special relativity calculates, by means of the Lorentz gamma factor, the proper time of all inertial systems from the observer proper time, which is taken as a time standard. So, any temporal inference relies in first instance on the observer own time. The question is thus: what fixes the observer proper time? This will be the crucial point debated here. This implies analyzing at the very first why the observer can be taken as a motionless reference in spite of being himself inertial. Is this just an approximation, and if so, up to what extent can it be applied? The framework of special relativity is compared to an amended form in which the fact of taking himself as a reference does not allow the observer to overlook its own kinetics. So, the issue stands on which of two formulations of the Lorentz gamma factor is the most accurate one: its standard expression or an amended one which takes into account the fact that the observer is himself inertial, while the former disregards it. When the observer speed is ignored, the two formulations become identical. Hence, the standard relativistic expression of gamma can be seen as an approximation applicable when the observer motion is null or low, such as it is the instance on Earth.

Dear Prof Sardin

I read your paper it contains nice new ideas and represents a nice add to special relativity, but I want to ask if you apply it on high energy experiments to compare your results with the experimental results?

Sadeem, are you able to specify which experiments at high energy you are considering?

Dear Prof Sasso

Take as an example the results that lead to assuming Lorentz invariance violation in the following paper PHYSICAL REVIEW D 80, 091901(R) (2009).

Experiments you quote, synchroton radiation et cetera, confirm that Special Relativity is an obsolete theory and attempts in order to save the Lorentz invariance, acting in instrumental manner on the Lorentz factor, are attempts ad hoc which don't solve the question. This can be solved only assuming a new interpretation of the physical reality, as for instance TR does.

Sadeem, in the reference you quote (PHYSICAL REVIEW D 80, 091901(R) (2009), also at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.4346v2.pdf) it is mentioned Lorentz invariance based on kinematic and on the Doppler effect (Michelson-Morley experiments with cryogenic resonators [20, 21], Doppler effect measurements [22, 23],..“Historically, there have been a number of phenomenalistic or kinematic frameworks for analyzing the results of Lorentz and CPT tests”).

A typical test to illustrate Lorentz invariance is the famous Michelson experiment. You may look at the following animation: http://perso.ya.com/sardin1/inertial.pps, which provides a causal explanation for the first order invariance (the invariance of the beams path along the X and Y axis), and for the second order invariance (the interference pattern invariance), whose causal explanation stands on the Doppler effect (the unit of measure, i.e. the wavelength undergoes the same variation as the beams length, leading so to the invariance of the measure).

Keep in mind that the relativity approach regarding the observer as being steady is an imaginary assertion that has a mathematical usefulness in a specific methodology, but that misrepresents the actual kinetic reality. In effect, the archetypical experiment about Lorentz invariance is based on the invariance of the interference pattern from the Michelson experiment, so it has been assumed that the observer motion does not intervene and therefore the observer has been treated as being motionless. However, if the Doppler effect is taken into account the null result of the experiment is easily understood and there is no need to consider the observer to be motionless. In order to look for any departure from the Lorentz invariance it is crucial to first scrutinize the actual causality of its invariance.

Dear Sasso and Sardin

So we agreed that these results can be explained within new theories that assume new concepts in physics that serves in solving such results. Michelson experiment results can be considered as an approximation of more precise experiments that show the importance of all observers dynamics.

The Michelson (1881) and Michelson-Morley (1887) experiments were encouraged by Maxwell and proved, against waitings, the absolute reference frame of classical physics was physically non-existent. That reference was composed of ether which was the necessary luminous medium for propagation of both light and electromagnetic waves and besides it seemed the natural site for absolute space and time. Einstein solved that question introducing in SR the "Principle of Constancy of the Speed of Light" that was in concordance with the experimental result. In TR the experimental result is explained by the "Principle of Reference" that through a non-absolute (non-universal) preferred reference frame distinguishes a constant "physical" speed of light (and e.m.) from a changing "relativistic" speed with the speed of observer. The physical speed is constant and it is the generally measured speed, the relativistic speed instead has vector nature and changes in concordance with the relative speed between the two reference frames.

In reference to the CMB, let me mention three points:

1. The CMB is a UNIVERSAL REFERENCE in the sense that, since extending all over, any observer anywhere in the universe is immersed in it and can measure its speed relative to it by means of a Doppler speed-meter (once removed perturbative components), allowing so to normalise speed with respect to a single standard. No local referential frames can play this role since having a limited range of extension.

2. The CMB is furthermore a MOTIONLESS FRAME in view that it has an isotropic distribution and taking into account that all photons have the same speed, the net speed of the whole CMB photons ends up to be null. Therefore as a whole the CMB is inexorably motionless. So, for kinetic applications the CMB can retake the alleged role of the defunct ether.

3. The CMB is the MAIN COMPONENT OF THE UNIVERSE, since there are about 100 000 CMB photons for each massive particle. So, the universe should be seen above all as a huge “ball” of photons with a residue of massive particles. Our primary look at the universe as essentially made of mater is illusory and it would be improper to disregard the importance of the CMB since being the primordial component of the cosmos in regard to proportion (with furthermore a blackbody energy spectrum).

Let us avoid getting stuck due to doctrinal inertia, and instead, be careful not to waste the opportunities provided by the CMB. Let us so update our theoretical standards, incorporating all experimental discoveries in favour of a revised paradigm.

Georges

Could you please clarify your last statement a bit. How do you relate the cosmic expansion to the CMB frame? We are accustomed to think that the galaxies do not recede from us nor from each other, they are comoving in an expanding frame. The photons have velocity c in that expanding frame just as they have in, say, our terrestrial rest frame. What are the consequences of your revised paradigm?

Matts,

I am not an astrophysicist so I will not go into considerations about the dynamic doings of the material part of the universe. Since I am here mainly interested in rationalizing the use of referential frames, in order to unify them to a single standard, I am centring my look at the CMB as a universal frame. But, even when considering galaxies comoving in an expanding frame, and whatever is primordially expanding, let us bear in mind that the classical view of free space as being empty does not stand in a quantum framework in which space has instead a physical consistency. Nevertheless, it ends up that the CMB is isotropic, with a blackbody energy spectrum, and the speed of its photons is at present measured to be c, which is all is needed to use it as a universal referential frame. Even in an expanding frame, and even if presuming a varying speed of light accordingly to the expansion of space, the CMB would remain a motionless frame (it would just inflate).

Let me mention that in my personal inquiries I differentiate between intrinsic and extrinsic speed of light, even though most physicists are currently not willing to do so. As long as the interpretation of the null result of the Michelson experiment is not revised, taking into account the Doppler effect ensuing from the actual motion of the observer, then the basis for a new paradigm will not flourish. The SR strategy from which each observer takes himself as an absolute (i.e. motionless) reference is conceptually flawed and in spite of being handy on quantitative grounds the fundamentals of SR need nonetheless to be surpassed.

Since you ask about the revised paradigm let me just sketch the issue (in view that it departs from the original debate on Lorentz invariance), mentioning that space is taken as the primordial element, from which everything else has emerged. When space is apprehended from a quantum framework, then elementary particles can be seen as excited states of the ground state of the proper space. In fact, almost all of these excited states are highly unstable, with the exception of the electron and the proton, in regard to massive particles. The CMB would be e.g. the first level of departure from the ground state of space. It is fine to isolate elements to study them but after while they should be assembled just like in a puzzle game, in the search for a coherent unified apprehension of the whole. These are the very basic elements of the paradigm I am working with.

Georges,

the query of Alexandar Kaplan under another thread (see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Kaplan/questions/?ev=prf_que) appears related to your query..

Matts

The main problem with Special Relativity comes from taking appearance for factual reality. Initial systems have been postulated by Einstein to be equivalent, and effectively they do appear equivalent, however they are not. Let us explain this. No velocity change (excluding acceleration) can be observed on the proper inertial system, example: the null result of the Michelson experiment. So, apparently inertial systems are equivalent, but why do we say apparently? Because the so-called twin paradox contradicts the equivalency.

Even though the proper observer is unable to detect any change in his clock rate, never the less, in fact the clock rate does. However, the kinetic observer gets aware of it only when he meets back with his twin: their chronometers do not mark the same time. Clocks rate are indeed affected by speed, so inertial systems are not equivalent, in spite that they do appear equivalent on the proper kinetic system. As long as we will not differentiate between actual realty and appearance we will stay stuck within logical contradictions. By the way, what makes inertial systems appear equivalent is the conservation of moment.

Still more, things get worse when mistaking map and territory, an endemic confusion among theoretical physicists: taking their mathematical map for the “territory”, i.e. for the actual reality. Indeed, a much coarse confusion! An example: taking space-time as an actual physical entity instead of just a mathematical tool. Besides, Einstein inertial observers do have a clear psychologogical disorder: an ego-centrism that makes them think that the whole Universe moves around them. What a splendid confusion between appearance and actual reality, and what a magnificient Ego! Their inertial trip is in fact just an ego trip! Best regards.