"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Reply to this discussion

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.

To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

--

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).

--

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

"Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum."

Richard Feynman's idea is perfect, and there is no reason to reject it. The existence of vacuum energy, or better dark energy is consistent with Einstein's field equations with a positive cosmological constant.

The energy gain from mass or energy in motion leads to an increasing dark energy density.

The only idea which is missing, is the answer to the question: What happens with the additionally gained energy density?

As an answer to that question I propose the following working hypothese:

This energy is used to recycle star fuel from black holes.

On a first glance, this answer looks as being pure madness, because black holes with their unconvincible gravity seem to be a deposit of matter for eternity.

But in fact there is a plausible possibility. This has to do with the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the non-existence of a negatively definite energy density.

But we need open minded thinking in order to delve deeper into details.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

"How do we understand special relativity?"

- the answer to this question, which is really fundamental one, since is about what is some physical theory as a whole; what really means – why and how the postulates of a theory, in this case of the SR, really are formulated, and why and how the postulates

- which in any theory fundamentally – as that happens in mathematics, where axioms fundamentally cannot be proven – aren’t proven; while are formulated only basing on some experimental data, which fundamentally prove nothing, though one experiment that is outside a theory prediction proves that this theory is either wrong, or at least its application is limited.

Returning to the SR, which is based on really first of all four postulates – the SR-1905/1908 versions relativity principle, SR-1905 also on the postulate that light propagates in 3D XYZ space with constant speed of light independently on light source/ an observer’s speeds; and, additionally,

- in both theories it is postulated (i) that fundamentally there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and (ii) - [so] that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

In the standard now in mainstream physics SR-1908 additionally to the SR-1905 it is postulated also that observed contraction of moving bodies’ lengths, and slowing down of moving clocks tick rates, comparing with the length and tick rates when bodies and clocks are at rest in “stationary” frames, is caused by the “fundamental relativistic properties and effects”, i.e. “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc..

Really from yet the (i) and (ii) postulates any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;

- from this, by completely rigorous proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously it follows , first of all, that

- Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so some “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space can exist, while applications, i.e. measurements of distances and time intervals, of moving in the space inertial frames aren’t completely adequate to the objective reality; and

- there exist no the “relativistic properties and effects”.

Etc. However really the SR first of all is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle.

That is another thing that

- according to SR-1905 relativity principle there is some extremely potent entity “light”, the constancy of which for/by some mystic reasons/ways forces moving bodies to contract and moving clocks to slow down tick rates; and

- the SR 1908 relativity principle is practically omnipotent, so the moving frames, bodies, clocks for/by some mystic reasons/ways really contract/dilate even evidently fundamental space and time.

All that above in the SR really is/are only postulated illusions of the authors, nonetheless, again, the Galileo- Poincaré relativity principle is really . extremely mighty, and the SR indeed in most cases at everyday physical practice is applied in completely accordance with the objective reality. The fundamental flaws of the SR reveal themselves only on fundamental level.

The post is rather long now, so here

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”

In the SS post above it is pointed that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, however to say more it is necessary to clarify - what are “space” and “time”, just because of the authors of the SR – and whole mainstream physics till now - fundamentally didn’t/don/t understand what these fundamental phenomena/notions are, the really mystic and simply fundamentally wrong things in the SR were/are introduced in this theory.

What are these phenomena/notions, and what are all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., which is/are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics,

- can be, and is, clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely in physics in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

More see the link above, here now only note, that, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the model, Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system of informational patterns/systems – particles, fields, stars, etc., which, as that is shown in the model, is based on a simple binary reversible logics.

So everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

The disturbances are created in the lattice after some the lattice FLE is impacted, with transmission to it, by some non-zero at least 4D space, momentum P[boldmeans 4D vector] in utmost universal Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z). The impact causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, which, since the flipping cannot propagate in the lattice with 4D speed more than the flipping speed c=lP/tP [really at particles creation and motion c√2, more see the link, but that isn’t essential here].

Some FLE flipping above along a direct 4D line can be caused by a practically infinitesimal P impact; but if P isn’t infinitesimal, that causes flipping FLE precession and corresponding propagation of the “FLE-flipping point” in the 4D space above along some 4D helix,

- i.e. causes creation of some close-loop algorithm that cyclically runs on FLE “hardware ” with the helix’s frequency ω, having momentum P=mc above, mis inertial mass, the helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

So let’s continue about what is “special relativity”.

In the SS posts above it is pointed that everything that exists and happens in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of FLEs, which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, spacetime,

- and that happens always in utmost universal “kinematical” Matter’s space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), and corresponding spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z ct), where ct is the real time dimension.

At that particles, most of which compose real bodies, at every time moment exist as “FLE –flipping point” that move along some4D helixes that have frequencies ω, having 4D momentums P=mc, m are inertial masses, a helix radius is λ=λ/P;

- and the helix’s 4D “ axis” is always directed along P – particles are some “4D gyroscopes”.

So in Matter there exist two main types of particles – “T-particles”, which are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis [more generally – by 4D momentums cτ-components, but here that isn’t too essential], and so, if are at rest in the 3DXYZ space, move only along cτ-axis with the speed of light, and at that a T- particle’s algorithm ticks with maximal “own frequency”, the particle’s momentum is P0=m0c, where, correspondingly, m0 is the “rest mass”.

If a such T-particle, after some 3D space impact with a 3D space momentum p, moves also in 3D space with a velocity V, having 4D momentum P=P0+p, its speed along the cτ-axis decreases by the Pythagoras theorem in (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. in reverse Lorentz factor,

- and, at that, despite that the helix’s frequency increases, the algorithm is “diluted by “blank” 3D space FLEs flips. So the “own frequency above” decreases in Lorentz factor, so the algorithm ticks slower; and so, say, moving clocks that are some algorithms as well, tick slower in Lorentz factor as well; if a particle algorithm has some defect, and so at every its tick it can break with some probability, so the particle is unstable and decay, such moving in 3D space particles live longer.

Nothing, of course, happens with time, there is no any the SR’s “time dilation”.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Roggers Waibi added a reply

As proposed by Albert Einstein, Special relativity fundamentally transforms our understanding of space, time, and the nature of reality. At its core, special relativity postulates two key principles: the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of simultaneity. The former states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. This principle defies common intuition but has been rigorously confirmed by experiments. The latter principle, the relativity of simultaneity, suggests that events that appear simultaneous to one observer may not be simultaneous to another observer in relative motion. Special relativity introduces the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined, and observers in relative motion will experience time dilation and length contraction effects. These phenomena have been validated through numerous experiments, such as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and subsequent tests involving particle accelerators and high-speed particles. Special relativity forms the basis for modern physics, influencing fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology, and challenging our intuitive notions of space and time.

Christian Baumgarten added a reply

Article The Simplest Form of the Lorentz Transformations

Waibi's answer is correct. However, the postulates of SR do not generate understanding. The referenced paper provides evidence that the math underlying SR can mostly be obtained from Hamiltonian notions. Since Hamiltonian concepts are universal in dynamical systems, the mathematical relations of SR are universal as well.

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply

Rather detailed consideration of what the SR is see in series of SS posts in this thread sister https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_understand_special_relativity/2, pages 1,2;

So here only a few notes to

“…Special relativity introduces the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined, and observers in relative motion will experience time dilation and length contraction effects. ..”

- really the concept of spacetime, wherein space and time are intertwined is fundamentally wrong.

Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally unique, fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, ( [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where all dimensions fundamentally are independent on each other; utmost universal – “kinematic” spacetime has metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

- and, of course, fundamentally there cannot be any intertwining of any dimensions, any “time dilations”, “space contraction”, etc.

So that

“….These phenomena have been validated through numerous experiments, such as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment and subsequent tests involving particle accelerators and high-speed particles… “

- really is quite incorrect. No any “intertwining” , “time dilations”, “space contraction” weren’t experimentally observed – that is fundamentally impossible. All what indeed is observed is/are real contraction of moving bodies lengths, slowing tick rates of moving clocks and intrinsic processes rates in unstable particles,

- but bodies aren’t “space” – though, of course are in space; clocks aren’t “time” though, of course tick in time, which [space and time] compose fundamentally only an empty container where everything in Matter exists and changes.

Though that

“….Special relativity forms the basis for modern physics, influencing fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology, and challenging our intuitive notions of space and time…”

- is essentially correct, since the SR is based on the indeed extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle; and so in everyday physical practice the fact that in the SR the relativity principle is absolutized up to absurd/illusory real interactions of particles, bodies, reference frames, etc., with space/time/spacetime is inessential. Again more see the pointed above SS posts in the linked sister thread.

Branko Mišković added a reply

Please read the file uploaded.

… Read more

• 380.76 KBijpsr-1000117.pdf

Akram Louiz added a reply:

I explored your comments and ideas about Einstein's relativity. Hence, I want to share my scientific opinions with you. The biggest problem of theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered holy and sacred since it venerates the light.

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

Furthermore, Einstein's theories can't stand against Ockham Razor. Here is my Physics letter that disproves all Einstein's principles.

Read it please objectively by following Ockham Razor :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369143082_Physics_letter_Cosmical_observations_and_experiments_against_the_relativistic_explanations_of_the_Doppler_effect_and_the_Gravitational_effect_of_the_light.

Physics letter: Cosmical observations and experiments against the relativistic explanations of the Doppler effect and the Gravitational effect of the light Louiz A 1 * 1 Independent Researcher, Settat, Morocco *Corresponding author, Email address: [email protected] Received 18 Nov 2022, Revised 15 Dec 2022, Accepted 30 Dec 2022 Citation: Louiz A. (2022) Physics letter: Cosmical observations and experiments against the relativistic explanations of the Doppler effect and the Gravitational effect of the light, Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 8(2), 106-110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.48383/IMIST. PRSM/mjpas-v8i2.38600 Abstract: Most physics lovers asked themselves several times: Why should we limit the velocities in our nature to the velocity of light C ? And why a particle of light shouldn't have an ordinary mass even if the redshift or blueshift of light have been discovered. In my previous work about the Michelson-Morley experiment, I concluded that the light can be studied easily like all the other waves. Actually, many scientists venerated the light by some theories that gave a limit to the velocities of photons and abolished their mass. This work makes a conclusion about Einstein’s relativity after an easy study about the Pound-Rebka experiment which deals with the Gravitational effect of light, and you will find also some logical remarks about the Doppler effect. Keywords : Pound; Rebka; Michelson; Morley; experiment; the light; photon; redshift; blueshift; Einstein; relativity. 1. Introduction As a result of my work about the michelson morley experiment (Akram Louiz, 2020), we can accept the change of the frequency of the light when the reference frame changes but we should also accept that the velocity of the light changes too. For example, in the doppler effect, the real constant is not the speed of light but the wavelength since the source of the light causing the wavelength doesn't change but the reference frame changes. You can also discover my answer to the time problem of the GPS system in my work about Newtonian mechanics rotations (Akram Louiz, 2020). It is a work that can also be applied to the cases where atomic or quantum particles rotate at a speed higher than three quarters of the speed of light. The steps proposed for the fast rotations studies allow to avoid the time dilation as a solution. The Pound–Rebka experiment was the experiment in which photons were emitted from the top of a tower and measured by a receiver at the bottom of the tower (Yarman et al., 2016, Maluf et al., 2009) and (Pound et al., 1960). I made this work about the Pound-Rebka experiment by using Newtonian easy mechanics and I found a correct answer. Hence, this should encourage us to revise many principles about the field of optics which is not perfectly studied. The imperfections in the fields of optics do not only concern Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 107 theories but also widely used formulas like the ones that I suspect in my recent article by using concave mirrors (Akram Louiz, 2023). 2. The Doppler effect and scientific observation principles We should agree with the Quantum mechanics experts who don't consider that the photon mass is absolutely null but very small instead. So we have the right to use Newtonian mechanics when dealing with light photons but with caution (by considering also my thesis about Newtonian mechanics rotations). Furthermore, in the Doppler effect, the real constant is the wavelength since the source of the light doesn't change the manner of light production, whereas the real variables are the frequency and the speed of light. I am suggesting that the wavelength depends only on the nature of production of light at the source of light. Indeed, the frequency changes, but it is the light speed C that changes proportionally, and not the wavelength. At the end, the equation : C = (frequency × wavelength) stays always correct. Also, the matter and antimatter experiments never consider radiations which are faster than the speed of light. The gamma emissions of nuclear reactions consider also that gamma radiations have the speed of light and have a wrong exaggerated small wavelength. Now the question that we should answer is: Can we make an experiment that finds the wavelength of a radiation in a manner that is perfectly independent from the frequency ? Everybody can also know from some cosmic observation articles that we could detect from some cosmic events that gamma rays are faster than light rays. This already has a ridiculous and complicated explanation by using Einstein's principles of relativity (Deng et al., 2014, Kumar et al., 2015). However, my work about the Michelson-Morley experiment gives the correct and obvious explanation since it also proves that the speed of light calculated by Maxwell is not the ultimate speed in our nature. We proved easily in that article that the rate (percentage) of fringe shift by the formulas demonstrated is null and thus it confirms theoretically that the result of Michelson-Morley experiment is perfectly null (Akram Louiz, 2020). However, we can’t conclude that the luminiferous aether doesn’t exist like Einstein said or that the speed of the light doesn’t change by a changing reference frame. This criticism about the Michelson-Morley experiment has been widely accepted and is also cited in the very useful book titled “The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics” (de Climont, 2020). 3. The Pound-Rebka experiment The energy of photons increases when they travel toward a gravitational source which is the Earth in this experiment. The Pound-Rebka experiment measures the change of light (the blue shift effect) while it is moving from the top of a tower downwards (Pound et al., 1960, Ziefle et al.,2022). Let’s consider during this experiment that the photon has a mass m that causes the gravitational effect. Consequently, during the gravitational blueshift, we have: Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 108 m × g = m × γ where ɣ is the acceleration of the photon downwards and g is the gravitational acceleration. Let’s consider that Vr is the velocity of the received photon and that Ve is the velocity of the emitted photon. And thus we have: g= Vr− Ve t where t is the time between the emission and the reception of the photon. Let’s consider that Vs is the velocity of the photon when its source S is fixed and doesn’t move. Consequently, during a Doppler effect: Ve = Vs − vs where vs is the velocity of the source (upwards). Let’s consider that the gravitational effect and the doppler effect abolish each other. And thus: Vs = Vr . Consequently: Ve = Vr − vs ⇔vs = Vr − Ve Finally, we conclude that: vs = g× t and it is the correct formula that can be demonstrated for the Pound-Rebka experiment differently by using Einstein’s relativity. 4. The photon mass I suggested that the gravitational effect is because of the real mass of a photon. I also suggest that this mass can be found easily by making or observing a gravitational blueshift or redshift of the light in a vacuum, and by using the famous formula: ΔE= 1 2 × mΔV 2 . Where: ΔV 2 = Vr 2 − Ve 2 and Δ E = Er − Ee with Er is the energy of the received photon and Ee is the energy of the emitted photon. 5. A General letter to the lovers of physics By using the acceleration of the photon in Special Relativity instead of the velocity of the photon, Einstein's lovers can have a correct answer. Also, by using the frequency of the lightwave instead of the photon velocity, Einstein's lovers can also have a correct answer. However, you will notice that in all Einstein's theories, you should always avoid the use of the speed of light in your calculations in order to have good answers, and that makes you use more complicated methods. As a result of my work about the Michelson-Morley experiment and after verifying many light effects, I accept the change of the frequency of the light when the reference frame changes. However, in this case, the velocity of the photon changes too and the real constant is obviously the wavelength. This is the case of the doppler effect: The correct constant is not the speed of light but the wavelength since the nature of the light source causing the wavelength doesn't change when the reference frame changes. I believe that " The constant light velocity" is a non-objective complex that physicians are facing. Physicians can use my method of Michelson-Morley experiment in order to prove that the lightwave is an ordinary wave. Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 109 Let's discuss this matter also by criticizing philosophy : By blindly following Spinoza's religious ideas, Einstein tried to prove that the light is Superior ( like if the light has the characteristics of a God). Hence, he refused that the light needs another element to be natural. This is the reason why he tried to deny the aether and the mass of the photon. We should believe without any kind of fear that we live actually in a natural Euclidean where there is no spacetime nor curvatures. We have also the right to believe that aether exists around us. A light wave needs the aether to propagate and the use of the mass of the photon can help any researcher to make easy and obvious demonstrations concerning the behavior of the light. Many scientists say that Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic waves prove that the speed of light is constant but that is totally wrong. Everybody knows that the SI international system of units has abolished since 2019 the exact values of the permeability and the permittivity of the vacuum (Michaud, 2013, Leuchs et al.,2023). Hence, the vacuum permeability μ0 and the vacuum permittivity ϵ0 should now be found experimentally and independently from the value of any constant velocity of the SI international system of units. However, the experiments proved that the uncertainty of the measure of the vacuum permeability and the vacuum permittivity is enormous, and thus, even if the inverse of the root of the product (μ0×ϵ0) has the dimensions of a velocity, the vacuum permeability and permittivity can no longer be deduced from the constant speed of light considered by Maxwell (Michaud, 2013, Longair, 2008). Einstein's theories were rejected before me by two famous Nobel laureates who are Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark. A book entitled: "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" has even been published against his theories and it was the result of a collaboration between several scientists of that time (Gobilard et al., 2019). Finally, the scientists whose purpose is to make physics perfectly objective and free from all subjective beliefs should never be considered as Pro-Nazi scientists. Many researchers still produce new articles in the field of general optics and its theories (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022, Szostek et al., 2019), and this proves that this field has never been a perfectly studied field of physics despite its simplicity. And thus, the field of optics deserves that we study its phenomena with objective and new methods without any kind of subjective principles. 6. A new suggestion concerning the product of the permeability and the permittivity of the vacuum Since the inverse of the root of the product of the vacuum permeability and the vacuum permittivity has the dimensions of a velocity, why can’t we consider that this value is equal to the propagation speed of a new hypothetical electromagnetic wave which is directly related to the electromagnetic field which is omnipresent on Earth? This suggestion can be logical since the mathematical demonstrations of Maxwell’s equations don’t use any characteristics of the light but only the state of the vacuum where there is only the electromagnetic field of Earth. Maybe this electromagnetic wave related to the electromagnetic field of Earth has a strange propagation velocity that fluctuates if the Earth electromagnetic field changes.

Disclosure statement: Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Compliance with Ethical Standards: This article does not contain any studies involving human or animal subjects. Louiz et al., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 2022, 8(2), pp. 106-110 110 References Louiz A. The correct formulas of Michelson-Morley experiment. Maghrebian Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 6(2), 60-63. Louiz A. A thesis about Newtonian mechanics rotations and about differential operators. Maghrebian Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 6(1), 26-50. Yarman T., Kholmetskii, A., Arik, M., & Yarman, O. (2016). Pound–Rebka result within the framework of YARK theory. Canadian Journal of Physics, 94(6), 558-562. Maluf J. W., Ulhoa, S. C., & Faria, F. F. (2009). Pound-Rebka experiment and torsion in the Schwarzschild spacetime. Physical Review D, 80(4), 044036. Pound R. V., & Rebka Jr, G. A. (1960). Apparent weight of photons. Physical Review Letters, 4(7), 337. Akram Louiz. An experiment of the light with contradictory formulas, 01 March 2023, PREPRINT (Version 2) available at Research Square [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2621768/v2] Deng W., & Zhang, B. (2014). Cosmological implications of fast radio burst/gamma-ray burst associations. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783(2), L35. Kumar P., & Zhang, B. (2015). The physics of gamma-ray bursts & relativistic jets. Physics Reports, 561, 1- 109. de Climont, J. (2020). The Worldwide List of Alternative Theories and Critics. Editions d Assailly. Newell D. B., & Tiesinga, E. (2019). The international system of units (SI). NIST Special Publication, 330, 1-138. Ziefle, R. G. (2022). Cognitive bias in physics, with respect to Einstein’s relativity, is demonstrated by the famous experiment of Pound and Rebka (1960), which in reality refutes Einstein’s general relativity. Physics Essays, 35(1), 91-99. Michaud A. (2013). From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, e-ISSN, 01-10. Leuchs, G., Hawton, M., & Sánchez-Soto, L. L. (2023). Physical mechanisms underpinning the vacuum permittivity. Physics, 5(1), 179-192. Longair, M. S. (2008). Maxwell and the science of colour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1871), 1685-1696. Gobilard, L., & Blitz, L. (2019). A hundred authors against Einstein: a partial critical translation. Revista Boliviana de Física, 34(34), 33-46. Szostek, R. (2020). Derivation of All Linear Transformations that Meet the Results of Michelson–Morley’s Experiment and Discussion of the Relativity Basics. Moscow University Physics Bulletin, 75(6), 684- 704. Bhattacharjee, D. (2022). M-theory and F-theory over theoretical analysis on cosmic strings and calabi-yau manifolds subject to conifold singularity with randall-sundrum model. Asian Journal of Research and Reviews in Physics, 25-40. Karol, S., Roman, S., & Polish, I. (2022). The existence of a universal frame of reference, in which it propagates light, is still an unresolved problem of physics. Jordan Journal of Physics, 15(5), 457-467.

The correct formulas of Michelson-Morley experiment Louiz Akram The Higher Institute for Maritime Studies, Morocco – Naval engineering. Casablanca *Corresponding Author; Email: [email protected] Received 20April 2019, Revised 30 January 2020, Accepted 20 May 2020 Abstract: When the light photons bounce off a moving mirror, they react with its atoms to be reflected, consequently, the photons change their velocity vector after each impact depending on the velocity vector of the mirror and thus of the atom. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the event that changed the modern science about "the light" by leading to Lorentz and Einstein's theories about time. I made the formulas of the Michelson-Morley experiment by considering the effects of the reflection on the light and the rate (percentage) of fringe shift calculated by the formulas which I demonstrated is perfectly null. As a result, not all physics must be wrong, but only a principle that Einstein and Lorentz stated by fixing the light speed for all observers, which makes us study light in a very difficult way. The formulas demonstrated in this work allow us to study the light as a normal wave and to understand easily all the other light effects without being obliged to use any relativity of the time. Keywords: Michelson, Morley, light photon, interferometry, mirror, reflection, absorption, emission, null result, reference frame, speed of light, relativity. 1. Introduction The speed of light has been calculated by maxwell after fixing the electric and magnetic characteristics of the source and of the empty space [1- 3]. However, the special relativity considers that the speed of light can only be constant for all observers thanks to the Michelson-Morley experiment [4,7]. It is a theory that has been tested by Kennedy-Thorndike experiment, Ives-Stilwell experiment and many others [8,11]. This theory is also used when dealing with moving light clocks [12,13]. and when performing experiments by using lattice clocks [14,15]. Many works still try to present this theory as a correct theory by daring to curve theoretically the space time [16, 18] while other rational thinkers stay aware that our space is obviously the Euclidean space and they prove it by their realistic physics works [19, 20]. Some researchers refuse both the special relativity and the general relativity and try to disprove their mathematical tools [21] or to prove that the luminiferous aether exists [22, 23]or that the relativistic demonstrations can be replaced by easy Newtonian demonstrations [24]. The steps explained in this work when dealing with the light reflection give correct answers and should help to avoid the complicated relativity of time especially in Michelson’s interferometer. In this work, we will prove formulas that predict the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. Since we are verifying the experiment results of Michelson-Morley, we are free to change the light velocity vector when it is reflected. We consider that T1 and T2 are the two times needed by the two half beams to reach the captor starting from the source, and that the splitter doesn’t influence the light when it passes without any deviation through it, otherwise we will have to use compensating plates to correct that. When a light photon bounces off a moving mirror, it reacts with one of the mirror’s atoms to be reflected through the absorption then the emission. Consequently, the photon gets also an additional velocity vector. It is the velocity vector of the atom during the emission and thus of the mirror. This phenomenon is similar to a ping pong ball bouncing without slipping inside a box that is moving sidewards. In this case the ping pong ball gets the box velocity as a sidewards component of its velocity vector after it bounces and thus the ball seems to accompany the box in its movement. Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 61 In this work, 𝑉⃗ is the velocity vector of the mirrors and 𝐶1 is the speed of the light directly after the source. We can consider that: 𝐶1 = 𝐶 if the source of the light is fixed during the experiment, where C is the famous speed constant of the light. And we can consider that: 𝐶1 = 𝐶 + 𝑉 if the source of the light moves during the experiment with the velocity V. However, the detector (interferometry) is considered always fixed during the experiment. 2. The proposed approach The figure 1 describes the paths taken by the light beams in Michelson-Morley experiment. In this figure we considered arbitrarily that α = ϐ but γ different. Also τ2 and τ3 are arbitrarily considered different until this work makes the investigation. The half beam1 is the one reflected from the mirror1 and the half beam2 is the one reflected from the mirror 2. For half beam1: We can prove that: 𝑇1 = 2 × ( 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝑡1 𝐶1 ) + 𝐿 𝐶2 − 𝑉×𝑡2 𝐶2 + 𝐿 𝐶3×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾)| (1) (each term is explained down) By considering that: 𝐶1 × 𝑡1 = 𝐿 + 𝑉 × 𝑡1 ⇒ 𝑡1 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 (2) where 𝑡1 = 𝜏1. 𝐶2is the speed of the light returning after being reflected from the mirror 1. Figure 1. The apparatus of Michelson-Morley experiment. During the reflection operation of the light, the speed of the light photon absorption by the reacting atom of the mirror is 𝐶1 − 𝑉. Consequently, the photon will be emitted with the same speed (same energy at the absorption) relatively to the reacting atom along the same axis 𝑖 . However, since the atom is moving during the emission with a speed 𝑉 × 𝑖 then: 𝐶2 = 𝐶1 − 2 × 𝑉 (3) By considering also that: 𝐶2 × 𝑡2 = 𝐿 − 𝑉 × 𝑡2hence: 𝑡2 = 𝐿 𝐶2+𝑉 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 (4) Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 62 where: 𝑡2 = 𝜏2 − 2 × 𝜏1 And that:𝐶3is the speed of light after being reflected from the splitter and before reaching the detector. The speed of the light photon absorption by the reacting atom of the splitter is: 𝐶2 + 𝑉 = 𝐶1 − 𝑉. Consequently, the photon will be emitted perpendicularly along the axis 𝑗 with the same speed (same energy at the absorption) relatively to the reacting atom. However, since the reacting atom moves during the emission along the axis 𝑖 with the speed V, then 𝑉 × 𝑖 will be in this case a component of the emitted photon velocity vector. In the end, the velocity vector will become: 𝐶3 ⃗ = 𝑉 × 𝑖 − (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 (5) Hence: 𝐶3 = √(𝐶1 − 𝑉) 2 + 𝑉 2 (6) and 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛾) = 𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (7) and 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾) = −(𝐶1−𝑉) √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (8) And by considering that t3 is the time needed by the light to reach the detector after being reflected from the splitter, we have: |𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾)| = 𝐿 𝐶3×𝑡3 ⇒ 𝑡3 = 𝐿 𝐶3×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛾)| = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 (9) We deduce that: 𝑇1 = 2 × ( 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝐿 𝐶1×(𝐶1−𝑉) ) + 𝐿 𝐶1−2×𝑉 − 𝑉×𝐿 (𝐶1−2×𝑉)×(𝐶1−𝑉) + 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 × (1 + 2×𝑉 𝐶1 − 𝑉 𝐶1−2×𝑉 ) + 𝐿 𝐶1−2×𝑉 + 2×𝐿 𝐶1 (10) For half beam 2: By following the same steps, we can prove that: 𝑇2 = 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝑡1 𝐶1 + 𝐿 𝐶′2×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼)| + 2×𝐿 𝐶′3×|𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛽)| (11) (each term is explained down) By considering that: 𝐶′2is the speed of the light after being reflected from the splitter and before reaching the mirror 2. Consequently: 𝐶′2 ⃗⃗ ⃗ = 𝑉 × 𝑖 + (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 (12) (similar to the case of 𝐶3 with half beam1) Hence 𝐶′2 = √(𝐶1 − 𝑉) 2 + 𝑉 2 (13) and 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼) = 𝐶1−𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (14) and 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛼) = 𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (15) And also by considering that: 𝐶′3is the speed of the light after being reflected from the mirror2 and before reaching the captor. The speed of the light photon at the absorption is𝐶′2 ⃗⃗ ⃗ − 𝑉 × 𝑖 = (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 . Consequently, the photon will be emitted with the same speed (same energy at the absorption) relatively to the reacting atom. However, since the reacting atom moves during the emission along the axis 𝑖 with the speed V, then: 𝐶′3 ⃗⃗ ⃗ = 𝑉 × 𝑖 − (𝐶1 − 𝑉) × 𝑗 . (16) Hence 𝐶′3 = √(𝐶1 − 𝑉) 2 + 𝑉 2 (17) and 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛽) = −(𝐶1−𝑉) √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (18) and 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛽) = 𝑉 √(𝐶1−𝑉)2+𝑉2 (19) we deduce that: 𝑇2 = 𝐿 𝐶1 + 𝑉×𝐿 𝐶1×(𝐶1−𝑉) + 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 + 2×𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 = 𝐿 𝐶1−𝑉 × (3 + 𝑉 𝐶1 ) + 𝐿 𝐶1 (20) Finally: (21) Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 63 Remarks: We proved above that: (22) and thus the half beam2 hits the mirror2 at: (23) We proved also that: (24) and thus the two half beams hit the splitter at the same time (25) Hence they become parallel before reaching the detector at exactly the same time. 3. Conclusion The result is made by considering that the speed of light changes by the changing reference frames since this work tests the results of Michelson-Morley experiment and doesn’t consider that Einstein’s conclusion about the luminiferous aether is correct. The rate (percentage) of fringe shift by the formulas demonstrated above is null and thus it confirms theoretically that the result of Michelson-Morley experiment is perfectly null. However, we can’t conclude that the luminiferous aether doesn’t exist like Einstein said or that the speed of the light doesn’t change by a changing reference frame. References [1] Longair, M. S. (2008). Maxwell and the science of colour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1871), 1685-1696. [2] Bartlett, R. (2019). RE:" 150 years of Maxwell's equations" by Nader Engheta-Science 10 Jul 2015: Vol. 349, Issue 6244, pp. 136-137. [3] Bettini, A. (2016). Maxwell Equations. In A Course in Classical Physics 3—Electromagnetism (pp. 339-396). Springer, Cham. [4] Michelson, A. A., Pease, F. G., & Pearson, F. (1929). Repetition of the Michelson-Morley experiment. JOSA, 18(3), 181_1-182. [5] Szostek, K., & Szostek, R. (2017). The Explanation of the Michelson-Morley Experiment Results by Means Universal Frame of Reference. Journal of Modern Physics, 8(11), 1868. [6] Croca, J. R., Moreira, R., Gatta, M., & Castro, P. (2019). Experiments on the Speed of Light. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 7(05), 1240. [7] Szostek, K., & Szostek, R. (2017). The Explanation of the Michelson-Morley Experiment Results by Means Universal Frame of Reference. Journal of Modern Physics, 8(11), 1868. [8] Gurzadyan, V. G., & Margaryan, A. T. (2018). The light speed versus the observer: the Kennedy– Thorndike test from GRAAL-ESRF. The European Physical Journal C, 78(8), 607. [9] Wörner, L., Schuldt, T., Resch, A., Peters, A., Rasel, E. M., Gürlebeck, N., Wendrich, T. (2018, July). BOOST: A Test of Special Relativity. In 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly (42). [10] Buenker, R. J. (2018). The Universal Time-Dilation Law: Objective Variant of the Lorentz Transformation. [11] Michimura, Y. (2017). Tests of Lorentz Invariance. In Tests of Lorentz Invariance with an Optical Ring Cavity (5-25). Springer, Singapore. [12] Rindler, W. (2003). Relativity: special, general, and cosmological. [13] Sfarti, A. (2018). Optical Clock Behavior in a Gravitational Field. A A, 2(2), 2. [14] Takamoto, M., Ushijima, I., Ohmae, N., Yahagi, T., Kokado, K., Shinkai, H., & Katori, H. (2020). Test of general relativity by a pair of transportable optical lattice clocks. Nature Photonics, 1-5. [15] Bongs, K., & Singh, Y. (2020). Earth-based clocks test general relativity. Nature Photonics,14(7), 408-409. [16] Boskoff, W. G. (2020). A Mathematical Journey to Relativity: Deriving Special and General Relativity with Basic Mathematics. Springer Nature. [17] Chen, F., & Hsu, F. T. (2020). General Relativity, Where Time and Space Are Curved. In How Humankind Created Science(pp. 423-551). Springer, Cham. [18] Torromé, R. G. (2020). Maximal acceleration geometries and spacetime curvature bounds. IJGMM,17(4), 2050060-343. Louiz ., Maghr. J. Pure & Appl. Sci., 6 N° 2 (2020) 60- 64 64 [19] Shirokov, D. (2020). On constant solutions of SU (2) Yang-Mills equations with arbitrary current in Euclidean space ℝ n. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics,27(2), 199-218. [20] Zhang, C., Jiang, J., & Zhao, Y. (2019, May). Euclidean space with orbital angular momentum. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops)(pp. 1-6). IEEE. [21] Sato, M. (2020). De Broglie waves, the Schrödinger equation, and relativity. I. Exclusion of the rest mass energy in the dispersion relation. Physics Essays, 33(1), 96-98. [22] Sato, M. (2007). A revisit of the papers on the theory of relativity: Reconsideration of the hypothesis of ether-dragging. arXiv preprint arXiv:0704.1942. [23] Deutsch, S. (2006). Einstein's greatest mistake: abandonment of the aether. Iuniverse. [24] Louiz, A. A thesis about Newtonian mechanics rotations and about differential operators. Maghrebian Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 6(1), 26-50.