"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.

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

Cheers

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

Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:

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

In the SS post above it is explained why and how internal “own” processes rates in moving having rest mass [and it is explained what is “rest mass”] particles, bodies, etc., are slowed down comparing with the case when the bodies are at rest; and to derive that it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem; Matter is rather simple logical system,

- but that isn’t a unique physical effect that differ “rest and motion”. As that is pointed in 2-nd SS post, particles are some “4D gyroscopes”, the 4D “rotation axis” of which is always directed along particles 4D momentums P.

So if a T-particle is at rest in 3D space, the axis is directed along the cτ-axis, if the particle moves in the space, say, along X-axis, it rotates in the (X, cτ) plane so that the Cosine of the angle between P and X-axis is, again by Pythagoras theorem, equal to (1-V2/c2)1/2 , i.e. reverse Lorentz factor, while Cosine of the angle between P and cτ –axis is V/c.

If particles constitute some moving rigid body that has, if is at rest in 3D space, length L, they rotate the body as a whole in the (X, cτ) plane on the angle above, and so:

(i) - the body’s length 3D space observable projection is contracted comparing with when it is at rest in inverse Lorentz factor, what is observed experimentally, say, that was yet at M&M experiments, at that, of course , nothing happens with the 3D space; any postulated in the SR “space contraction” fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t exist; and

(ii) - the body’s front end has lesser coordinate value on the cτ –axis than the back end, the difference is correspondingly –VL/c.

Since the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed extremely mighty, motion of everything in real time ct-dimension in mainstream physics, and, of course, in everyday humans practice, till now isn’t observed, so in the mainstream the rather specific really space cτ- dimension is used as the time dimension in both – classical 4D Euclidian with [usual, when t-coordinate isn’t multiplied by the c constant ] metrics (t,X,Y,Z) , and the SR Minkowski with metrics (it,X,Y,Z) [“i” is imaginary unit], spacetimes.

So in this metrics a moving body’s front end is “younger” than the back end on –VL/c2,

- what is the Voigt-Lorentz decrement in the Lorentz transformations.

Correspondingly, if we remember that moving body’s [including moving reference frames] clocks showings are slowed comparing with the rest case, and that

Lorentz transformations – quite equally as that Galileo transformations are also, really are equation of motion of points of the moving body’s [including systems of the bodies that are inertial reference frames systems of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks] in a stationary “K” frame with using data of measurements that are made in the moving “K’ ” frame,

- we above, by using Pythagoras theorem, derived these transformations.

At that, again – these equations/transformations relate only to points of rigid bodies /rigid systems of bodies that they occupy in the 4D space /mainstream spacetime at a current time moment. If in a system the bodies are free, that above, including the Lorentz transformations, is applicable only limitedly, so, say, the Bell paradox exists,

- but what is much more important in this case, by using a system of free bodies it is possible to observe motion of the bodies in the absolute 3D space and to measure the absolute velocity of a system, while, say, Poincaré stated that that is impossible. Corresponding experiments were proposed yet in 2013-16 , more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Cheers

Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

Sergey V. Shevchenko1 and Vladimir V. Tokarevsky2

1Institute of Physics of NAS of Ukraine, Pr. Nauki, 46, Kiev-28, Ukraine

2 Professor ret., Pr. Nauki, 46, Kiev-28, Ukraine

Abstract

One of popular problems, which are experimentally studied in physics in a long time, is the testing of the special relativity theory, first of all – measurements of isotropy and constancy of light speed; as well as attempts to determine so called “absolute speed”, i.e. the Earth speed in the absolute spacetime (absolute reference frame), if this spacetime (ARF) exists. Corresponding experiments aimed at the measuring of proper speed of some reference frame in other one, including [the absolute speed] in the ARF, are considered in the paper.

Key words: informational physics, special relativity theory, spacetime, experimental testing

PACS numbers: 01.70.+w, 03.30.+p, 04.80.Cc

1 Introduction

In [1 - 3] it was rigorously shown that Matter in our Universe – and Universe as a whole - are some informational systems (structures), which exist as uninterruptedly transforming [practically] infinitesimal sub-sets in the absolutely infinite and absolutely fundamental “Information” Set. This informational conception allows to propose the physical model (more see [4], [5]), which, when basing practically only on Uncertainty principle, adequately depicts the motion and interactions of particles in the spacetime. In the model [subatomic] particles are some closed-loop algorithms that run on a “Matter’s computer [6] hardware”, which [hardware] consists, in turn, of a closed chains of elementary logical gates – fundamental logical elements (FLE) that are some (distinct, though) analogues of C. F. von Weizsäcker’s “Urs” [7 – 9]. The FLE’s sizes in both – in the space and in the “coordinate” time (see below) – directions are equal to Planck length, lP, lP = (hcG3 )1/2 (his reduced Planck constant - the elementary physical action, G - gravitational constant, c- speed of light in the vacuum); the time of the FLE’s “flip” is equal to Planck time, ττP P, = lcP . Relating to the mechanics of fast particles/ bodies motion and interactions, the model allows to obtain basic kinematical and dynamical equation that were obtained in the Lorentz theory and the special relativity, but, at that, in the model these equations are obtained basing on other [then in the Lorentz theory and in the SRT] principal suggestions, thus from the model a number of new inferences follow, including – that the real Matter’s spacetime is absolute 4D Euclidian manifold and all/every material objects move in the 3D spacetime with absolute 3D speeds; what is principally prohibited in the special relativity. In this paper a couple of experimental methods aimed at the testing this suggestion (as well, of course, the testing by this way the SRT) is presented.

Spacetime. The introducing of the Space and the Time notions in the model [3], [5], [10] is quite natural – they are fundamental and universal, i.e. which act on whole Set, logical rules/ possibilities that allow (and define or “implicitly govern” how to single out) to single out specific informational patterns / structures, for example, particles, in the main informational structure (i.e., Matter); at that taking into account both - fixed and dynamical – characteristics of the structures[1].

As possibilities Space and Time are different in that Space in the Set has infinite number of “dimensions”, when for Time now only two “dimensions” – “true time” and “coordinate time” (see below); the number of the dimensions that are “used” in a concrete informational system is determined practically completely just by properties of this concrete system. In the system “Matter” Space and Time realize themselves as some 4D-Emptiness (5D-?) where a dense 4D FLE lattice (“4D Aether”) is placed – some analogue of “spin-network” [11], “causal set” [12], “Space-time points in causal space” [13], etc. The Space and Time possibilities are universal and “absolute”, they exist “forever”, since they exist also (“virtually”) before a beginning and after an end of any specific informational structure, including, in this case, of Matter in our Universe. As the rules Space and Time establish that between informational fixed patterns (including material objects – particles, bodies, etc.) must be non-zero “space interval”, between different states of a changing pattern must be a non-zero “time interval” (a “non-zero duration”). The time intervals always accompany every change of every changing pattern, so the constant increase of the time interval at the Matter’s evolution sometimes is called as some self-independent “time flow”; tough this flow only accompanies changes of material objects and Matter’s evolution as a whole. On the other hand since “Matter as computer”, and every “automaton” in this computer, i.e. every material object and every system of objects, “operate” with a stable “operation

rate”, measured concrete space and time intervals are useful at a description of processes that go in material systems as “the time” and “ the space” variables that indicate changes of the objects in the 4D Euclidian spacetime, when any element of Matter – a particle, a molecule,

a star, etc. – has its own space and time coordinates.

The space is 3D Euclidian manifold, when the time is “two-faced” – in Matter simultaneously two rules/possibilities “Time” act - “absolute (or “true”) time” and “coordinate time”. Absolute/ true time defines that for any change in Matter (e.g., for a FLE’s flip in any - “space” or “coordinate time” – direction) is necessary to spend same “true time interval”. Since all material objects always move in the 4D spacetime with identical by the absolute value 4D speeds (which are equal to the speed of light), the true time interval, which always accompanies these processes, changes (“true time flows”) for all Matter only in one (“positive”, as that is accepted in physics now) direction by definition. The “coordinate time” is necessary because of to do reversible operations, which are logically incorrect, if only the true time acts, it is necessary to have corresponding rule that allows and defines such operations. This rule/possibility exists/acts in Matter as the “coordinate time” and material objects can move in the possibility “coordinate time” in both (direct and reversal, ±) directions – like along of a spatial direction. This time constitute, with the space, Matter’s 4D “space-[coordinate]time”, or further in the text - the “spacetime” (as well as below “time” as a rule is “coordinate time”).

The time axis in the spacetime is orthogonal to any spatial line, including, naturally, to 3 [e.g., Cartesian] spatial axes (so the 4D spacetime is in reality “Cartesian”); what follows from the model’s premise that FLEs have 4 independent degrees of freedom and, for example, from the experimentally measured the “rest mass” and “relativistic mass” relation, from the equality of “transverse” and “relativistic” masses – insofar as in macrophysics usually all interactions happen as an exchange by 3D spatial momentums, when a body at rest moves in the temporal direction, thus, because of the orthogonality of the t-axis, the “relativistic mass” turns out to be the “transverse mass”, etc.

The absolute time isn’t a coordinate in the model, though it can be fifth coordinate in a 5D spacetime, where all Matter’s objects, since they are uninterruptedly changing and so - are moving [after Matter obtained at Beginning a portion of something, what in the physics is called “the energy”] with 4D speeds having identical absolute values in the 4D spacetime, move also simultaneously with the speed of light along “true time coordinate” in positive direction, remaining always simultaneously in one true time moment (one elementary true time interval).

2 Comparing of the SRT and the model

In this informational model the Lorentz transformations can be obtained quite naturally, [4] if it is [rather reasonably] postulated that:

(1) The Matter exists and evolves in a [at least] 4D lattice of FLEs, at that every particle and every system of particles (material body) moves – as some disturbance of the lattice through the lattice, and, because of the FLEs’ sizes are identical, through 4D spacetime also, with identical (by absolute value = the light speed in the vacuum, c) 4D speeds. At that in Matter there exist two main types of particles (and bodies that are systems of particles) – “Tparticles” that were/ are created after an impacts [on the lattice] with the 4D momentums, which were/are directed along the t-axis (electrons, protons, etc.); and “S-particles”, when the impacts’ momentums were/are spatially directed (e.g. photons); thus T-particles can move in the 1D [coordinate] time and in the 3D space simultaneously, when S-particles move in the 3D space only;

(2) The lattice – and the spacetime as well – don’t depend on any Matter’s bodies motion, they are absolute and constitute by this way for Matter absolute coordinate system(s) (4ACS). Insofar as the lattice is highly standardized for steps in any – time or space – direction (there is an “equal footing”), there can be established “absolute reference frame” (4ARF) which is at rest relating to an 4ACS and so it is inertial reference frame. There can be infinite number of equivalent 4ARFs and 4ACSs, as results of translations and/ or (spatial only) rotations of some 4ARF (4ACS).

However such [“4D”] 4ARF cannot be realized in practice since every material object, including clocks, rules, observers [in certain sense, since the observers are partially nonmaterial objects], etc., that are necessary constituents of any reference frame, are some “Tobjects” that always move in the spacetime/the lattice (excluding some exotic cases when some T-particles can be, in certain sense, at rest in the 4ACS if they are built from particles and antiparticles, e.g. – the mesons). Thus there is a sense to say only about “absolute” reference frames that are at rest only relating to one of the two main dimensions of the Matter’s spacetime – at rest in the 1D time and at rest in the 3D space. The first version can be realized only if all constituents of the reference frame – clocks, rules, observer – are made, for example, from photons; what is evidently cannot be realized on the practice; thus there is a sense to seek for the ARFs that are at 3D spatial rest only. Just these 3ARFs, which are at rest in the 3D Aether, were sought for in last decades of 19 century, including the Michelson and Morley experiment [14], and were claimed as principally non-existent in the special relativity theory – as well in this theory the absolute “Newtonian” spacetime is postulated as being non-existent, though.

Correspondingly in this paper below only the absolute reference frames that are at 3D spatial rest are considered. The existence of such frames in the informational model is evident – that are the frames, where the frames’ clocks, rules and observers (not only, of course) move in the [coordinate] time only, what is evidently possible.

(3) Since all/ every particles/ bodies always move in the 4D spacetime with the sped of light, the particle’s/ body’s motion is characterized by the 4D momentum, which is an r = mVr , Pr = mckr , where mis some coefficient (the analogue of the classical momentum, P

r r inertial mass), k is 4D unit vector, at that every particle is always oriented relating to the k . Thus if a number of particles constitute a rigid body, this body becomes be oriented relating to its movement direction also. An example – moving rigid rod having the length L - is shown in the Fig.1.

Fig.1. A rod having the length L moves in the spacetime: (a) – the rod is at 3D spatial rest (moves in the time only) in the ARF, (b) the rod moves also along X-axis with a speed V. The spatial length of the accelerated rod, LX = L(1−β2 1) /2

At rest (Fig. 1 (a)) the rod moves along [coordinate] temporal axis [with the speed of light] having the momentum pr0 = m0cirt that is perpendicular to the rod. If the rod was impacted with transmission to the rod a spatial momentum prX = mVr , it moves in the space also, having in the spacetime the total momentum Pr = pr0 + prX , Pr is again perpendicular to the rod.

From the Fig. 1 immediately follow the main equations of the special relativity theory (as well as of the Lorentz theory, though). Lorentz transformations: - the first equation [β≡V c/ ]

x = vt + x′(1−β2 1) /2 , (1) - and the second one:

t′ = (1−β2 1) /2t −Vxc2′ , (2)

but with essential difference from the SRT – these equations aren’t valid in whole [in the SRT – pseudoEuclidian Minkowski] Matter’s spacetime, but are true for points of rigid mechanical systems (e.g., a system Earth + a satellite is rigid system also because of the gravity force) only, nothing happens at a motion of a body with the spacetime. Besides that the variables x′,t′correctly relate to relative positions of the rod’s points in the spacetime, they are also can be measured lengths (here - from the back of the rod) to some (here – the rod’s) matter points, and clocks’ readings in these points; thus for some rigid system of bodies it is possible to set some local inertial reference frame.

As well as from the postulates above follow main equations of the SRT dynamics.

Since P = mc and since t-axis is normal to any spatial direction (so the momentum of a particle at 3D rest remains be constant as the temporal component of the 4D momentum at any spatial motion) it can be easily obtained for T-particles that pX = mV = (1−m Vβ0 2 1) /2 ≡γm V0 , (3)

and, for example, calculating the work of some force F at the spatial (an temporal impact results in the creation of new particles) acceleration of a body with rest mass m0 on a way

S (in the Eq. (4) below p ≡ pX for convenience),we obtain:

A = F S dS = m pp0 (p2 +pdpm c022 )dp = c∆P . (4)

0

Since at motion of a body the work of the force results in the change of the body’s kinetic energy, from (4) we obtain

∆E = E − E0 = cP −cp0 , (5a) or

E = cP = m c2 , (5b)

and for a body at rest in an 3D ARF

E0 = cp0 = m c0 2 . (5c)

3 Kinematical relations in moving mechanical systems

The Voigt-Lorentz t- decrement [in Eq.(2)] for the rod’s matter (including clocks) along the rod’s length (the maximum is − VLc2 ), appears at the acceleration of the rod up to the speed V and further remains be constant for any fragment of the rod at the uniform motion. So if (i) - one synchronizes a number of clocks along the rod before the acceleration; and, (ii) - after the acceleration up to some speed, e.g., the back end clock is transported slowly along the rod to the front end, so, that this clock constituted with the rod rigid system, - then the moving clock’s and stationary clocks’ [along the rod] readings will be identical, including for the [moved] back end and front end clocks eventually. But if one accelerates also a pair of synchronized clocks, which were placed initially on the distance L(Fig.2 (a)) also, let to the same speed V (Fig.2 (b), independently (freely), then the front clock reading will be identical to the both back ones, but will show later time then front end rod’s clock; though all clocks are in both cases evidently in the same inertial reference frame.

Fig. 2. Two pairs of synchronized clocks in the same reference frames. (a) at rest in an ARF, and (b) all clocks move with the same speed in the ARF, one pair constitutes the rigid body with accelerated rod; other pair moves independently on the rod.

This “de-synchronization” of clocks, which were equally impacted at the acceleration, dependently on are the clocks free or they constitute a rigid system, occurs not only in the case above.

Besides consider a simple kinematical problem.

Let in the middle point of moving rod a short light flash occurs. The rod’s clocks readings, when the flush photons hit the clocks, are, if corresponding clock readings in an ARF is t and at the flush all clocks where set in the zero: on back end clock: tA = t(1−β2 1) /2 ; on the middle point clock; tM = tA − 2VLc2 ; on front end clock:

tB = tA −VLc2 .

Since photons move only in the space, the flash will be registered with some time increment, for example on back end clock, it is ∆tA = L2((1V−+βc2)) . So observed in the rod’s reference frame elapsed time is ∆tMA = 2Lc (1−β)+ 2Lcβ= 2Lc , so measured by this way speed of light in the rod’s IRF is equal to c , though the real speed at photons’ motion to the rod’s back end is evidently equal to V +c .

Analogously the same result (measured speed of light is equal to c ) can be easily obtained for the pair “middle point – front end” clocks; for the case, when the light moves from back end to front end (a mirror) and back, etc.

And on the contrary – if on the rod’s ends there are two clocks and the time moments, when flashes hit the clocks, are set in the clocks as equal clocks showings, the clocks become be synchronized in accordance with the Lorentz transformations – that is “Einstein synchronization” in the SRT.

However from the Lorenz transformations for rigid systems evidently follows another synchronization method – the “slow clocks transport”, when clocks are set in equal showings at some spatial point an further clocks are slowly (γ≈1) moved to the points where it is necessary to measure time intervals.

But if the clocks are free, the Lorentz transformations aren’t valid completely and both synchronization methods above become be incorrect also, besides – the results of the “synchronizations” are different. Just this fact allows to observe the absolute motion of a system of clocks and to measure the absolute 3D speed of this system – what is principally impossible in the SRT.

4 Measurement of proper speed of an IRF

4.1. The use of the rigid and free systems of two clocks

From above follows the possibility of measurement at least of the proper speed of concrete reference frame [15], if in this frame an observer uses simultaneously a set of rigidly connected and independent (free) clocks, see Fig.3.

Fig. 3. A plot of clocks movements at measurement of the proper speed of a reference frame.

So, if there is a pair of synchronized clocks, and further one clock, here – the clock-2 is moved slowly back and forth in any direction, the clocks’ readings at the clocks rendezvous will be identical, independently on – the moved clock-2 was rigidly mechanically connected by some rod with the fixed one (with clock-1) or the clock-2 moves independently.

But the moved clocks’ readings at the motion are different. When the independently moved clock-2 readings are always identical to the fixed clock-1’s ones, the connected [to the rod] clock-2 obtains additional decrement (if the clock is moved along a speed Vr of the reference frame), − Vxc2 , where xis the distance between the clocks, measured by the observer’s (on the rod) rule.

Thus, if on some moving object, for example – on an Earth satellite, an observer can implement the scheme that is shown on the Fig. 3, then it can measure his proper speed. To do that, the observer should use two clocks and some rigid rod, let – with the length L.

Let one clock (clock-1) is fixed in the satellite and other clock (clock-2) is rigidly fixed on the rod’s end, both clocks are synchronized. Then, if the rod is pushed along the satellite speed forward and back, after returning both clocks will have identical readings. However, if the clock-2 is pushed forward being rigidly coupled with the rod, but returns back independently, for example, by using own engine, the time decrement, which this clock obtained at pushing forward conserves and so the clocks’ readings are different at their rendezvous on the decrement −VLc2 (at pushing back - +VLc2 correspondingly). For example, if the experiment would be made at the International Space Station (V ∼7600 m/s) and for the rod’s length L=30 m, the decrement is ~ 2.5.10-12s.

Correspondingly from measured in this case the clock readings difference ∆t12 and known rod’s length the observer can determine the proper speed of his RF; in the case above

– the orbital speed of the satellite, V ≈ ∆t12c2 .

L

It is evident that such a procedure can be repeated any times with the accumulation of the decrements, so the requirements to the clocks’ precision aren’t too rigorous provided that

they have adequate stability. If there were Nrepetitions, then V ≈ ∆t cS 2 ; where

NL

tS t12i .

The measurement error for a single measurement in first approximation depends practically on the internal clocks’ readings long-term and short-term uncertainties. Let the sum of the clocks’ uncertainties is ∆ ≈ ∆h h1,2 21/2 ,where ∆h1,2 are the [equal here]

individual clocks’ error. Then for relative error for measured the β= V value in first c

approximation obtain

, (6)

and so

δ∆( )hβc . (7) β≈

L

For δ( )β , for example be equal to 10%, L = 30m , ∆ ≈h 10−13 s, it is possible to measure the value β ∼10-5(and more, of course), i.e. the proper speed of the clocks’ system ∼ 3000 m/s; the proper speed of the ISS above can be measured with 5% precision.

Note, again, that on Earth orbit it is impossible to measure the “proper absolute” speed, since all clocks, because of Earth gravity, always constitute a rigid systems relating to the absolute Mater’s spacetime.

4.2. The use of free two clocks system

Another way to measure the absolute [or proper speeds for near Earth systems] speed is using of two synchronized in one point clocks 1 and 2 after the clocks are slowly transported apart on a distance L and measuring one-way time intervals of light flushes hits in opposite clocks at light motion between the clocks.

In this case real (in an ARF) one-way time intervals [in contrast to the case of a rigid system in the sec. 3 above], are t1 = c V−L and t2 = c V+L , here t1 and t2 are possible clocks-1, 2 readings in an absolute reference frame. Though these values are unknown, we can obtain the actual (measured) clocks’ readings - t1′ = L(1c(1−−ββ2 1)) /2 and t2′ = L(1c(1−+ββ2 1)) /2 , where values L and β are unknown and the β value must be measured. Nonetheless we can use the equations t1′ −t2′ = 2cL (1−ββ2 1) /2 and t1′ +t2′ = 2cL (1−β12 1) /2 to obtain the equation that doesn’t contain unknown [non-measurable] value of the distance between the clocks:

β= t1′′+−tt22′′ (8) t1

To estimate possible proper /absolute speed measurements errors in first approximation obtain (∆h - see the sec. 4.1 above):

dββ≈ d t(t1′1′−−tt′2′) + d t(t1′1′++tt′2′) ≈ t1′∆−ht′ + t1′∆+ht′ ≈ t1′∆−ht′ ,

and the relative uncertainty occurs twice lesser then in the case when the system of free and rigidly connected clocks is used that is considered in the sec.4.1. But the rest is the same:

δβ= dββ≈[t1′−t2′ ≈ 2Lcβ] ≈ 2∆Lhβc (9)

and

(10)

- i.e. this method allow to obtain twice better precision or twice lower measured speed at equal errors comparing with the sec. 4.1 method.

However that is true only if the distance between the clocks is stable at the measurement (this problem is practically inessential in the experiment in the sec. 4.1 above), and the main contribution to the error is determined by the clocks precision limits. If that isn’t so, then the rough analysis above isn’t correct.

To estimate a possible contribution of the distance fluctuation consider an optimal but easily executed variant when the light flashes happen practically simultaneously, for example – by a program that make flashes at both clocks in given times in the cocks, for example – every exact second (or in any known times/ periods); after an measurement’s cycle, the data about t1i and t2i are analyzed to make the βi values by using the Eq.(8).

In this case fluctuations, dL , impact on the measurement results if they occur practically inside the intervals (t1 ±t2 ) ≈ 2L / c (or L c/ ). For the corresponding error being near clocks errors, dLc ≈ ∆h , and suggesting that the fluctuations happen with constant acceleration, a , for the a obtain: a ≈ cL32 ∆h and for the distance L ≈ (c3a∆h )1/2 .

It seems as rather reasonable that there cannot be impacts on, for example, a space probe with forces when corresponding acceleration would be greater then, say, 100 m/s2. Thus an acceptable distance, when the errors because of the fluctuations are comparable with the errors that depend on the clocks’ inaccuracy, for, for example, ∆ ≈h 10−12 , is L ≈ 500km ; returning to the Eq.(9) obtain that at such distance it is possible to measure the proper/ absolute speed lesser then 1 m/s.

I.e. in the case when the time intervals above are measured practically simultaneously, there is no the problem of the distance stability; including, besides the considered case above, the case when the distance between clocks changes constantly because of a difference of the clocks’ spatial speeds up to a few m/s; at that this distance change can be rather simply determined, measured and decreased if necessary.

5 Conclusion

From the consideration above follow a number of implications.

First of all from the informational model’s approach, which is used here, follows that if a system of measurement devices, i.e., rules and clocks, constitute a rigid system (because of the Earth gravity it is possible to create rigid systems even between / with satellites, well known example is the GPS system), then outcomes of any experiment aimed at the measurement of the speed of light value or observation of some proper speed of this system will be in accordance with the special relativity; as well with the Lorentz theory, though, because of in this case the theories are experimentally indistinguishable. Measured values will be the [standard] speed of light and zero object’s proper speed correspondingly. This inference is true independently of what experiment was executed – “tests of Lorentz invariance” at using interferometers, “round trip” or “one or two way” methods at measurements of the light speed value or its isotropy (see, e.g., [16]-[22] and refs therein); as well as of what clock synchronization is applied – “Einstein synchronization” or slow transport of synchronized clocks. If some deviations from the theories would be observed, than there will be, with a great probability, an artifact.

But if one creates at least partially free system, some possibilities appear. The described above experiments on Earth satellite seem as rather promising, since on stationary orbits Earth gravity gradient (at least on a circular orbit) is small, and so rather possibly in this cases is inessential, so the measurement of a satellite orbital (proper in the Earth’ reference frame) speed, rather probably, would be successful.

Nonetheless the Earth gravity makes impossible the measurement of the absolute speed, since the gravity always “has time” to correct the positions of clocks and rules in the 4D spacetime at the satellite orbital motion, so the instruments always constitute rigid systems relating to the ARF[2].

However principally the measurement of the absolute speed is possible. To do that is necessary to send corresponding cosmic probe in a point in space where resulting gravity force (not the gravity potential), for example – in some “global libration points” in deep space, is weak enough. Further an automaton could execute the set of measurements of the probe speed values in at least 2π directions by using the retractable rod and the pair of clocks, or a pair of distant clocks, as that is described in the section 4 above. The direction of the rod or spatial direction between free clocks, when the measured speed value will be maximal, will be the direction of the absolute speed and the absolute speed value. At that the experiment with a pair free clocks (sec. 4.2) seems as more promising, however the chouse depends on concrete technological possibilities.

There are no principal technical constraints for such experiments yet now. The mass of the probe would be, rather probably, not bigger then those that were launched already at other space missions. As well as seems that there aren’t problems with the clocks – the measurement of time intervals with accuracy ∼10-16(see, e.g., [23], [24]) isn’t now something exotic.

H. Poincaré wrote about the absolute motion in “Science and hypothesis” [25]:

“… Again, it would be necessary to have an ether in order that so-called absolute movements should not be their displacements with respect to empty space , but with respect to something concrete. Will this ever be accomplished? I don’t think so and I shall explain why; and yet, it is not absurd, for others have entertained this view…I think that such a hope is illusory; it was none the less interesting to show that a success of this kind would, in certain sense, open to us a new world…”

Acknowledgements

Authors are very grateful to Professor M. S. Brodin, Institute of Physics of NAS of Ukraine, for support and useful discussions of the problems that were considered in this paper

[1]We don’t consider here the main problem of the Time notion definition, which follows from the logical inconsistence of any change in any, including material, system, including, for example, its spatial motion – that is discussed in a first approximation in [3]; and adopt here the existence of dynamical systems and of motions of objects at least as the experimental fact.

[2] Note, though, that that is true only if forces that act on the clocks and the rules are small enough, what is true in the existent now experimental situations. Besides in this case it is important that the Earth’s absolute speed is rather small – possibly near 500-700 km/s. If the forces are large, the Earth gravity becomes be inessential and, for example, if the Earth’s absolute speed would be large also – with γ essentially >1 - and be directed, say, in the ecliptic plain, then in such case it would occur, that unstable particles, which are created in accelerators, whose tubes are parallel to this plane, would live long, say, at day and short at night in summer and on the contrary at winter.