The experimental evidence for electromagnetic signals propagating with superluminal group velocity is recalled. Transformations of space and time depending on a synchronization parameter, e1, indicate the existence of a privileged inertial system. The Lorentz transformations are obtained for a particular e1≠0. No standard experiment on relativity depends on e1, but if accelerations are considered only e1=0 remains possible. The causal paradox generated by superluminal signals (SLS) in the theory of relativity does not exist in the theory with e1=0. The irrelevance (...) of SLS for the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox is pointed out. (shrink)

The axiomatic bases of Special Relativity Theory (SRT) are thoroughly re-examined from an operational point of view, with particular emphasis on the status of Einstein synchronization in the light of the possibility of arbitrary synchronization procedures in inertial reference frames. Once correctly and explicitly phrased, the principles of SRT allow for a wide range of “theories” that differ from the standard SRT only for the difference in the chosen synchronization procedures, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts. (...) This results in the introduction, in the full background of SRT, of a suitable synchronization gauge. A complete hierarchy of synchronization gauges is introduced and elucidated, ranging from the useful Selleri synchronization gauge (which should lead, according to Selleri, to a multiplicity of theories alternative to SRT) to the more general Mansouri–Sexl synchronization gauge and, finally, to the even more general Anderson–Vetharaniam–Stedman’s synchronization gauge. It is showed that all these gauges do not challenge the SRT, as claimed by Selleri, but simply lead to a number of formalisms which leave the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime unchanged. Several aspects of fundamental and applied interest related to the conventional aspect of the synchronization choice are discussed, encompassing the issue of the one-way velocity of light in inertial and rotating reference frames, the global positioning system (GPS)’s working, and the recasting of Maxwell equations in generic synchronizations. Finally, it is showed how the gauge freedom introduced in SRT can be exploited in order to give a clear explanation of the Sagnac effect for counter-propagating matter beams. (shrink)

The resolution of the Langevin paradox for an out-and-return journey gives rise to a result which appears to violate the underlying basis of special relativity. The resolution of this second paradox, due to G. Builder, leads to a physically-intelligible interpretation of Einstein's theory and reconciles it with the cosmologically-based fundamental reference frame revealed by modern astronomy.

Within the context of the variational principle, there is the freedom to choose specific evolutional parameters. Different parameters can be associated with physical time, while allowing the physical laws to preserve the property of four-dimensional symmetry. In this sense, the concept of time has flexibility. Besides proper time and relativistic time, another natural choice emerges, which is called the generalized Galilean time. We study the impact of this choice here. This approach provides a deeper understanding of the theory of special (...) relativity, and it also provides a new basis to study other space-time theories. (shrink)

The relativistic transformation equations for the pressure, volume, energy, and momentum of a gas in a closed container are discussed. Considerations are given in support of pressure noninvariance, volume dilatation, and the fact that the energy and momentum of a gas form a four-vector. It is shown that the relativistic transformation formula for temperature resulting from the Lorentz invariance requirement of the equation of state of an ideal gas coincides with the Ott formula.

The clock hypothesis is taken to be an assumption independent of special relativity necessary to describe accelerated clocks. This enables to equate the time read off by a clock to the proper time. Here, it is considered a physical system–the light clock–proposed by Marzke and Wheeler. Recently, Fletcher proved a theorem that shows that a sufficiently small light clock has a time reading that approximates to an arbitrary degree the proper time. The clock hypothesis is not necessary to arrive at (...) this result. Here, one explores the consequences of this regarding the status of the clock hypothesis. (shrink)

The pragmatic theory of explanation is an attempt to see explanation as a linguistic response to a cognitive problem where the content of the response depends on the context of the scientific inquiry. The present paper draws on the rhetorical situation, as it is defined by Loyld Bitzer, in order to understand how the context may influence the content as well as the acceptability of the response.

One of the most debated problems in the foundations of the special relativity theory is the role of conventionality. A common belief is that the Lorentz transformation is correct but the Galilean transformation is wrong. It is another common belief that the Galilean transformation is incompatible with Maxwell equations. However, the “principle of general covariance” in general relativity makes any spacetime coordinate transformation equally valid. This includes the Galilean transformation as well. This renders a new paradox. This new paradox is (...) resolved with the argument that the Galilean transformation is equivalent to the Lorentz transformation. The resolution of this new paradox also provides the most straightforward resolution of an older paradox which is due to Selleri in. I also present a consistent electrodynamics formulation including Maxwell equations and electromagnetic wave equations under the Galilean transformation, in the exact form for any high speed, rather than in low speed approximation. Electrodynamics in rotating reference frames is rarely addressed in textbooks. The presented formulation of electrodynamics under the Galilean transformation even works well in rotating frames if we replace the constant velocity v\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {v}$$\end{document} with v=ω×r\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {v}=\varvec{\omega }\times \mathbf {r}$$\end{document}. This provides a practical tool for applications of electrodynamics in rotating frames. When electrodynamics is concerned, between two inertial reference frames, both Galilean and Lorentz transformations are equally valid, but the Lorentz transformation is more convenient. In rotating frames, although the Galilean electrodynamics does not seem convenient, it could be the most convenient formulation compared with other transformations, due to the intrinsic complex nature of the problem. (shrink)

The purpose of the present paper is to develop kinematics of the special relativity with an anisotropy of the one-way speed of light. As distinct from a common approach, when the issue of anisotropy of the light propagation is placed into the context of conventionality of distant simultaneity, it is supposed that an anisotropy of the one-way speed of light is due to a real space anisotropy. In that situation, some assumptions used in developing the standard special relativity kinematics are (...) not valid so that the “anisotropic special relativity” kinematics should be developed based on the first principles, without refereeing to the relations of the standard relativity theory. In particular, using condition of invariance of the interval between two events becomes unfounded in the presence of anisotropy of space since the standard proofs drawing the interval invariance from the invariance of equation of light propagation are not valid in that situation. Instead, the invariance of the equation of light propagation, which is a physical law, should be taken as a first principle. A number of other physical requirements, associativity, reciprocity and so on are satisfied by the requirement that the transformations between the frames form a group. Finally, the correspondence principle is to be satisfied which implies that the coordinate transformations should turn into the Galilean transformations in the limit of small velocities. The above formulation based on the invariance and group property suggests applying the Lie group theory apparatus which includes the following steps: constructing determining equations for the infinitesimal group generators using the invariance condition; solving the determining equations; specifying the solutions using the correspondence principle; defining the finite transformations by solving the Lie equations; relating the group parameter to physical parameters. The transformations derived in such a way, as distinct from the transformations derived in the context of conventionality of distant simultaneity, cannot be converted into the standard Lorentz transformations by a coordinate change. The anisotropic nature of the presented transformations manifests itself in that they do not leave the interval invariant but only provide the conformal invariance of the interval. The relations that represent measurable effects include the conformal factor which depends on the relative velocity of the frames and the anisotropy degree. It is important to note the use of the correspondence principle as a heuristic principle which allows to relate the conformal factor to the anisotropy degree and thus completely specify the transformations and observable quantities. (shrink)

While there is a longstanding discussion about the interpretation of the extended, general principle of relativity, there seems to be a consensus that the special principle of relativity is absolutely clear and unproblematic. However, a closer look at the literature on relativistic physics reveals a more confusing picture. There is a huge variety of, sometimes metaphoric, formulations of the relativity principle, and there are different, sometimes controversial, views on its actual content. The aim of this paper is to develop a (...) precise language in order to provide a precise formulation of the principle. In view of the fact that the special relativity principle is considered as a universal meta-law, which must be valid for all physical laws in all situations, we try to keep the formalism as general as possible. The benefit of the formal reconstruction is that it makes explicit all the necessary conceptual components of the principle; it brings out many subtle details and the related conceptual problems. (shrink)

We revisit the introduction of the Superluminal Lorentz transformations which carry from “bradyonic” inertial frames to “tachyonic” inertial frames, i.e., which transform time-like objects into space-like objects, andvice versa. It has long been known that special relativity can be extended to Superluminal observers only by increasing the number of dimensions of the space-time or—which is in a sense equivalent—by releasing the reality condition (i.e., introducing also imaginary quantities). In the past we always adopted the latter procedure. Here we show the (...) connection between that procedure and the former one. In other words, in order to clarify the physical meaning of the imaginary units entering the classical theory of tachyons, we have temporarily to call into play anauxiliary six-dimensional space-time M(3, 3); however, we are eventually able to go back to the four-dimensional Minkowski space-time. We revisit the introduction of the Superluminal Lorentz transformations also under another aspect. In fact, the generalized Lorentz transformations had been previously written down in a form suited only for the simple case of collinear boosts (e.g., they formed a group just for collinear boosts). We express now the Superluminal Lorentz transformations in a more general form, so that they constitute a group together with the ordinary—orthochronousand antichronous—Lorentz transformations, and reduce to the previous form in the case of collinear boosts. Our approach introduces either real or imaginary quantities, with exclusion of (generic) complex quantities. In the present context, a procedure—in two steps—for interpreting the imaginary quantities is put forth and discussed. In the case of a chain of generalized Lorentz transformations, such a procedure (when necessary) is to be applied only at the end of the chain. Finally, we justify why we call “transformations” also the Superluminal ones. (shrink)

The present work is motivated by recent experiments aimed to measure the propagation velocity of bound electromagnetic field that reveal no retardation in the absence of EM radiation. We show how these findings can be incorporated into the mathematical structure of special relativity theory that allows us to reconsider some selected problems of classical and quantum electrodynamics. In particular, we come to the conclusion that the total four-momentum for a classical system “particles plus fields” ought to be a present state (...) function of moving charges if EM radiation is negligible. In quantum domain, we analyze novel definition of the momentum operator recently suggested in the study of quantum phase effects. It implies that bound EM field energy and momentum are to be present state functions, too. Being in agreement with reported experiments, these conclusions suggest the necessity to carry out more precise experimental verifications for additional and independent determination of propagation properties of bound EM fields. A scheme of a possible experiment on this subject is also proposed. (shrink)

The magnetic dipole moment of the Kerr–Newman metric, defined by mass \, electrical charge \ and angular momentum \, is \, corresponding, for all values of \, to a gyromagnetic ratio \, which is also the value of the intrinsic gyromagnetic ratio of the electron, as first noted by Carter. Here, we argue that this result can be understood in terms of the particle-wave complementarity principle. For \ can only be defined at asymptotic spatial infinity, where the metric appears to (...) describe a spinning point particle, and therefore setting \, \, we necessarily have a model of the electron. From the Dirac equation we can construct a covariantly conserved four-current \ that is the source of the electromagnetic field generated by the charge \. The result \ then follows from the minimal gauge principle \ which is implicit in the formulation of the spinorial wave equation, and which can also be justified from the line action for a spin-1/2 point particle interacting with an external electromagnetic field, due to Berezin and Marinov. By contrast, analysis of the gyrogravito-magnetic effect, investigated classically by Wald and quantum mechanically by Adler et al., yields the result \ in all non-relativistic cases, which can be explained from the principle of equivalence. The results are in accord with the correspondence principle. (shrink)

An integrable version of the Weyl-Dirac geometry is presented. This framework is a natural generalization of the Riemannian geometry, the latter being the basis of the classical general relativity theory. The integrable Weyl-Dirac theory is both coordinate covariant and gauge covariant (in the Weyl sense), and the field equations and conservation laws are derived from an action integral. In this framework matter creation by geometry is considered. It is found that a spatially confined, spherically symmetric formation made of pure geometric (...) quantities is a massive entity. This may be treated either as a fundamental particle or as a cosmic body. In an F-R-W universe at the very beginning of the expansion phase the cosmic matter is created from an initial Planckian egg made of geometry, and during the following expansion geometric fields continue to stimulate the matter production. (shrink)

Astronomical observations of redshifts and the cosmic background radiation show that there is a local frame of reference relative to which the solar system has a well-defined velocity. Also, in cosmology the cosmological principle implies the existence of cosmic time and unique local reference frames at all spacetime points. On the other hand, in a fundamental postulate, the theory of special relativity excludes the possibility of the velocity of the Earth from entering into theories of local physics.The theory put forward (...) in this paper resolves this conflict between local physics and cosmology. The theory retains the essential ingredient of the mathematical structure of special relativity, namely covariance under the Lorentz symmetry group, but changes radically the interpretation of the physical significance of the Lorentz transformation. The theory is based on the postulate that in free space the fundamental interactions in physics are propagated with constant velocity with respect to the local rest frame. In Minkowski spacetime the local rest frame of reference defines a unique time axis and consequently a unique three-dimensional spatial hyperplane. One particularly important result of this is that the theory includes the classical notion of simultaneity. From the fundamental postulate it follows that the equations of local physics, when expressed in terms of the rest frame coordinate system, must be covariant under the Lorentz symmetry group. By the identification of the local rest frame with the (unique) cosmological local reference frame the two theories become mutually consistent.The effects of the motion of the Earth on laboratory experiments are discussed. It is pointed out that existing experimental data do not discriminate between the present theory and that of special relativity: a proposal for an experimental test is made. (shrink)

The contemporary view of the fundamental role of time in physics generally ignores its most obvious characteric, namely its flow. Studies in the foundations of relativistic mechanics during the past decade have shown that the dynamical evolution of a system can be treated in a manifestly covariant way, in terms of the solution of a system of canonical Hamilton type equations, by considering the space-time coordinates and momenta ofevents as its fundamental description. The evolution of the events, as functions of (...) a universal invariant world, or historical, time, traces out the world lines that represent the phenomena (e.g., particles) which are observed in the laboratory. The positions in time of each of the events, i.e., the time of their potential detection, are, in this framework, controlled by this universal parameter τ, the time at which they are generated (and may proceed in the positive or negative sense). We find that the notion of thestate of a system requires generalization; at any given τ, it involves information about the system at timest(τ) ≠ τ. The correlation of what may be measured att(τ) with what is generated at τ is necessarily quite rigid, and is related covariantly to the spacelike correlations found in interference experiments. We find, furthermore, that interaction with Maxwell electromagnetism leads back to a static picture of the world, with no real evolution. As a consequence of this result, and the requirement of gauge invariance for the quantum mechanical evolution equation, we conclude that electromagnetism is described by a pre-Maxwell field, whose τ-integral (or asymptotic behavior as τ → ∞) may be identified with the Maxwell field. We therefore consider the world of events in space time, interacting through τ-dependent pre-Maxwell fields, as far as electrodynamics is concerned, as the objective dynamical reality. Our perception of the world, through laboratory detectors and our eyes, are based onintegration over τ over intervals sufficiently large to obtain an aposteriori description of the phenomena which coincides with the Maxwell theory. Fundamental notions, such as the conservation of charge, rest on this construction. The decomposition of the common notion of time into two essentially different aspects, one associated with an unvarying flow, and the second with direct observation subject to dynamical modification, has profound philosophical consequences, of which we are able to explore here only a few. (shrink)

We give a tensor formulation of synchronization transformations within special relativity in order to bridge the gap between some philosophical discussions (e.g., by Grünbaum and Winnie) and the analyses given by physicists (e.g., Møller). As an application, we discuss a physical interpretation of the duality between covariant and contravariant indices in the tensor formulation.

It is shown that the equation deduced by Marinov for the gravitational frequency shift does not follow from his assumptions. The correct equation is deduced. It is pointed out that the result of Marinov's absolute spacetime theory concerning the gravitational frequency shift is contained in general relativity as an approximate description. The need for experiments testing the validity of Marinov's measurements is emphasized.

Reflective equilibrium between physics and philosophy, and between GR and particle physics, is fruitful and rational. I consider the virtues of simplicity, conservatism, and conceptual coherence, along with perturbative expansions. There are too many theories to consider. Simplicity supplies initial guidance, after which evidence increasingly dominates. One should start with scalar gravity; evidence required spin 2. Good beliefs are scarce, so don't change without reason. But does conservatism prevent conceptual innovation? No: considering all serious possibilities could lead to Einstein's equations. (...) GR is surprisingly intelligible. Energy localization makes sense if one believes Noether mathematics: an infinity of symmetries shouldn't produce just one energy. Hamiltonian change results from Lagrangian-equivalence. Causality poses conceptual questions. For GR, what are canonical 'equal-time' commutators? For massive spin 2, background causality exists but is violated. Both might be cured by engineering a background null cone respected by a gauge groupoid. Perturbative expansions can enlighten. They diagnose Einstein's 1917 'mass'-Lambda analogy. Ogievetsky-Polubarinov invented an infinity of massive spin 2 gravities---including ghost-free de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley theories!---perturbatively, and achieved the impossible : spinors in coordinates. (shrink)

A complete treatment of the Thomas rotation involves algebraic manipulations of overwhelming complexity. In this paper, we show that a choice of convenient vectorial forms for the relativistic addition law of velocities and the successive Lorentz transformations allows us to obtain straightforwardly the Thomas rotation angle by three new methods: (a) direct computation as the angle between the composite vectors of the non-collinear velocities, (b) vectorial approach, and (c) matrix approach. The new expression of the Thomas rotation angle permits us (...) to simply obtain the Thomas precession. Original diagrams are given for the first time. (shrink)

The concept of waves associated with any material particle has been a considerable boost to theoretical physics, and it appears to be in accordance with many experimental results. Some relativistic properties of these assumed waves are studied in comparison to other physical waves. It turns out that matter waves may nor be considered as objectively real, and that any physics resting on such a concept can only be subjective.

It is shown by means of general principles and specific examples that, contrary to a long-standing misconception, the modern mathematical physics of compressible fluid dynamics provides a generally consistent and efficient language for describing many seemingly fundamental physical phenomena. It is shown to be appropriate for describing electric and gravitational force fields, the quantized structure of charged elementary particles, the speed of light propagation, relativistic phenomena, the inertia of matter, the expansion of the universe, and the physical nature of time. (...) New avenues and opportunities for fundamental theoretical research are thereby illuminated. (shrink)

Recent ?dynamical? approaches to relativity by Harvey Brown and his colleagues have used John Bell's own solution to a problem in relativity which has in the past sometimes been called ?Bell's spaceships paradox?, in a central way. This paper examines solutions to this problem in greater detail and from a broader philosophical perspective than Brown et al. offer. It also analyses the well-known analogy between special relativity and classical thermodynamics. This analysis leads to the sceptical conclusion that Bell's solution yields (...) neither new philosophical insights concerning the foundations of relativity nor differential support for a specific view concerning the existence of space-time. (shrink)

We address to the Poynting theorem for the bound electromagnetic field, and demonstrate that the standard expressions for the electromagnetic energy flux and related field momentum, in general, come into the contradiction with the relativistic transformation of four-vector of total energy–momentum. We show that this inconsistency stems from the incorrect application of Poynting theorem to a system of discrete point-like charges, when the terms of self-interaction in the product \ and bound electric field \ are generated by the same source (...) charge) are exogenously omitted. Implementing a transformation of the Poynting theorem to the form, where the terms of self-interaction are eliminated via Maxwell equations and vector calculus in a mathematically rigorous way, we obtained a novel expression for field momentum, which is fully compatible with the Lorentz transformation for total energy–momentum. The results obtained are discussed along with the novel expression for the electromagnetic energy–momentum tensor. (shrink)

It is common in the literature on classical electrodynamics and relativity theory that the transformation rules for the basic electrodynamical quantities are derived from the pre-assumption that the equations of electrodynamics are covariant against these---unknown---transformation rules. There are several problems to be raised concerning these derivations. This is, however, not our main concern in this paper. Even if these derivations were completely correct, they leave open the following fundamental question: Are the so-obtained transformation rules indeed identical with the true transformation (...) rules of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities? In other words, is it indeed the case that the values calculated from the quantities in one inertial frame by means of the transformation rules we derived are equal to the values of the same quantities obtained by the same operations with the same measuring equipments when they are co-moving with the other inertial frame? This is of course an empirical question. In this paper, we will investigate the problem in a purely theoretical framework by applying what J. S. Bell calls “Lorentzian pedagogy”---according to which the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena. We will show that the transformation rules of the electrodynamical quantities are indeed identical with the ones obtained by presuming the covariance of the equations of electrodynamics, and that the covariance is indeed satisfied. Beforehand, however, we need to clarify the operational definitions of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities. As we will see, these semantic issues are not as trivial as one might think. (shrink)

The paper offers a historical overview of Einstein's oscillating attitude towards a "phenomenological" and "dynamical" treatment of rods and clocks in relativity theory. Contrary to what it has been usually claimed in recent literature, it is argued that this distinction should not be understood in the framework of opposition between principle and constructive theories. In particular Einstein does not seem to have plead for a "dynamical" explanation for the phenomenon rods contraction and clock dilation which was initially described only "kinematically". (...) On the contrary textual evidence shows that, according to Einstein, a realistic microscopic model of rods and clocks was needed to account for the very existence of measuring devices of "identical construction" which always measure the same unit of time and the same unit of length. In fact, it will be shown that the empirical meaningfulness of both relativity theories depends on what, following Max Born, one might call the "principle of the physical identity of the units of measure". In the attempt to justify the validity of such principle, Einstein was forced by different interlocutors, in particular Hermann Weyl and Wolfgang Pauli, to deal with the genuine epistemological, rather then physical question whether a theory should be able or not to described the material devices that serve to its own verification. (shrink)

In relativistic mechanics the energy-momentum of a free point mass moving without acceleration forms a four-vector. Einstein’s celebrated energy-mass relation E=mc 2 is commonly derived from that fact. By contrast, in Newtonian mechanics the mass is introduced for an accelerated motion as a measure of inertia. In this paper we rigorously derive the relativistic point mechanics and Einstein’s energy-mass relation using our recently introduced neoclassical field theory where a charge is not a point but a distribution. We show that both (...) the approaches to the definition of mass are complementary within the framework of our field theory. This theory also predicts a small difference between the electron rest mass relevant to the Penning trap experiments and its mass relevant to spectroscopic measurements. (shrink)

The relation of the special and the general principle of relativity to the principle of covariance, the principle of equivalence and Mach's principle, is discussed. In particular, the connection between Lorentz covariance and the special principle of relativity is illustrated by giving Lorentz covariant formulations of laws that violate the special principle of relativity: Ohm's law and what we call “Aristotle's first and second laws.” An “Aristotelian” universe in which all motion is relative to “absolute space” is considered. The first (...) law: a free particle is at rest. The second law: force is proportional to velocity. Ohm's law: the current density is proportional to the electrical field strength. Neither of these laws fulfills the principle of relativity. The examples illustrate, in the context of Lorentz covariance and special relativity, Kretschmann's critique of founding Einstein's general principle of relativity on the principle of general covariance. A modification of the principle of covariance is suggested, which may serve as a restricted criterium for a physical law to satisfy Einstein's general principle of relativity. Other objections that have been raised to the validity of Einstein's general principle of relativity are based upon the preferred state of inertial frames in the general, as well as in the special theory, the existence of tidal effects in “true” gravitational fields, doubts as to the validity of Mach's principle, whether electromagnetic phenomena obey the principle, and, finally, the anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation. These objections are reviewed and discussed. (shrink)

If is often taken for granted that on a rotating disk it is possible to operate a global 3+1 splitting of spacetime such that both lengths and time intervals are uniquely defined in terms of measurements performed by real rods and real clocks at rest on the platform. This paper shows that this assumption, although widespread and apparently trivial, leads to an anisotropy of the velocity of two light beams traveling in opposite directions along the rim of the disk, which (...) in turn implies some recently pointed out paradoxical consequences undermining the self-consistency of the special theory of relativity (SRT). A correct application of the SRT solves the problem and recovers complete internal consistency for the theory. As an immediate consequence, it is shown that the Sagnac effect only depends on the nonhomogeneity of time of the platform and has nothing to do with any anisotropy of the speed of light along the rim of the disk, contrary to an incorrect but widely held idea. (shrink)

A convention with regard to geometry, accepting nonholonomic aether motion and coordinate-dependent units, is always valid as an alternative to Einstein's convention. Choosing flat spacetime, Newtonian gravitation is extended, step by step, until equations closely analogous to those of Einstein's theory are obtained. The first step, demanded by considerations of inertia, is the introduction of a vector potential. Treating the electromagnetic and gravitational fields as real and imaginary components of a complex field (gravitational mass being treated as imaginary charge), the (...) Maxwell stress-momentum-energy tensor for the complex field is then used as the source for both fields. The spherically symmetric solution of these unified field equations describes the electron. Third, effects arising from motion of aether fluid with respect to the artificial reference systems of flat spacetime are included. On the grounds that attraction between likes and repulsion between likes are, a priori, equally possible, it is suggested that gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena should enjoy equal status. This can be achieved on the scale of an infinite cosmos by introducing a hierarchy of isolated systems, each of which is a universe when viewed internally and an elementary particle when viewed externally. A universe (defined by the Hubble radius), an electron, and a neutrino are three consecutive isolated systems of the hierarchy. Implied is the existence of antiuniverses where gravitational mass has opposite sign and antimatter predominates. Remarkable relationships between physical constants emerge. (shrink)

Examining the process of action at a distance, we arrive at the following conclusions: (a) The virtual photons and mesons transmitting Coulomb and nuclear forces, respectively, do not arise from “temporary violations of energy conservation,” but, on the contrary, exactly embody the potential energy corresponding to the relevant forceF that they transmit on their collision with the charged particles or nucleons via the formula Δp=FΔt. (b) In the case of an attractive force, the energy of these photons and mesons is (...) negative. The way this comes about is made clear by a more detailed investigation of Feynman's notion of “traveling backward in time.” (c) The action corresponding to, e.g., a virtual photon's appearance is exactly one quantumh, which fact is responsible for the unobservability of such photons. Some consequences of the revised conception of potential energy for, e.g., the tunnel and the Bohm-Aharonov effect are mentioned. (shrink)

It is common in the literature on electrodynamics and relativity theory that the transformation rules for the basic electrodynamical quantities are derived from the hypothesis that the relativity principle (RP) applies for Maxwell’s electrodynamics. As it will turn out from our analysis, these derivations raise several problems, and certain steps are logically questionable. This is, however, not our main concern in this paper. Even if these derivations were completely correct, they leave open the following questions: (1) Is (RP) a true (...) law of nature for electrodynamical phenomena? (2) Are, at least, the transformation rules of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities, derived from (RP), true? (3) Is (RP) consistent with the laws of electrodynamics in one single inertial frame of reference? (4) Are, at least, the derived transformation rules consistent with the laws of electrodynamics in one single frame of reference? Obviously, (1) and (2) are empirical questions. In this paper, we will investigate problems (3) and (4). First we will give a general mathematical formulation of (RP). In the second part, we will deal with the operational definitions of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities. As we will see, these semantic issues are not as trivial as one might think. In the third part of the paper, applying what J. S. Bell calls “Lorentzian pedagogy”—according to which the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena— we will show that the transformation rules of the electrodynamical quantities are identical with the ones obtained by presuming the covariance of the coupled Maxwell–Lorentz equations, and that the covariance is indeed satisfied. As to problem (3), the situation is much more complex. As we will see, the relativity principle is actually not a matter of the covariance of the physical equations, but it is a matter of the details of the solutions of the equations, which describe the behavior of moving objects.. (shrink)

A rigorous extension of the full Lorentz group is found which is parameterized by interframe velocities v(t) and which reduces to Special Relativity for acceleration-free cases and to Galilean relativity for low velocity cases. Full group properties are exhibited. Four-momentum is defined and particle masses are shown to be invariants. Four-force is introduced and pseudoforces are shown to enter the equations of particle dynamics. Maxwell's equations are shown to take on pseudocurrent terms in accelerating frames. A four-vector Green function solution (...) to the modified Maxwell equations is presented. Finally, a discussion is offered concerning philosophical questions such as the operational definition of time. (shrink)

Selection explanations explain some non-accidental generalizations in virtue of a selection process. Such explanations are not particulaizable - they do not transfer as explanations of the instances of such generalizations. This is unlike many explanations in the physical sciences, where the explanation of the general fact also provides an explanation of its instances (i.e. standard D-N explanations). Are selection explanations (e.g. in biology) therefore a different kind of explanation? I argue that to understand this issue, we need to see that (...) a standard D-N explanation of some non-accidental generalization (al Fs are Gs) may also ipso facto explain its contrapositive (all non-Gs are non-Fs), but the explanation is particularizable with respect to the former but not to the latter. This can be seen by noting that the Raven Paradox counterexample to the H-D model of confirmation also generates a counterexample to the D-N model of explanation (all ravens are black does not explain why the non-black shoe is a non-raven). In such cases it is natural to take the generalization with the positive predicates to have a particularizable explanation. However, this need not be the case, and in selection explanations it is the generalization with the positive predicates whose explanation is no particularizable. Thus there is no need to suppose that selection explanations are fundamentally different. (shrink)

The electric field of an orbiting charge or electron observed in the rotating frame takes on a circular trajectory with a maximum radius of \. The resultant extended electromagnetic structure is used to derive the spin–orbit energy of the orbiting electron. A surprising result of the derived expression is that the orbital velocity has a specific value ) in close agreement ) with the experimentally determined value for the fine structure constant ). Furthermore, the derived spin–orbit expression does not include (...) a g-factor ) which means that the Larmor and Thomas precessions are equal and opposite, resulting in zero net precession in the lab frame. These results suggest that the quantised fine structure constant and by extension Planck’s constant, are a natural extension of classical electromagnetism and conservation of energy in a rotating frame. (shrink)

A rational approach to the Fermi-Walker transport equation is proposed by deriving it from a condition of “non-rotation”. First, the condition is applied to a tetrad basis and then generalized to an arbitrary space-time four-vector. The method is conceptually simple and apart from the use of tetrad bases in four-dimensional space-time, does not require the effort of visualizing abstract geometrical constructs in spaces of more than three dimensions. The argument develops in the context of the flat space-time of special relativity (...) theory but the final result can be immediately extended to curved space-time. (shrink)

The significance of the de Broglie/Bohm hidden-particle position in the relativistic regime is addressed, seeking connection to the single-particle Newton–Wigner position. The effect of non-positive excursions of the ensemble density for extreme cases of positive-energy waves is easily computed using an integral of the equations of motion developed here for free spin-0 particles in 1 + 1 dimensions and is interpreted in terms of virtual-like pair creation and annihilation beneath the Compton wavelength. A Bohm-theoretic description of the acausal explosion of (...) a specific Newton–Wigner-localized state is presented in detail. The presence of virtual pairs found is interpreted as the Bohm picture of the spatial extension beyond single point particles proposed in the 1960s as to why space-like hyperplane dependence of the Newton–Wigner wavefunctions may be needed to achieve Lorentz covariance. For spin-1/2 particles the convective current is speculatively utilized for achieving parity with the spin-0 theory. The spin-0 improper quantum potential is generalized to an improper stress tensor for spin-1/2 particles. (shrink)

I state and prove, in the context of a space having only the metrical structure imposed by the geometrized version of Newtonian gravitational theory, a theorem analagous to that of Weyl's in a Lorentzian space. The theorem, loosely speaking, says that a projective structure and a suitably defined compatible conformal structure on such a space jointly suffice for fixing the metrical structure of a Newtonian spacetime model up to constant factors. It allows one to give a natural, physically compelling interpretation (...) of the spatiotemporal geometry of a geometrized Newtonian gravity spacetime manifold, in close analogy with the way Weyl's Theorem allows one to do in general relativity. (shrink)

The relativistic Schrödinger theory (RST) for N-fermion systems is further elaborated with respect to three fundamental problems which must emerge in any relativistic theory of quantum matter: (i) emergence/suppression of exchange forces between identical/non-identical particles, (ii) self-interactions, (iii) non-relativistic approximation. These questions are studied in detail for two- and three-particle systems but the results do apply to a general N-particle system. As a concrete demonstration, the singlet and triplet configurations of the positronium groundstate are considered within the RST framework, including (...) a discussion of the corresponding hyperfine splitting. (shrink)

The only test theory used by workers in the field of testing special relativity to analyze the significance of their experiments is the proof by H. P. Robertson [Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 378 (1949)] of the Lorentz transformations from the results of the experimental evidence. Some researchers would argue that the proof contains an unwarranted assumption disguised as a convention about synchronization procedures. Others would say that alternative conventions are possible. In the present paper, no convention is used, but the (...) Lorentz transformations are still obtained using only the results of the experiments in Robertson's proof, namely the Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike, and Ives-Stilwell experiments. Thus the revised proof is a valid test theory which is independent of any conventions, since one appeals only to the experimental evidence. The analysis of that evidence shows the directions in which efforts to test special relativity should go. Finally it is shown how the resulting test theory still has to be improved for consistency in the analysis of experiments with complicated experimental setups, how it can be simplified for expediency as to what should be tested, and how it should be completed for a missing step not considered by Robertson. (shrink)

After reviewing the foundations of special relativity and the room left for rival theories, a set of nonrelativistic para-Lorentzian transformations is derived uniquely, based on (a) a weaker first principle, (b) the requirement that the transformations sought do not give rise to the clock “paradox” (in a refined version), and (c) the compliance of the transformations with the classical experiments of Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike, and Ives-Stilwell. The corresponding dynamics is developed. Most of the experimental support of special relativity is reconsidered in (...) the light of the new theory. It is concluded that the relativity of simultaneity has so far not been tested. (shrink)

A rotating disk with angular acceleration is given a relativistic description as observed from the rotating rest frameR of the disk. It is shown how a non-Euclidean intrinsic spatial geometry develops inR, as the disk gets an angular velocity. The explanation of this as given by anR-observer is discussed. A recent description of the geometry inR presented by Grünbaum and Janis is criticized. The motion of light as described by use of coordinate clocks inR is discussed in connection with some (...) recent work by R. C. Jennison and coworkers. The significance of the difference between directed signals and circular waves when clocks inR are to be synchronized by means of light emitted from the axis inR is made clear. (shrink)

It is common in the literature on classical electrodynamics and relativity theory that the transformation rules for the basic electrodynamical quantities are derived from the hypothesis that the relativity principle applies to Maxwell's electrodynamics. As it will turn out from our analysis, these derivations raise several problems, and certain steps are logically questionable. This is, however, not our main concern in this paper. Even if these derivations were completely correct, they leave open the following questions: Is the RP a true (...) law of nature for electrodynamical phenomena? Are, at least, the transformation rules of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities, derived from the RP, true? Is the RP consistent with the laws of ED in a single inertial frame of reference? Are, at least, the derived transformation rules consistent with the laws of ED in a single frame of reference? Obviously, and are empirical questions. In this paper, we will investigate problems and. Abstract First we will give a general mathematical formulation of the RP. In the second part, we will deal with the operational definitions of the fundamental electrodynamical quantities. As we will see, these semantic issues are not as trivial as one might think. In the third part of the paper, applying what J. S. Bell calls “Lorentzian pedagogy”---according to which the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena---we will show that the transformation rules of the electrodynamical quantities are identical with the ones obtained by presuming the covariance of the equations of ED, and that the covariance is indeed satisfied. Abstract As to problem, the situation is much more complex. As we will see, the RP is actually not a matter of the covariance of the physical equations, but it is a matter of the details of the solutions of the equations, which describe the behavior of moving objects. This raises conceptual problems concerning the meaning of the notion “the same system in a collective motion”. In case of ED, there seems no satisfactory solution to this conceptual problem; thus, contrary to the widespread views, the question we asked in the title has no obvious answer. (shrink)

Professor Rudolph A. Marcus, recipient of the 1992 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, is a distinguished theoretical chemist. Two important theories happen to bear his name: the Rice Ramsperger Kassel Marcus theory of unimolecular reactions and the Marcus theory of electron transfer reactions. When considering Marcus’ work, one finds characteristics of it that bear striking similarity to those that can be found in the work of some famous scientists. Such characteristics appear then as common recurring patterns in the work of theoreticians. (...) Among them we find the following: the creation of new theories, driven by experiments that preceding theories were unable to explain; the use of thought experiments; the generalization and extensions from one realm of science to another; the making of predictions and the finding of new properties from correlations among series of data; the use of variational principles; the providing of different demonstrations of an equation; the introduction of new types of coordinates; the innovative capacity to use, by somehow recreating it under the pressure of the physical problem, a mathematical method previously unknown to the author; and finally, the presentation of formulations of the same theory in different mathematical and physical languages. Before discussing in some detail the above points, a brief description of Marcus’ work is first presented for the convenience of the reader. (shrink)

The debate about the passage of time is usually confined to Minkowski‟s geometric interpretation of space-time. It infers the block universe from the notion of relative simultaneity. But there are alternative interpretations of space-time – so-called axiomatic approaches –, based on the existence of „optical facts‟, which have thermodynamic properties. It may therefore be interesting to approach the afore-mentioned debate from the point of view of relativistic thermodynamics, in which invariant parameters exist, which may serve to indicate the passage of (...) time. Of particular interest is the use of entropic clocks, gas clocks and statistical thermometers, which suggest that two observers in Minkowski space-time could agree on an objective passing of time. (shrink)