5 questions you can ask to reveal the plausibilities
of relativity theory and the quantum medium view.
We all observe that it is easy for people to deceive themselves and others
into believing views that are far from reality. We see this in politics, religion, and commerce. Often advertising
is designed to promote beliefs that are far from reality.
Science is supposed to be different. Scientific theories are supposed to be the result of honest assessments of
all related evidence. But history shows this is easier said than done and that scientific theories often are
fundamentally wrong. Ptolemy's Earth-centered theory of the universe is a classic example and you will
find that relativity theory has the signs of being a modern example.
Recently a book on this subject, Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the
Problem of Unconceived Alternatives, (Oxford University Press) was reviewed in the journal,
Science (25 August 2006). The reviewer, Tim Lewens (Department of History and
Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge), says the following.
Kyle Stanford's admirably clear and engaging Exceeding Our Grasp addresses
the most basic question in the philosophy of science: Should we believe what scientific theories tell us about the
world? Stanford is not asking the trivial question of whether our theories are correct in every detail. Everyone
will agree that many of the fine-grained claims in molecular genetics, quantum physics, and biological anthropology,
for example, are likely to need substantial revision in the future. The question is instead whether we should think
our best theories -- in chemistry, physics, biology, and elsewhere -- are even close to the truth. So-called
scientific realists say yes. Stanford says no.
In defense of this striking claim, Stanford's book develops what he calls "the problem
of unconceived alternatives." His argument is a close relative to an older philosophical argument known as the
"pessimistic induction," which begins by claiming that the history of science is predominantly a history of failure.
Time and again, theories that enjoyed impressive predictive and practical successes, and that were regarded as
beyond doubt, have later been rejected as fundamentally mistaken. The argument concludes that the theories we now
hold to be true will eventually go the same way.
|
This website shows why relativity theory will likely go the same way because there
is a more logical and plausible explanation for the related evidence. I'm confident that anyone who honestly
evaluates the characteristics of relativity theory and the quantum medium view will conclude that the former is
an unnecessary distortion of reality and that the latter has a consilience with ideas about reality for which
there are good reasons to be confident. Some may not have the physics background to evaluate these theories,
but much can be learned by asking the following questions of friends and associates who have the necessary expertise.
| Question 1. Relativity theory is the result of assuming that the
photons comprising the light arriving at observers always have the same speed, c, relative to the observers.
How is it possible for the light to always have the same speed relative to the observers regardless of the observers'
velocities toward or away from the sources of light?
|
| Orthodox Physics: In response to this question, a quantum gravity
expert stated that quantum mechanics may eventually answer this question. This is a typical non-answer to the question.
One would think that orthodox physics would have a logical answer since the constant speed of light, c, is a
cornerstone of modern physics. If you hear a better answer to the question, please
contact me
so the answer can be included here. The internet contains attempts at answering this question (e.g. at www.madsci.org).
For example, one "answer" suggests that because special relativity is the result of assuming that the speed of light,
c, is constant for all observers, and because special relativity makes predictions that are in agreement with
experimental results, it follows that the speed of light, c, must be constant for all observers. This flawed
reasoning helps avoid having to explain why the observed speed of light is
constant for all observers.
|
| Quantum Medium View: This website shows why the constant speed of light, c,
is a natural consequence of a quantum medium through which quanta of energy (e.g. photons) are propagated. This is
strong evidence supporting the quantum medium view. |
| Question 2. Three spaceships are floating together through deep
space, far from any stars or other massive bodies, and each ship contains a precise clock (e.g. atomic clock)
that is synchronized with the other two clocks. Then two of the ships each make a round trip in the same direction.
Each traveling ship has exactly the same accelerations, decelerations, and high cruise speed relative to the
nontraveling ship, but one of the traveling ships travels twice as far as the other traveling ship. After the trips
the ships are again floating together through space but the three clocks all read different times. The quantum medium
view and relativity theory both predict that the round trips will slow the traveling clocks relative to the nontraveling
clock and that the clock that made the longer round trip will be slowed more than the shorter-trip clock. (This
clock slowing phenomenon has been demonstrated via experiments in which atomic clocks were transported aboard jet
aircraft.) The question is, what causes the slowing of the traveling clocks?
|
| Orthodox Physics: Probably you will get different answers from
different physicists because relativity theory does not reveal the causes of the slowing of the traveling clocks.
Relativity theory indicates that the cause is the relative motion between the traveling and nontraveling clocks but
does not explain why relative motion between the clocks should cause the traveling clocks to slow. If relative
motion causes the clocks to slow, then the nontraveling clock should slow relative to the traveling clocks because
it moved relative to the traveling clocks. Some physicists will claim that the accelerations experienced
by the traveling clocks mean that relativity theory's equations that relate the observed slowing of a clock to the
relative velocity between the clock and the observer do not apply in this case. Others will claim that the
traveling clocks changed reference frames and that this caused their slowing. For about a century, people have been
confused by this "Twins Paradox" type of question and physicists have offered many kinds of answers. It has been
confusing because relativity theory does not reveal the physical causes of the slowing of the traveling clocks.
If any reader hears of a clear, orthodox-physics answer to what is causing the traveling clocks to slow relative to
the nontraveling clock, please
contact me so your answer
can be include here. |
| Quantum Medium View: The quantum medium view explains clearly why the traveling
clocks are slowed and why the longer round trip causes more slowing than the shorter round trip. The slowing occurs
because the trips change the velocity of the traveling ships through the energy-transferring quantum medium and
because changing the ships velocities changes the energy-exchange rates in the ships and clocks and because a round
trip must always result in a lower average energy-exchange rate compared to the rate in the nontraveling ship
and clock. This is explained in detail on this website. The fact that the calculated rates of energy transfer within
any system moving through an energy-propagating quantum medium exactly account for the observed clock slowing and other
"relativistic" phenomena, is further strong evidence of the medium.
|
| Question 3. Why is the observed rate of a clock decreased when the
observer's velocity relative to the clock is increased?
|
| Orthodox Physics: A typical answer to this question is that
relativity theory says this will happen and that it is observed to happen -- that if two reference frames are moving
relative to one another, observers in each frame will observe that clocks and all other processes in the other frame
are slowed and that the greater the relative velocity, the greater the observed slowing. This is the way nature is. It
is difficult to understand the lack of curiosity about what is causing a clock to appear to
slow when the observer's velocity relative to the clock is increased. If you hear of a good,
orthodox-physics answer to this clock-slowing question, we would like to know about it and include it here.
|
| Quantum Medium View: The observed slowing of moving clocks (as well as the observed
foreshortening and observed increase in mass of moving bodies) is a consequence of the quantum medium. The observed
slowing may be real or it may be virtual or it may be part real and part virtual. It depends on the absolute velocities
of the clock and the observer through the medium. If the clock and observer are initially motionless relative to one
another and the observer begins moving relative to the clock, the observed slowing is a virtual slowing. The clock's
rate did not change. The clock's rate only appeared to change due to physical changes in the observer's system. These
physical changes in the observer's system include changes in the speeds of light and/or changes in the rate of clocks,
changes in distance scales, and changes in the asynchronization of clocks. The underlying phenomena and the answer to
the question are not simple, which makes it more understandable why people have not realized that the strange
observations predicted so well by relativity theory are actually consequences of a medium through which quanta of
energy are propagated. This website explains in detail why the observed clock slowing occurs. It is unfortunate that
this is understood by so few in the physics community because it provides plausible answers to questions that
relativity theory cannot answer and it indicates that relativity theory is misleading in spite of its predicting ability.
|
| Question 4. What is the source of a body's "mass," what causes a
body's "inertia," and why does increasing a body's velocity relative to an observer increase the observed mass of the
body?
|
| Orthodox Physics: Orthodox physics theory does not have plausible
answers to the three parts of the question. It has been hypothesized that a particle, the Higgs boson, imparts mass to
bodies and results in a body's inertia but such a particle has not been found. And relativity theory predicts that
moving bodies are observed to have more mass than when the bodies are at rest relative to the observer, but this does
not explain what is causing the bodies to appear more massive.
|
| Quantum Medium View: In the quantum medium view, all bodies are comprised of
oscillating systems of energy in the quantum medium, and a body's mass is the result of the oscillating systems of
energy. Photons are such oscillating systems of energy moving within a body and they come in a wide range of energies.
A typical photon energy might be 10-23 joule, where 1 joule is the energy
needed to lift 1 kilogram about 10 centimeters. Because a 1 kilogram body has an internal energy of
9x1016 joules, its internal energy is equivalent to about
1040 photons! This huge amount of internal energy in the body results in the
body's inertia because changing the body's velocity requires shifting the balance of this internal energy in the
quantum medium. Whether the change in the body's velocity increases or decreases the body's velocity through the
quantum medium, work is required to shift the balance of the internal energy (much as work is required to
change the angular velocity of a flywheel, regardless of whether the change increases or decreases the
flywheel's angular velocity). When the body's velocity through the medium is increased, the absolute mass of the body
is increased because the oscillating systems of energy in the body have a higher average oscillation
frequency and thus more energy. The observed mass of a body depends not only on the absolute mass of the body but
also on the standards of time, distance, and force in the observer's reference frame. Increasing a body's velocity
in an observers reference frame may actually decrease the body's velocity through the quantum medium, which would
decrease the body's absolute mass, but the observer would observe a virtual increase in the body's mass. This is
discussed in the Quantum Medium View booklet available via the home page of this website.
|
| Question 5. What causes the blueshift (or redshift) of the observed
light when the observer moves toward (or away from) the source of light?
|
| Orthodox Physics: The observed blueshifts and redshifts are
correctly predicted by the following equation in which fo is the observed frequency of the light,
fs is the frequency of the light at the source, c is the speed of light, and v is the observed relative
velocity between the observer and source toward one another. (When source and observer are moving away from one
another, v is negative.)
fo / fs = [(1+ v/c) / (1- v/c)]1/2
This equation and orthodox physics theory do not explain what causes the blueshift or redshift when the
observer's velocity toward or away from the source changes.
According to orthodox theory, the light coming from the source always arrives at the observer with the same
speed. And surely the vibration frequencies of the photons comprising the light do not change when the observer's
velocity changes. Therefore, there is no reason for the light to be either blueshifted or redshifted when the
observer's velocity toward or away from the source changes.
|
| Quantum Medium View: In the quantum medium view, the observed blueshift or
redshift of the light is the result of the change in velocity of the observer through the medium.
(This is similar to the change in the sound of a railroad crossing bell when an observer on a train moves toward the
bell and then passes and moves away from the bell. When the observer is moving toward the bell, the observer's velocity
through the sound-propagating medium increases the observed frequency of the bell, and when the observer is moving away
from the bell, the observer's velocity through the medium decreases the observed frequency of the bell.) Further, when
the observer's velocity through the quantum medium changes, this causes the observer's standard of time to change,
which also affects the observed frequency of the light. The net result is that the quantum medium view predicts the same
blueshifts and redshifts as predicted by orthodox physics theory and the above equation but it also explains the
physical causes of the observations. This is another example of phenomena that has no apparent cause in the context of
orthodox physics theory but that is a natural consequence of a light-propagating quantum medium. |
Many other questions could be added to the above five that would
show further that orthodox physics theory cannot supply plausible answers to questions that are easily explained by
a quantum medium. For example, oscillating systems of energy, such as sound waves or water waves, need mediums through
which to travel. It is generally believed that photons are quanta of energy and that a photon's energy depends on its
vibration frequency, but orthodox theory does not explain how these vibrating units of energy from the sun
and elsewhere reach us without a medium. Why do all the photons travel at the same speed? The quantum medium
provides the means for the constant-speed propagation of the photons from their source to their destination.
We all observe how groups of people become committed to beliefs that
are at odds with obvious evidence. Many in the physics community are committed to relativity theory because they are
not aware of all the evidence. They adhere to the "harmony of illusions" that support relativity theory, including the
false belief that the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that photons are not propagated through a medium, the false
belief that a theory is correct if it is in agreement with the related experimental evidence, and the false belief
that a theory is correct if textbooks, mentors, and colleagues agree that it's correct. Perhaps this adherence to
questionable beliefs, which has historically been an obstacle to the advancement of science, can be overcome by asking
questions that help reveal the uncertainty of the beliefs.
Peter Allport
