Unsolved Problems

in Special and General

Relativity
Chief Editor:
Florentin Smarandache
Vice Chief Editors:
Fu Yuhua & Zhao Fengjuan

Education Publishing - ISBN: 9781599732206

 Florentin Smarandache
editor-in chief

Fu Yuhua
Zhao Fengjuan
associate editors

Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity

21 collected papers

Educational Publishing & Journal of Matter Regularity (Beijing)

2013

i
Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity
21 collected papers

Florentin Smarandache
editor-in-chief

Fu Yuhua
Zhao Fengjuan
associate editors

2013

ii
 This book can be ordered on paper or electronic formats from:

Education Publishing
1313 Chesapeake Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43212
USA
Tel. (614) 485-0721
E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2013 by EducationPublishing & Journal of Matter Regularity (Beijing), Editors and the Authors for their
papers

Front and back covers by the Editor-in-Chief & V. Christianto

Peer-reviewers:
Eng. Victor Christianto, Indonesia, URL: http://www.sciprint.org, email:
[email protected].
Prof. Marinela Preoteasa, Str. Mânastirii, Nr 7, Bloc 1C, Scara A, Et. 3, Ap. 13, Slatina, Jud. Olt,
Cod postal: 230038, Romania.
Prof. Valeri Kroumov, Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Okayama University of
Science, 1-1 Ridai-cho, Kita-ku, Okayama 700-0005, Japan.

ISBN: 9781599732206
Printed in the United States of America

iii
 Preface

This book includes 21 papers written by 23 authors and co-authors. All papers included
herein are produced by scholars from People’s Republic of China, except two papers written by
Prof. L. Sapogin, V. A. Dzhanibekov, Yu. A. Ryabov from Russia, and by Prof. Florentin
Smarandache from USA. The editors hope that all these papers will contribute to the advance of
scholarly research on several aspects of Special and General Relativity. This book is suitable for
students and scholars interested in studies on physics.
The first paper is written by Hua Di. He writes that Einstein’s general theory of relativity
cannot explain the perihelion motion of Mercury. Einstein’s explanation, based on wrong
integral calculus and arbitrary approximations, is a complete failure.
The following paper is written by Li Zifeng. His paper reviews basic hypotheses and
viewpoints of space-time relationship in Special Relativity; analyzes derivation processes and the
mistakes in the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s original paper. The transformation
between two coordinate systems moving uniformly relatively to another is established. It is
shown that Special Relativity based upon the Lorentz transformation is not correct, and that the
relative speed between two objects can be faster than the speed of light.
The next paper is written by Li Wen-Xiu. His paper presents problems with the special
theory of relativity (STR), including: (1) The principle of relativity as interpreted by Einstein
conflicts with the uniqueness of the universe. (2) The light principle conflicts with the notion that
natural phenomena depend only upon mutual interaction and the involved relative motion. The
principle contains a tacit assumption that leads to self-contradiction.
The next paper by Shi Yong-Cheng says that Einstein’s book “The Meaning of
Relativity” contains of a supper mistake which leads to the famous twin “paradox”.
The following paper by Xu Jianmin proposes the assumptions of radiation and redshift,
establishes the quantum gravitational field equations and motion equations, and presents that
particles move along the path with the minimum entropy production. The paper also applies the
equivalence principle of acceleration and the gravitational field into the electromagnetic field,
which makes the electromagnetic field equation to have the same form with gravitational field
equation.
The next paper is written by Dong Jingfeng. By the analysis of twin paradox, it is pointed
out that the constriction of space-time is the only effect of measurement and all paradoxes do not
exist actually. The essence of special relativity is a number method for ways to provide math and
physical idea.
The following paper is written by Duan Zhongxiao. Through comparing the two Lorentz
transformations located at different regions, the author finds that for two inertial systems running
the relative uniform speed translational motion, if two clocks are synchronous in one system,
they are also synchronous looked from another system; this means that the relative character of
simultaneity is not the ultimate source of temporal and spatial transformation. Thus we know that
it is wrong to introduce the one-way spreading light signals along with all directions in space into
transformation.
Fu Yuhua writes the next paper. He says that special theory of relativity and general
theory of relativity have three basic shortcomings. First, the special and general theory of
relativity respectively have two basic principles, altogether have four basic principles in the

iv
interior of relativity, these obviously do not conform to the truth uniqueness. Second, for the two
basic principles of special theory of relativity and the two basic principles of general theory of
relativity, no one is generally correct. Third, establishes the physical theory from the
mathematics principle instead of the physical principle. Based on these, the applicable scopes of
special and general theory of relativity are presented.
Guo Kaizhe and Guo Chongwu write the following paper. They write that there are
magnetic field forces between positive charge and negative charge in an electric dipole which is
moving in a laboratory reference frame. Whereas, examining the electric dipole in a reference
frame which is at rest relative to the electric dipole, we find no magnetic field force exists
between the two charges.
The next paper is written by Guo Ying-Huan and Guo Zhen-Hua. They write that by
carefully comparing the results given by the general theory of relativity and the actual
astronomical observation, the contradiction between them is found to be difficult to overcome.
Furthermore, there is no sign so far of the existence of “the waves” predicted by the general
theory of relativity.
Hu Chang-Wei writes the next paper. According to him, in the absolute space-time
theory, the ether is a compressible superfluid, a change in the ether density causes a change in
the actual space-time standard, and thus, the phenomena occur. The relativity made up the
shortcoming of absolute space-time theory in quantity, while the physical basis of relativity can
be described and its limitations can be showed on the basis of absolute space-time theory.
Jiang Chun-Xuan writes the following paper. Using two methods he deduces the new
gravitational formula. Gravity is the tachyonic centripetal force.
2
In the next paper, he also found a new gravitational formula: F = − mc , established
R
the expansion theory of the universe, and obtained the expansion acceleration: g e = u 2 .
4

C R
Liu Taixiang writes the following paper. On the basis of the system relativity, the author
firstly proves the absoluteness of movement, and then deduces the conclusion that time derives
from movement, then subsequently obtains such properties of time as one dimension,
irreversibility, infiniteness, non-uniformity and relativity, etc. by illustrating the relationship
between time and space and the concept of universe state, and ultimately deduces a steady
cosmological model and a prospect of the total universe.
Tu Runsheng writes the next paper. He writes that in a limited number of experiments
that support Theory of Relativity, there also exist some points that are not supportive of the
theory. Therefore, Theory of Relativity does not solve the problem of experimental verification.
The following paper is written by Wu Fengming. According to the “paradox of
singularity theorem” proof of concept of time, the mathematical logic and the prerequisite
conditions, based on successive analytical, logical argumentation about time singularity theorem
proving the beginning and the end of the conclusions cannot be established.
Yang Shijia writes that he has studied Einstein's original “on the Electrodynamics of
Moving Body” for many years, found its own 30 unsolved problems at least, Einstein's theory of
relativity is a mistake from beginning to end.

v
 Chao Shenglin writes in the next paper that if ones think of the possibility of the
existence of the superluminal-speeds (the speeds faster than that of light) and re-describe the
special theory of relativity following Einstein's way, it could be supposed that the physical space-
time is a Finsler space-time.
In the following paper, Fu Yuhua writes that although the explanation of general
relativity for the advance of planetary perihelion is reasonably consistent with the observed data,
because its orbit is not closed, whether or not it is consistent with the law of conservation of
energy has not been verified. For this reason a new explanation is presented: The advance of
planetary perihelion is the combined result of two motions. The first elliptical motion creates the
perihelion, and the second vortex motion creates the advance of perihelion.
Sapogin, Dzhanibekov, and Ryabov discuss the problems of new unitary quantum
view of the world in its applications to the different aspects of the reality.
In the last paper, Florentin Smarandache revisits several paradoxes, inconsistencies,
contradictions, and anomalies in the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Also, he re-
proposes new types of Relativities and two physical experiments.

Florentin Smarandache

vi
 Unsolved Problems in Special and General
Relativity
Contents
Preface …………………………………………………………………………..…………..iv
1 Einstein’s Explanation of Perihelion Motion of Mercury
Hua Di ………………………………………………………………………………...……...3
2Special Relativity Arising from a Misunderstanding of Experimental Results on the
Constant Speed of Light
Li Zifeng …………………………………………………………………………...…………8
3 Problems with the Special theory of Relativity
Li Wen-Xiu …………………………………………………………………………………..21
4 Criticism to Einstein’s Physics Thinking in His Book “The Meaning of Relativity”
Shi Yong-Cheng ……………………………………………………………………………...33
5 Using Space-time Quantization to Solve the Problems Unsolved by General Relativity
Xu Jianmin ……………………………………………………………….……..……………41
6 New Exploration for the Enigma of Paradox in Special Relativity
Dong Jingfeng ………………………………………………………………………………..59
7 Unsolved Problems in Special Relativity and Methods to Solve Them
Duan Zhongxiao ……………………………………………………………………………...66
8 Shortcomings and Applicable Scopes of Special and General Theory of Relativity
Fu Yuhua ……………………………………………………………………………………..81
9 Reconsideration on Validity of the Principle of Relativity in Relativistic
Electromagnetism
Guo Kaizhe, Guo Chongwu ……………………………………………………………...…104
10 Is The General Theory of Relativity a Scientific Theory?
Guo Ying-Huan, Guo Zhen-Hua …………………………………………………………....108
11 The Theory of Relativity and Compressibility Ether
Hu Chang-Wei ……………………………………………………………………………....113

mc 2
12 New Gravitational Formula: F = −
R
Jiang Chun-Xuan …………………………………………………………...……………...125
13 The Expansion Theory of the Universe Without Dark Energy
Jiang Chun-Xuan …………………………………………………………………..............131
14 An Unsettled Issue of Time in Relativity Theory and New Comprehension on Time
Liu Taixiang ……………………………………………………………..……………...…141
15 Theory of Relativity Does Not Solve the Problem of Experimental Verification
1
Tu Runsheng ……………………………………….......…………………………………...154
16 Analysis of “Singular Point Theorems”—Further Understanding of Relativistic Time
View
Wu Fengming ……………………………………………………………………………….173
17 The Own Unresolved Issues of Einstein's Original Work: On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Body
Yang Shijia …………………………………………………………………………………181
18 The Theory of Relativity and Cosmology on the Finsler Space-time
Cao Shenglin ……………………………………………………………………………….191
19 New Explanation of Advance of Planetary Perihelion and Solar System’s Vortex
Motion
Fu Yuhua …………………………………………………………………………………..249
20 Relativistic Problems in the Unitary View Quantum View of The World
Leo G. Sapogin, V.A. Dzhanibekov, and Yu. A. Ryabov …………………………..……..253
21 Questioning the Special and General Relativity
Florentin Smarandache ……………………………………………………..……………..288

2
Einstein’s Explanation of Perihelion Motion of Mercury
Hua Di
Academician, Russian Academy of Cosmonautics
Research Fellow (ret.), Stanford University
[email protected]

Abstract: Einstein’s general theory of relativity cannot explain the perihelion

motion of Mercury. His explanation, based on wrong integral calculus and arbitrary
approximations, is a complete failure.
Keywords: Einstein, general theory of relativity, perihelion motion of Mercury

Einstein applied his general theory of relativity to explain three astronomical

phenomena: The sunlight’s red shift (1911), the perihelion motion of Mercury (1915) and the
angular deflection of light by the sun’s gravitation (1916). Among the three, the explanation
of perihelion motion of Mercury was his dearest. In a letter to a friend he wrote: “Last month
was one of the most exciting, intense and, of course, harvest periods in my life. …… An
equation yields correct data of the perihelion motion of Mercury and you can imagine how
glad I was! For a few days I was beside myself with excitement, unable to do anything,
immersed in an enchanted dream-like stupor.”

1 Einstein’s Explanation from His General Theory of Relativity

In his 1915 paper “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from the General
Theory of Relativity” [1] Einstein provided the following formula for calculating perihelion
motion of planets:

3 a2
ε = 24π 2 2 , (1)
T c 1 − e2
( )
where ε is the perihelion advance in the sense of orbital motion after a complete orbit, T the
orbital period, a the orbit’s semi major axis, e the orbit’s eccentricity and c the velocity of
light.

For Mercury: T ≈ 87.969 [earth day] ≈ 7.6 × 10 6 [s], a ≈ 5.791 × 1010 [m] and

e ≈ 0.205631 . With these data, his formula (1) yields Mercury’s perihelion motion

ε ≈ 5.013 × 10 −7 [radian] per mercury-year. For every 100 earth-year (365318 earth-day)

3
 365318
Mercury makes = 415.28 orbital rounds. Therefore, its perihelion motion per 100
87.969
earth-years is:

5.013 × 10 −7 × 415.28 ≈ 2.08 × 10 −4 [rad] ≈ 43 ’’

Matching the astronomical observation. Einstein declared his success: “I find an important
confirmation of this most fundamental theory of relativity, showing that it explains
qualitatively and quantitatively the secular rotation of the orbit of Mercury.”
According to Einstein’s 1915 paper, his formula (1) comes from an equation:

 3 
φ = π 1 + α (α 1 + α 2 ) . (2)
 4 

φ is the angle described by the radius-vector between perihelion and aphelion. Therefore, the

1 1
perihelion advance is ε = 2(φ − π ) . α 1 = and α 2 = signify the reciprocal values of
r1 r2

the orbit’s maximum and minimum distances r1 and r2 from the sun.

2kW
α= 2
≈ 2.9535 × 10 3 [m] is a constant with the gravitational constant
c
k = 6.673 × 10 −11 [m 3 kg −1 s −2 ] and the sun’s gravitational mass W ≈ 1.9891 × 10 30 [kg].

Mercury’s r1 ≈ 6.9818 × 1010 [m] and r2 ≈ 4.6002 × 1010 [m]. So, its

α 1 ≈ 1.432309 × 10 −11 [ m −1 ] and α 2 ≈ 2.173847 × 10 −11 [ m −1 ]. Placing these data directly

into Einstein’s equation (2), without needlessly resorting to his formula (1) which will be
questioned in §3, it can be obtained:

3
ε = 2(φ − π ) = πα (α 1 + α 2 ) ≈ 5.019 × 10 −7 [rad] per mercury-year
2

or 5.019 × 10 −7 × 415.28 ≈ 2.084 × 10 −4 [rad] ≈ 43 ’’ per 100 earth-years.

2 Einstein’s Fatal Error in Integral Calculus

Einstein obtained his equation (2) from an integration deduced approximately from his
general theory of relativity:
α2
dx
φ = [1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )] ∫ , (3)
α1 − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )(1 − αx )

4
 −1 2
or approximately, upon expansion of (1 − αx ) ,

 α 
1 + x dx
2 
α2
φ = [1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )] ∫  . (4)
α1 − (x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )

 3 
“The integration” Einstein writes, “yields φ = π 1 + α (α 1 + α 2 ) .” This is a fatal
 4 
error! Actually, a correct integration should be as follows:

 α 
1 + x dx
 2  dx α xdx
∫ − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )
=∫ +
− ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 ) 2
∫ − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )

dx α α1 + α 2 dx 
=∫ + − − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 ) + ∫ 
− (x − α 1 )( x − α 2 ) 2  2 − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 ) 

 α  dx α
= 1 + (α 1 + α 2 ) ∫ − − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )
 4  − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 ) 2

 α  2 x − (α 1 + α 2 ) α
= 1 + (α 1 + α 2 ) × arcsin − − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 ) .
 4  α 2 − α1 2

 α 
1 + x dx
2   α −α2 
α2
  α α − α1
Therefore, ∫
α1
= 1 + (α 1 + α 2 ) arcsin 2
− ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )  4  α 2 − α1
− arcsin 1
α 2 − α 1 

 α 
= 1 + (α 1 + α 2 )[arcsin1 − arcsin(− 1)]
 4 

 α   α 
= 1 + (α 1 + α 2 ) ⋅ 2 arcsin1 = π 1 + (α 1 + α 2 ) ,
 4   4 

 3 
not Einstein’s π 1 + α (α 1 + α 2 ) !
 4 
Finally, the correct integration yields:

 α 
1 + x dx
2   α 
α2
φ = [1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )] ∫  = [1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )]π 1 + (α 1 + α 2 )
α1 − (x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )  4 

 5 1 2
= π 1 + α (α 1 + α 2 ) + α 2 (α 1 + α 2 )  .
 4 4 

5
 π
and ε = 2(φ − π ) = α (α 1 + α 2 )[5 + α (α 1 + α 2 )] ≈ 8.3651 × 10 −7 [rad] per mercury-
2
year

or 8.3651 × 10 −7 × 415 .28 ≈ 3.4738 × 10 −4 [rad] ≈ 71.5 ’’ per 100 earth-years.

It is far different from 43 ’’ ofthe astronomical observation.

Einstein’s explanation contains one more operational error. Although

[1 + α (α1 + α 2 )] ≈ 1 since Mercury’s

α (α 1 + α 2 ) = 2.9535 × 10 3 (1.432309 × 10 −11 + 2.173847 × 10 −11 ) ≈ 1.0651 × 10 −7 << 1 ,

the [α (α 1 + α 2 )] is not negligible. Because, the very fine quantity of Mercury’s perihelion

motion ε = 2(φ − π ) originates exactly from the very small difference between φ and π , so

 α 
1 + x dx
2 
α2

that the approximation of φ= ∫
α1 − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )
instead of

 α 
1 + x dx
2 
α2
φ = [1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )] ∫  is misleading. Actually, without his arbitrary
α1 − ( x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )
approximation, Einstein’s wrong integration would have led to:

 α 
1 + x dx
2   3
α2
 
φ = [1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )] ∫ = [1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )]π 1 + α (α 1 + α 2 )
α1 − (x − α 1 )( x − α 2 )  4 

 7 3 2
= π 1 + α (α 1 + α 2 ) + α 2 (α 1 + α 2 ) 
 4 4 
π
and ε = 2(φ − π ) = α (α 1 + α 2 )[7 + 3α (α 1 + α 2 )] ≈ 11.711 × 10 −7 [rad] per mercury-
2
year,

or 11.711 × 10 −7 × 415.28 ≈ 4.8633 × 10 −4 [rad] ≈ 100.1 ” per 100 earth-years.

The result would be even worse!

3 Einstein’s Formula (1) is Questionable

According to Einstein’s formula (1), ε ≠ 0 even if e = 0 . However, if a planet moves
along a circular orbit ( e = 0 ) without eccentricity, then its orbit has neither perihelion nor
aphelion. How can it have perihelion motion ε ≠ 0 ?
Mercury’s orbit is not a strict ellipse. That’s why it has perihelion motion. Nevertheless,
6
Einstein makes an approximation by use of the relationships among an elliptic orbit’s
parameters:

1 1 1 1 2
r1 = a(1 + e ) , r2 = a(1 − e) , α 1 + α 2 = + = + = .
r1 r2 a(1 + e ) a (1 − e ) a 1 − e 2
( )
 3 α 
Thus, his equation (2) becomes φ = π 1 + and he approximately obtains:
 2 a 1 − e 2 
( )
α
ε = 2(φ − π ) = 3π . (5)
a 1 − e2
( )
2π 2kW 8π 2 a 3
Since elliptic orbit’s period is T = a 3 2 , so α = = 2 2 which leads (5)
kW c2 T c

a2
to his formula (1): ε = 24π 3
T 2c 2 1 − e 2
( )
with irrational appearance of the eccentricity e in it.

For every round of its orbit ( 360 o = 1296000 ”),Mercury’s perihelion motion is just

about 1 ”. To deal with such a fine quantity, it does not allow Einstein to do so many
arbitrary approximations.

4 Conclusion and More

Einstein’s general theory of relativity cannot explain Mercury’s perihelion motion. He
obtained “for the planet Mercury, a perihelion advance of 43 ” per century” by an incorrect
integral calculus and many arbitrary approximations. His formula (1) is a poorly patched
wrong result, tailored specially for Mercury. That is why his formula (1) fails to explain the
perihelion motions for Earth and Mars. Einstein was unfair to blame “the small eccentricities
of the orbits of these planets” for his failure. To sum up, Einstein’s general theory of
relativity is dubious.
Moreover, based solely on the principle of relativity without any postulate (such as
Einstein’s constant speed of light and Lorentz-Fitzgerald’s length-contraction), this author has
developed a new relativistic mechanics [2 ] . The new relativistic mechanics can precisely
explain all the three astronomical phenomena (the sunlight’s red shift, the perihelion motion
of Mercury and the angular deflection of light by the sun’s gravitation) within mechanical
framework. In short, gravitation is force by nature. Geometrized gravitation with four-
dimensional space-time warped by matter is not true.
Reference
[1] A. Einstein, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Princeton University, 6:112-116.
[2] Di Hua, Challenging Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, China Astronautics Publishing Co.,
7
 Ltd, November 2011

Special Relativity Arising from a Misunderstanding of Experimental Results on the

Constant Speed of Light

Li Zifeng

(Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, Hebei, 066004, China)

Abstract: All experiments show that the speed of light relative to its source measured in
vacuum is constant. Einstein interpreted this fact such that any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system with a fixed velocity c, whether the ray is emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body, and established Special Relativity accordingly. This paper reviews basic
hypotheses and viewpoints of space-time relationship in Special Relativity; analyzes
derivation processes and the mistakes in the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s original
paper. The transformation between two coordinate systems moving uniformly relatively to
another is established. It is shown that Special Relativity based upon the Lorentz
transformation is not correct, and that the relative speed between two objects can be faster
than the speed of light.
Keywords: Special Relativity, light speed, Einstein, Lorentz transformation

1 Introduction
Special Relativity was established by Einstein nearly a century ago1 and has become
nowadays a compulsory course in many universities2. However, the rationality of its
derivation process and its conclusions are still under suspicion3-28.
This paper briefly reviews the basic hypotheses and the main viewpoints of space-time in
Special Relativity. The derivations and the mistakes involved in the Lorentz transformation
and Einstein’s original paper are analyzed. The transformation between two coordinate
systems moving uniformly relatively to another will be revised. It will be shown that Special
Relativity based upon the Lorentz transformation is not correct, and that the relative speed
between two objects can be faster than the speed of light.

2 Summary of Special Relativity2

2.1 Basic hypotheses in Special Relativity

(1) Principle of relativity: For describing any law of motion, all inertial coordinate systems
moving uniformly relatively to another are equal.
(2) Principle of the constant speed of light: The speed of light measured in vacuum in all
inertial coordinate systems moving uniformly relatively to another is the same.
2.2 Lorentz transformation
Two coordinate systems K and K ′ (OXYZ and O ′X ′Y ′Z ′ ), with their respective axes
parallel to another, move uniformly relatively to another with a speed v of K ′ relative to K
along X-axis. The time count starts when O and O ′ coincide with each other, as shown in Fig.
1.

8
 Y Y′

y y' P
vt

O′ X X′
O
z z' x′
x
Z Z'
____________________________________________________
Figure 1. Coordinate system 1

Let (x, y, z, t) be an event appearing in K at time t, the same event appears in K ′ as

( x′, y ′, z ′, t ' ) at time t ′ . Time-space coordinates ( x, y , z , t ) and ( x ′, y ′, z ′, t ′ ) that describe the
same event satisfy the Lorentz transformation
vx
t−
x' =
x − vt
, y ' = y, z ' = z, t ' = c2 . (1)
2 2
v v
1−   1−  
c c
vx'
t '+
x'+vt ' c2
x= , y = y' , z = z' , t = . (2)
2 2
v v
1−   1−  
c c
where, c is the speed of light.
The derivation of the Lorentz transformation is as follows.
For point O, x = 0 is observed in K all the time; but x ′ = −vt ′ is observed in K ′ at time t ′ ,
viz. x'+vt ' = 0 . Therefore it could be seen that x and x'+vt ' become zero at the same time for
the point O. Then, suppose that there is a direct ratio k between x and x'+vt ' all the time, i.e.,
x = k ( x'+vt ' ) . (3)
Or, for point O ′ ,
x' = k ' ( x − vt ) . (4)
The principle of relativity requires that K is equal to K ′ . The two equations above have to
be of the same form, such that k is equal to k ′
k = k' . (5)
Thus
x' = k ( x − vt ) . (6)
To establish the transformation, the constant k must be determined. According to the
principle of the constant speed of light, if a light signal goes along OX when O and O ′ are at
the same point ( t = t ' = 0 ), at any time t ( t ' in K ′ ), the positions of this signal at these two
coordinate systems are as follows respectively
x = ct , x ' = ct ' . (7)
Substituting equation (7) into the product of equation (3) and equation (6), we have
9
 c 1
k= = . (8)
c2 − v2 v
2
1−  
c
Substituting equation (8) into (3) and (4), we have
vx
t−
x' =
x − vt
, t' = c2 . (9)
2 2
v v
1−   1−  
c c
vx'
t '+
x'+vt ' c2
x= ,t = . (10)
2 2
v v
1−   1−  
c c

2.3 Key points of Special Relativity

Based on the Lorentz transformation, Special Relativity concluded that:
(1) Simultaneity effect: If two events appear at two points in a coordinate system at rest
synchronously, the times that these two events appear in another coordinate system moving
uniformly are not same.
(2) Length contraction effect: In a coordinate system with a relative speed, the length of an
object measured along the speed direction of the system is shorter than that measured in
another coordinate system in which the object is at rest.
(3) Time dilation effect: For an event, the time measured in a coordinate system with
relative speed to the place is longer than that measured in another coordinate system in which
the place is at rest.
2.4 Dynamics of Special Relativity
(1) The mass of an object measured in a moving coordinate system is larger than that
measured in the coordinate system in which the object is at rest.
(2) The energy of an object equals its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light.

3 Some Mistakes in Special Relativity

3.1 Wrong comprehending of experimental results on the constant speed of light

Until now, all experiments show that the speed of light relative to its source measured in
vacuum is constant. This can be explained as follows.
(1) For light signals in vacuum radiated from sources that are fixed in any inertial
coordinate systems, measured speeds of these light signals relative to their sources (or
coordinate systems) respectively are equal.
(2) For light signals in vacuum radiated from a definite source, light speeds relative to its
source measured in coordinate systems moving uniformly relatively to another are equal.
The above fact described by Ref. 2, and Section 2.1 of this paper, is changed to “the speed
of light measured in vacuum in all inertial coordinate systems moving uniformly relatively to
another is the same”, named as “principle of the constant speed of light”. It does not point out
that the speed of the light is relative to its source. In the derivation of the Lorentz
transformation, the above fact is formulated such that for light in vacuum radiated from a
definite source, light speeds relative to any coordinate systems are equal. In Einstein’s words,
any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of coordinates with the determined velocity
10
 c, whether the ray is emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. This is also named “the
principle of the constant speed of light”. This is wrong, because it neglects relative motions
between coordinate systems, as listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Experimental result of light speed and the principle of the constant speed of light
True fact Incomplete Wrong
statement explanation
The speed of The speed of Any ray of light
light relative to light moves in the
its source measured in “stationary”
measured in vacuum in all system of
vacuum in all inertial coordinates
inertial coordinate with the
Statement
coordinate systems determined
systems moving moving velocity c,
uniformly uniformly whether the ray
relatively to relatively to be emitted by a
another is another is the stationary or by
constant. same. a moving body.
The principle The principle of
of the the constant
Name No constant speed of light
speed of light by Einstein.
by ref 2.
Not pointing Neglecting
out that the relative motions
Mistakes No speed is light between
relative to its coordinate
source. systems.

Equations (1) through (6) describe an object’s motion in a fixed system, its motion in
another moving system and the possible transformation between these two systems. Here, k
must be determined using equation (7). In equation (7), x = ct describes a photon emitted
from a source fixed at the origin of the fixed system. Equation x ' = ct ' describes another
photon emitted from a source fixed at the origin of the moving system. There is a relative
motion between these two sources. So, there is a relative motion between these two photons
from two different sources. Equations (1) through (6) describe one object in two systems. On
the other hand, Equations (7) x = ct, x' = ct ' describe two different objects (photons)
moving in two systems independently. It is problematic to substitute Eq. (7) into equation (6).
Actually, to obtain k , x = ct , x ' = ct '−vt ' must be used instead of those in Eq. (7).

3.2 The coordinate in the direction of motion of the Lorentz transformation20 is 0=0
x − vt
With reference to the equations in Section 2.2, in expression x' = ,
2
v
1−  
c

11
 ，
because x − vt ≡ 0 , we have x' ≡ 0 . Similarly in expression x =
x'+ vt '
2
, x'+vt ' ≡ 0
v
1−  
c
results in x ≡ 0 .
Also in Section 2.2, there is a statement “For point O, x = 0 is observed in K all the time;
but x ′ = −vt ′ observed in K ′ at time t ′ , viz. x'+vt ' = 0 . Therefore it could be viewed that x
and x'+vt ' become zero at the same time for the point O. Then, suppose that there is a direct
ratio k between x and x'+vt ' all the time, i.e., x = k ( x'+vt ' ) ”. Because x'+vt ' = 0 always holds,
x = 0 holds all the time.
“Or, for point O ′ , x' = k ' ( x − vt ) ”.Because x + vt = 0 is valid all the time, x ′ = 0 always
holds.
So, the coordinate in the direction of motion of the Lorentz transformation is 0=0.

3.3 Wrong derivation of equations

3.3.1Description of an event replacing description of another event
Equations (3) through (6) describe the point O in two coordinate systems. Equation (7)
describes the positions of two photons radiated from sources fixed in these two coordinate
systems at their origins respectively, not the positions of one photon. By substitution of
equation (7) into equations (3) through (6), the description of an event replaces the description
of another event. A substitution mistake occurs.
Y Y′

y y' P
vt
ct A O′ ct' A' X X′
O
z z' x′
x
Z Z'
____________________________________________________
Figure 2. Coordinate system 2

Based on equation (7), in OXYZ as shown in Fig. 2, a photon starts form point O at time
t=0, and arrives at point A at time t; in O ′X ′Y ′Z ′ , another photon starts form point O ' at time
t ' =0, and arrives at point A' at time t ' . It is obvious that these are two events of two different
photons. It would be clearer if these two origins do not lie at the same point, with an original
displacement S at time t=0, as shown in Fig. 3.
Let’s follow the derivation process of the Lorentz transformation.
Two coordinate systems K and K ′ (OXYZ and O ′X ′Y ′Z ′ ), with their corresponding axes
parallel to each other respectively, move uniformly relatively to the other, the speed of K ′ is v
relative to K along the X-axis. The time count starts when O ′ is S from O in the +X direction.

12
 Y Y′

y y' P
vt+S

O
ct A O′ ct' A' X X′

z z' x′
x
Z Z'
____________________________________________________
Figure 3. Coordinate system 3

For point O, x = 0 is observed in K all the time; but x ′ = − vt ′ − S is observed in K ′ at

time t ′ , viz. x '+ vt '+ S = 0 . Thus it can be seen that x and x '+ vt '+ S become zero at the same
time for this point. Then, suppose that there is a direct ratio between x and x '+ vt '+ S for all
the time, and let k be the proportional factor such that
x = k ( x'+vt '+ S ) . (11)
Similarly for point O ′ , we have
x' = k ' ( x − vt − S ) . (12)
From the principle of relativity, K is equal to K ′ . The two equations above must be of the
same form. Therefore, k must be equal to k ′
k = k' . (13)
We further have
x' = k ( x − vt − S ) . (14)
To finish the transformation, the constant k must be given.
Absurdity 1.Based upon the principle of the constant speed of light, if a light signal goes
along OX when O and O ′ at the same point ( t = t ' = 0 ), at any time t ( t ' in K ′ ), the positions
at these two coordinate systems are
x = ct , x ' = ct ' (15)
respectively. It is obvious that these are two events of two sources.
Substitution of equation (15) into the product of equation (11) and equation (14) yields
xx' = k 2 ( x'+vt '+ S )( x − vt − S ) 
. (16)
c 2tt ' = k 2 (ct '+vt '+ S )(ct − vt − S )
k is indeterministic.
Absurdity2.From the principle of the constant speed of light, if a light signal goes along
OX when O and O ′ coincide with each other ( t = t ' = 0 ), at any time t ( t ' in K ′ ), the positions
at these two coordinate systems are as follows, respectively
x = ct , x' = ct '− S . (17)
It is obvious that these are two events of two sources.
Substitution of equation (17) into the product of equation (11) and equation (14) gives
xx' = k 2 ( x'+vt '+ S )( x − vt − S ) 
. (18)
c 2t (t '−S ) = k 2 (ct '+vt '+ S )(ct − vt − S )
k is also indeterministic.
3.3.2 Direct transformation is not equal to indirect transformation
13
 Suppose there are three coordinate systems K , K ′ and K " (OXYZ, O ′X ′Y ′Z ′
and O" X "Y " Z " ), whose respective axes are parallels to one another, move uniformly
relatively to another, speed of K ′ is v relative to K along X-axis, speed of K " is u relative to
K ′ along the X-axis. The time count starts when O, O ′ and O" are located at the same point.
The direct transformation from K to K " is
x − (v + u )t
x" = . (19)
2
v+u
1−  
 c 

Y Y′ Y"

y y' P y"
vt ut

O O′ X O" X ′
z z' x′ z" X "
x x"
Z Z' Z"
____________________________________________________
Figure 4. Coordinate system 4

The indirect transformation from K to K " via K ′ is

uv
x(1 + 2 ) − (u + v )t
x'−ut ' c
x" = = . (20)
2 2 2
u u v
1−   1−   1−  
c c c
It is obvious that equation (19) is not equivalent to equation (20).

3.4 The relative speed between two objects can neither reach nor exceed the light speed
The process of the above derivations does not make the assumption that the relative speed
between two objects is smaller than the light speed, but the result is that the relative speed
between two objects can neither reach nor exceed the light speed. The Lorentz transformation
is self-contradictory. Now, astronomy observations find that many planets move apart faster
than the light speed.

3.5 There is an antinomy between the length contraction effect and the principle of
relativity
The length contraction effect indicates that if a sphere is fixed in a coordinate system, this
sphere observed in another coordinate system moving uniformly relatively to the system will
become an ellipsoid. A direct extension to this claim is that if the relative speed equals the
light speed, the sphere will become a circle, changing from 3-dimensions to 2-dimensions.
Therefore, there is an antinomy between the length contraction effect and the principle of
relativity.

4 Mistakes in Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”

14
4.1 Excerpt from Einstein’s paper1
The following reflections are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:
(1) The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected,
whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-
ordinates in uniform translational motion.
(2) Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of coordinates with the determined
velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Hence
light path
velocity = .
time interval
We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which
synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications
correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places where they
happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system”.
We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these
observers apply to both clocks the criterion established for the synchronization of two clocks.
Let a ray of light depart from A at the time t A , let it be reflected at B at the time t B , and
reach A again at the time t A′ .
Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
rAB r
tB − tA = and t A′ − t B = AB , (21)
c−v c+v
where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system.
Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not
synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be
synchronous.

Let us in “stationary” space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of
three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes
of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel. Let each
system be provided with a rigid measuring-rod and a number of clocks, and let the two
measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two systems, be in all respects alike.
Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the
direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be
communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks. To
any time of the stationary system K there then will correspond a definite position of the axes
of the moving system, and from reasons of symmetry we are entitled to assume that the
motion of k may be such that the axes of the moving system are at the time t (this “t” always
denotes a time of the stationary system) parallel to the axes of the stationary system.
We now imagine space to be measured from the stationary system K by means of the
stationary measuring-rod, and also from the moving system k by means of the measuring-rod
moving with it; and that we thus obtain the co-ordinates x, y, z, andξ,η,ζ, respectively. Further,
let the time t of the stationary system be determined for all points thereof at which there are
clocks by means of light signals in the manner indicated before; similarly let the time τ of the
moving system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there are clocks at
rest relatively to that system by applying the method, given before, of light signals between
the points at which the latter clocks are located.

15
 To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place and time of an event
in the stationary system, there belongs a system of values ξ,η,ζ,τ, determining that event
relatively to the system k, and our task is now to find the system of equations connecting
these quantities.
In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of
homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.
If we place x ' = x − vt , it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of
values x' , y, z , independent of time. We first define τ as a function of x' , y, z , and t. To do
this we have to express in equations thatτ is nothing else than the summary of the data of
clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to the rule given before.
From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ 0 along the X-axis to x ′ , and
at the time τ 1 be reflected thence to the origin of the coordinate, arriving there at the time τ 2 ;
we then must have
1
(τ 0 + τ 2 ) = τ 1 . (22)
2
by inserting the arguments of the function τ and applying the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light in the stationary system:
1 x′ x′ 
τ (0,0,0, t ) + τ (0,0,0, t + )
c − v c + v 
+
2
. (23)
x′
= τ ( x ′,0,0, t + )
c−v
Hence, if x ' be chosen infinitesimally small,
1 1 1 ∂τ ∂τ 1 ∂τ
( + ) = + . (24)
2 c − v c + v ∂t ∂x′ c − v ∂t
or
∂τ v ∂τ
+ 2 = 0. (25)
∂x ′ c − v 2 ∂t

With the help of this result we easily determine the quantities ξ,η,ζ, by expressing in
equations that light (as required by the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in
combination with the principle of relativity) is also propagated with velocity c when measured
in the moving system.

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated
with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we
have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light
is compatible with the principle of relativity.

4.2 Mistakes
(1) Equation (21) is derived from the assumption that “Any ray of light moves in the
stationary system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether it is emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body”. In fact, the light seen by us is emitted by the body observed
by us, no matter whether this body is moving or not, and the light speed is c relative to the
body. So, Eq. (21) is just a hypothetical phenomenon that does not exist in the world. The fact
is that observers moving with the moving rod and observers in the stationary system will find
16
that the two clocks are synchronous. For further theories of moving objects observation, see
ref. 26.
(2) It is evident that if equation (21) is true (equation (21) is false in fact), then equation (22)
will be false. But the author continued to substitute equation (21) into equation (22). As a
consequence, equation (23) is incorrect.
(3) There is a mistake from equation (23) to equation (24). From equation (23), there is

1 ∂τ ∂t 1 1
( + + )
2 x′ x′ ∂x ′ c − v c + v
∂ (t + + )
c−v c+v
. (26)
1 ∂τ ∂t ∂τ ∂τ ∂t 1
+ = + ( + )
2 ∂t ∂x' ∂x ′ x′ ∂x ′ c − v
∂ (t + )
c−v
Because x ' = x − vt ,

∂τ ∂τ ∂τ ∂τ
≠ and ≠ ,
x′ x′ ∂t x′ ∂t
∂ (t + + ) ∂ (t + )
c−v c+v c−v
then
1 1 1 ∂τ ∂τ 1 ∂τ
( + ) ≠ + . (27)
2 c − v c + v ∂t ∂x ′ c − v ∂t

(4) For a definite ray, it is first defined that the ray moves with velocity c relative to the
stationary system; then, it is also defined that the ray moves with velocity c relative to the
moving system. This is an evident mistake.
(5) In equations (21), (23) and (24), the velocity between bodies and photons c + v exceeds
the light velocity c. This conflicts with the main claim of Special Relativity.
(6) “If we place x ' = x − vt , it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system
of values x' , y, z , independent of time”. Here, first, let x ' = x − vt , then let x ′ be independent
of t . This is a conflict.
x − vt
(7) First assuming x ' = x − vt , and then the result is ξ = . ξ = x' . This is also a
2
v
1−  
c
conflict.

Einstein’s paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” is full of mistakes and
conflicts.

5 Correct Transformation26

5.1 Re-establishment of transformations

To finish the transformation, the constant k must be determined. Based upon the
experimental result of the constant speed of light, if a light signal goes along OX when O

17
and O ′ are at the same point ( t = t ' = 0 ), at any time t ( t ' in K ′ ), the positions at these two
coordinate systems are as follows respectively
x = ct , x ' = ct '−vt ' . (28)
Substitution of equation (28) into the product of equation (3) and equation (6) yields
k =1. (29)
Substitution of equation (29) into (3) and (4) yields
x = x '+ vt ' 

x' = x − vt  . (30)
t = t' 

This is the classic Galilean transformation. There is no light speed in it.

5.2 Equation (28) accords with experimental result of the constant speed of light
As shown in Fig. 2, if a photon emitted from a source fixed at O of OXYZ system moves
from O at time t = 0 , arrives at A at time t, then its relative speed to O (or source) in OXYZ
O A x ct O ′A x' ( A) ct '−vt '
is = = = c ; and its relative speed to O′ in O′X ′Y ′Z ′ is = = =c −v;
t t t t' t' t'
and the measured speed of this photon relative to its source in O′X ′Y ′Z ′ is
O A x' ( A) − x' (O) (ct '−vt ' ) − (−vt ' )
= = = c . For a specific photon, its relative speeds to
t' t' t'
different systems are varied; its relative speeds to its source measured in different systems are
the same.

5.3 Deductions
Special Relativity based upon the Lorentz transformation is not correct. As the key
components of Special Relativity, the simultaneity effect, length contraction effect, time
dilation effect, mass increasing effect and the question of rest energy are all groundless. The
relative speed between two objects can exceed the light speed.

6. Conclusions
(1) Special Relativity is derived from a misunderstanding of experimental results involving
the constant speed of light.
(2) Special Relativity based upon the Lorentz transformation is not correct.
(3) Descriptions of a definite event in all inertial coordinate systems moving uniformly
relatively to another are equal.
(4) The relative speed between two objects can exceed the light speed.
(5) Einstein’s paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” is full of mistakes and
conflicts.

Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Thomas Smid for discussions.
Li Zifeng is a professor of Yanshan University, China, Technical Editor of SPE Drilling &
Completion. Before joining Yanshan University, he was a professor of Daqing Petroleum
Institute and then a professor of China University of Geosciences. He has published 100
papers and 4 books on drill string, casing, rod pumping mechanics & well bore stability. He

18
holds a BS degree in drilling engineering and an MS degree in machinery engineering from
Daqing Petroleum Institute and a Ph.D. degree in petroleum development engineering from
China University of Petroleum.

References
1. A. Einstein. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. The Principle of Relativity,
Methuen and Company Ltd. of London, 1923.
2. Cheng Shuozhu, Jiang Zhiyong. General physics. Beijing: People’s Education Press, 1978:
231-254. (In Chinese)
3. Kelly A. Special Relativity - Right or Wrong?[J].Electronics World, 2000, 106 (1773): 722-
723.
4. Yin Z. Investigation of specialrelativity and an alternative explanation of the speed of light
[J].Physics Essays, 2002, 15(4): 363-370.
5. Bitsakis E. Space and Time: The Ongoing Quest[J].Foundations of Physics, 2005, 35 (1):
57-83.
6. G. O. Mueller, Karl Kneckebrodt. 95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity
(1908-2003)[R]. Germany, 2006.
7. Will CM. Was Einstein Right?[J].Annalen der Physik, 2006, 15 (1-2): 19-33.
8. Varcoe BTH. Testing Special Relativity Using Slow Light [J].Contemporary Physics, 2006,
47 (1): 25-32.
9. Xu Shaozhi. The Mathematic Basis of Relativity is Wrong. Invention and Innovation, 2001,
(1):32-33. (In Chinese)
10. Xu Shaozhi. To Look at Scientific Platform, New Events Happen in China. Invention and
Innovation, 2001, (2): 34-35. (In Chinese)
11. Xu Shaozhi. Misunderstandings on Mass-Energy Relations. Invention and Innovation,
2002, (2):32. (In Chinese)
12. Xu Shaozhi, Xiang Qun. Generalized Relativity Is So Different From Science. Invention
and Innovation, 2002, (3): 30-31. (In Chinese)
13. Xu Runsheng. SR Goes Against Factuality Principles. Invention and Innovation, 2002,
(10):32. (In Chinese)
14. Zhu Jidong. Discussing the Fundament of the Experiment about Special Relativity.
Journal of Shanghai University of Electric Power, 2003, 19(3):57-60. (In Chinese)
15. Cui Jidong. On China’s Own Innovation Way -Impressions of Reading “Rethought on
Relativity”. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (3):34. (In Chinese)
16. Lei Yuanxing. Criticizing Voice on Relativity is Worth Analyzing in Two Ways-The First
Impression of “Rethought on Relativity”. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (3):37. (In
Chinese)
17. Huang Zhixun. Theoretical Development and Experimental Examinations in Special
Relativity. Engineering Science, 2003, 5(5):8-12. (In Chinese)
18. Liu Dayi. A Debate between Relativity and the Concept of Classics’ Space-Time &
Matter. Invention and Innovation, 2003, (9):36. (In Chinese)
19. Xiang Qun. Do Away with Superstitious and Read Relativity Cautiously. Invention and
Innovation, 2003, (10):36. (In Chinese)
20. Liu Dayi. Making Zero Divisor Is a Math’s Mistake. Invention and Innovation, 2003,
(10):37. (In Chinese)
21. Huang Demin. On the Essence of Physical phenomenon –Matter Effect Study Challenges
19
 Relativity. Shanxi Science and Technology Publishing House, 2001. (In Chinese)
22. Song Zhenghai, Fan Dajie, Xu Shaozhi, Hao Jianyu. Rethinking on Relativity. Earthquake
Publishing House, 2001. (In Chinese)
23. Qi Ji. New Physics. Publishing House of Northeast Forestry University, 2003. (In
Chinese)
24. Li Zifeng, Li Tianjiang, Wang Changjin, Wang Zhaoyun, Tian Xinmin. The Essence of
Special Relativity and Its Influence on Science, Philosophy & Society[J]. Scientific
Inquiry, 2007, 8(2): 229-236.
25. Li Zifeng, Wang Zhaoyun. Materialistic Views of Space-time and Mass-energy [J].
Scientific Inquiry, 2007, 8(2): 237-241.
26. Li Zifeng. Moving Objects Observation Theory in Place of Special Relativity [J].
Scientific Inquiry, 2007, 8(2): 242-249.
27. Li Zifeng, Tian Xinmin. Magic Weapons for Supporting Relativity[J]. Scientific Inquiry,
2007, 8(2): 250-255.
28. Li Zifeng. The Essential Relationship Between Mass and Energy[J]. Scientific Inquiry,
2007, 8(2): 256-262.

20
Problems with the Special theory of Relativity
Li Wen-Xiu
Department of Earth and Space Sciences
University of Science and Technology of China
[email protected]

Abstract: This paper presents problems with the special theory of relativity (STR), including:
(1) The principle of relativity as interpreted by Einstein conflicts with the uniqueness of the
universe. (2) The light principle conflicts with the notion that natural phenomena depend only
upon mutual interaction and the involved relative motion. The principle contains a tacit
assumption that leads to self-contradiction. (3) The Lorentz transformation(LT) is based, not
upon the so-called light principle, but rather upon a general time-space dependence, and lacks
a proof of necessity and uniqueness. (4) The LT contradicts its premises, holding for no
observer. (5) The Lorentz contraction is shown untenable in practice. (6) The prediction of
time dilation is only a special case of a general result that is self-contradictory.

Keywords: Special Relativity, principle of relativity, light principle, Lorentz transformation,

Lorentz contraction, time dilation.

1 Introduction
There is no doubt that the physical Universe is the only object of study of physics. The
basic view of the world, underlying all physical theories and justified by history of physics, is
the doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human
consciousness. The objectivity, reality, and uniqueness of the universe are therefore the initial
premises of natural sciences. Based on this view, the phenomena of nature, which ultimately
depend only upon interaction between matter and relative motion thereof, can simultaneously
and equally be described by means of any single coordinate system; i.e., nothing in the
Universe can be changed by the employment of a coordinate system.
Consider, for example, a stone dropped, but not thrown, to the embankment by Einstein
standing at a window of a railway carriage, which is traveling uniformly with respect to the
embankment. With respect to the embankment, the railway carriage, or any other body in the
Universe, the stone traverses an absolutely definite, independent trajectory. Clearly, the phrase
‘the motion of the stone’ has no definite meaning without the reference body being specified.
Given a single specified coordinate system, all motions of all bodies in the Universe with
respect to this frame, and with respect to one another, can be described simultaneously by
means of this frame. Whatever coordinate system is employed, the trajectory traced by
Einstein’s stone with respect to the ground is a parabola, while that with respect to the
carriage is a straight line.
It is incorrect to consider a coordinate system as able to describe only motions of bodies
21
with respect to itself. It is even more fallacious to regard a coordinate transformation as a
reference-body switch of relative motions[1]. When the coordinate system rigidly attached to
the ground is employed, the carriage is still there, and the motion of the stone with respect to
it cannot be destroyed or altered by the employment of that frame. Everybody knows how to
figure out the trajectory of this motion by using this system, just as well as by using the
system rigidly attached to the carriage. It is only because the stone is in an absolutely definite,
independent motion with respect to every other body in the Universe that we can
simultaneously compare them and find them different from each other, whereby we obtain the
knowledge that motion is relative.
It is therefore not right to interpret the relativity of motion only as: ’viewed from the
embankment’ the stone is in a parabola motion, while ‘viewed from the carriage’ it is in a
straight line motion. The phrase ‘viewed from the embankment’ is ambiguous. It is unlucky
for physics that such phraseology has come into use in published articles. Although it means
here ‘with respect to the embankment’, one often fails to know what it means; say, “viewed
from the coordinate system S’”, in S the laws of electrodynamics are in the form of Maxwell’s
equation, whereas in S’, they are not. This kind of phraseology also makes the coordinate
system now subject, then object, depending on one’s requirement.
One should also know that not only “viewed from the embankment” the stone is in
straight line motion with respect to the carriage, but also “viewed from anywhere”, the stone
is in straight line motion relative to the carriage too, as well as in parabolic motion relative to
the embankment. The two relative motions are really both absolute, here meaning that either
of them has already contained within it the consequence of all physical effects exerted upon it,
and cannot still be anything different depending on viewpoint.
In accord with the special theory of relativity (STR), ‘relativity’ means that one and the
same thing is different according to different definitions (the phrase ‘when viewed from
different inertial observers’ is here equivalent to ‘according to different definitions’[3]). The
relativity of lengths, masses, and times, all refer to one and the same body or one and the
same pair of clocks, as clearly stated by Miller [2]:
“There were no such notions as the true time or the true length of an object; rather these

were relative concepts: For example, the length of the rod was either or rAB, depending

upon the rod’s motion relative to an inertial observer”.

Surely, Miller is correct only ‘when viewed from STR’. According to STR, there were
also no such notions as the true length contraction or the true time dilation; rather these were
relative effects: for example, the length of the rod was contracted by either the factor α or the
factor β, depending upon the rod’s speed relative to an inertial observer. All the experiments
that have been claimed to confirm STR turn out to confirm at most these untrue effects. Even
the two postulates set forth by Einstein are untrue ‘when viewed in any coordinate system
whatsoever’[3].
22
 When we delve into how Miller obtained such conclusions, we find all these conclusions
self-contradictory. When we, as observers not standing on Olympus, measure the length of the

rod to be , we are unable simultaneously to know and believe that other observers in motion

relative to us should regard it as shorter than . How can we come to such a conclusion? All

we can do is use our standards of length and time to measure all bodies and all time intervals,
and we must thereby find that during two events every object in the Universe, moving or not
with respect to us, must age the amount equal to the interval of the two events, independent of
the reading of the clock traveling with it. It is not allowed by STR for us, on the one hand, to
measure the interval of the two events with our own standard of time, and, on the other hand,
to measure the aging of the object with the readings of the clock which is traveling with the
object and which, according to STR, we do not think keeps the correct time, in order that we
can agree that the object, if moving relatively to us, ages less than the interval of the two
events.
It is perhaps necessary to point out here that Einstein’s defining the reading of a clock as
time is no less absurd than defining the reading of a speedometer as speed, the reading of a
log as distance, the reading of a counter as number, the reading of a potentiometer as electric
potential. A clock is nothing but a measuring instrument. If no quantity precedes, no
measuring instrument is necessary, without mentioning the fact that no one can design an
instrument for measuring the unknown quantity, still less can one know the measuring
precision and the stability of the instrument. Therefore time and the unit of time must both be
well defined before any clock or watch comes into use.

1. The Principle of Relativity

The so-called principle of relativity, which, as quoted by Rindler [4], reads in Einstein’s
own words as: “All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical
experiments”, and which is said to be evolved from the ‘fact’ that in a ship “all motions and
all mechanics happen in the same way whether the ship is at rest or is moving uniformly”.[4]
This cannot be regarded as an important law of nature, since, considering the fact that there is
only one Universe while there are an infinite number of inertial coordinate systems, there is
no case such that in every inertial coordinate system there is an identical physical system at
rest and under otherwise exactly the same conditions.
In fact, the ship is never moving uniformly with respect to Earth. When the ship is said to
move uniformly, it is actually at rest in the coordinate system of which the origin is located at
the center of Earth, and which is rotating with respect to the Earth around the axis through its
origin and perpendicular to the alleged velocity of the ship, with the angular velocity ω=v/R,
where v is the alleged speed of the ship, R the radius of the Earth. Especially when v is large
enough, all motions and all mechanics will not happen in the same way as when the ship is at

23
rest. Besides, granted that the ship is moving uniformly, it is not the ship, but rather a
uniformly moving flatcar, that can be regarded as an inertial coordinate system. One cannot
see what is seen in the ship when he is on the flatcar. The reason is very simple: there is only
one atmosphere that cannot be in the same state of motion relative to the Earth as relative to
the flatcar.
It is to be emphasized that the Einsteinian relativity is essentially different from the
Galilean relativity, which says that all inertial coordinate systems are totally equivalent for the
description of the Universe.

2 The Light Principle

It is well known that the LT is set up on the two postulates put forward by Einstein [5] in
1905. The so-called principle of the constancy of light speed reads, in Einstein’s own words,
“Any ray of light moves in the ‘stationary’ system of coordinates with the determined velocity
c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body”.
What is concerned with and meaningful is only the speed of light relative to its receiver,
which is obviously independent of reference frames, and of which the principle should
completely be stated, namely, the light emitting body and the light receiver should both be
involved in the principle, since both of them are generally in motion in the ‘stationary’ system
of coordinates. However, the light principle does not refer to light receiver at all, violating
completely the mutuality of motion between emitting body and receiver. This, together with
the tacit assumption mentioned below, make the speed of light with respect to the light
receiver from the outset observer dependent [3]. This is the root of why simultaneity is
relative.
Even in accordance with Einstein’s understanding of this principle, as shown first in
defining time and then in deriving the LT, the principle should strictly and completely be
stated as follows: The speed of light with respect to every inertial coordinate system, only
when measured by stationary observers of that system according to their own stationary
clocks synchronized by using light signals in accordance with the synchronization definition
that is made based upon this now being stated principle which postulates that the speed of
…(repeating exactly the same statement endlessly).
This endless statement is the root of the circular demonstration present in STR, making
STR from the outset untenable. The reason for the statement being endless lies in the fact that
the principle, in itself through the definition of velocity, already contains time, which is in
turn to be re-defined based upon this principle; i.e., that the principle is not qualified to be a
principle, unless time is previously otherwise defined [6].
Einstein’s argumentation of the relativity of simultaneity involves a tacit assumption
which reads: when an observer A at rest in an inertial coordinate system receives a ray of light
at time t, the observer B who is in motion relative to A, and happens to be adjacent to A, can
also receive this ray of light. It is based upon this tacit assumption that Einstein uses c-v and
24
c+v in demonstrating the relativity of time, although his usage is still illegal in terms of STR
[7]. This assumption has been shown untenable [1,8], and now we shall further show that it
may lead to absurd conclusions.
Suppose the coordinate system K’ is in uniform motion relative to the coordinate
system K in the x-direction with speed v, with the axes of x of the two system coinciding.
Now let a ray of light be emitted at time t=t’=0 when the origins of the two systems coincide,
from the instant common origin, in the direction of the instant common y-axes. According to
the light principle, in either coordinate system the ray of light is propagated only along the y-
axis; i.e., only the observers at rest on y-axis can receive the ray of light. However, since the
y’-axis is moving relatively to the y-axis, when an observer at rest on y’-axis receives the ray
of light, there must be some observer who is at rest in system K but not on the y-axis runs into
him and, according to the tacit assumption, receives the ray of light too. This leads to the
absurd conclusion that, in system K, not only the observers located on the y-axis, but all
observers located above the x-axis, can receive the ray of light since v can take any value

from to , and vice versa in system K’.

3 Derivation of the LT
In physics, in fact, the only bases underlying all physical equations is the unquestionable
fact that a thing is always identical with itself. In other words, both sides of every equation
always stand for one and the same quantity. This has already been, and will forever be, the
unique basis for us to establish physical equations, the coordinate transformation equations
being no exception.
Suppose there are two bodies, A and B, if we want to express the position of A with
respect to B, we need, first of all, to establish a Cartesian coordinate system, K, rigidly
attached to B and with B at the origin, then measure the three coordinates, x, y, and z of A to
obtain the position of A relative to B,

(1)

Now for some reason we need to express this very relative position in terms of a coordinate
system, K’, which is in uniform motion with velocity v with respect to B. Let the position of A
with respect to K’ at time t be

(2)

Since the position of B with respect to K’ is

(3)

The position of A with respect to B is therefore

25
 (4)

It is the fact that Eqs. (1) and (4) are one and the same position of A with respect to B that
gives the Galilean transformation (GT) equations

, , (5)

With the proof of the uniqueness and necessity of these equations absolutely unnecessary.
Moreover, we have no choice but to accept all features of these equations. In other words, not
before, but only after these equations have been so soundly obtained can we know and believe
all their properties to be true.
By contrast, the derivation of the LT is completely groundless. Einstein and others,
such as Bergmann [9] and Rindler [10], made no proof of the uniqueness and necessity of the
LT equations either before or after the derivation of the LT. Moreover, their derivations are
full of fictitious assumptions, such as the linear dependence of t’, not only on t, but also on x,
y, and z, and the properties of homogeneity of space and time (in fact, these assumptions are
not only petitio principii, but also in conflict with the conclusions resulting from the LT based
on them. For example, ‘viewed from either of the two coordinate systems in uniform relative
motion’ clocks in the other system placed along the y- or z-axis are synchronized with each
other, whereas those placed along the x-axis are not; namely, time is not homogeneous and for
a similar reason neither is space).
The LT is said to be derived from Einstein’s two formal postulates that are
mathematically expressed as

, (6)

It is explicit that t and t’ are both arbitrary constants, not independent variables in the same
sense as x, y, and z, namely that only when they are both given are the two equations both
spherical equations; nevertheless, they are treated, in deriving the LT, as independent
variables, on completely equal footing with x, y, and z, since Einstein substitutes x, y, z, t,
contained in Eq. (6) for the spacial coordinates x, y, z, and the time t of an arbitrary event.
Clearly, this treatment not only makes space and time interrelated, as definitely shown by the
LT, but also makes Eq. (6) no more or less than the time-space dependence, which is
obviously absurd.
Without any proof of the uniqueness of the LT, Rindler alleged, after his derivation of
the LT, “if there is a transformation satisfying the requirements of SR, then it must be (the
LT)”. Rindler’s allegation has been shown outright untenable by Xu Shaozhi and Xu
Xiangqun [7].
What is even more seriously shown by Xu Shaozhi and Xu Xiangqun is that the LT is
actually not based upon Einstein’s two postulates as expressed by Eq.(6) but upon the

26
following equation

(7)

With t and t’ being independent variables on completely equal footing with x, y, and z, which
is now absolutely in conflict with the light principle, being really an interrelation of time and
space. This fact not only implies that the LT is not based on Eq. (6), much less on Einstein’s
two postulates, but reveals how space and time have already been from the outset interrelated
as well.
4 Premises of the LT
Besides what is exposed above, the other premises of the LT are obviously as follows:
First, each coordinate system is equipped with a rigid measuring rod and a number of clocks,
each measuring rod and all clocks being ‘in all respects alike’. Second, the clocks fixed at
different points of each system are synchronized with each other.
On reflection, we find that we do not know to whom we are saying these premises; i.e.,
for whom these premises hold good. According to the STR, even we ourselves do not accept
them as valid, if we are not really on Olympus. An observer at rest in S would find the clocks
in S’ not synchronized to one another, the two measuring-rods and the clocks in S and S’ in no
respects alike, and vice versa. Therefore, no observer in either system can derive the LT, much
less can they accept it as correct. Although the observers in either system do not accept the
LT, it is very strange that when we use the LT (granted that we are entitled to use it) to get
from the space-time coordinates of an event relative to S to the new space-time coordinates of
that event relative to S’ for the observers in S’, the observers in S’ have to regard the new
space-time coordinates not only as true but also as measured by themselves. We know of no
other place in physics where there exists such a peremptory logic. Observers are no more or
less than puppets when viewed from Einstein. We wish we were not observers.

5 Lorentz Contraction
The following experiment indicates the impossibility of the Lorentz contraction.
Turn a railway carriage upside down so that its front and rear wheels can turn freely. Join
the two wheels with a rigid rod by means of two eccentric axles fixed respectively on the
edges of the two wheels. Practice tells us that only when the length of the rod is equal to the
distance between the two central axles of the two wheels can the two wheels still turn freely.
We now suppose the rod is equal to the distance, and these wheels are turned swiftly; the rod
is thus in motion with respect to the carriage, suffering the Lorentz contraction ‘when viewed
in the coordinate system attached rigidly to the carriage’. Since the two central axles are
rigidly fixed on the carriage, the distance between them does not suffer such an effect. The
rod is therefore shorter than the distance between the two central axles, whence it follows that
these wheels cannot be turned. This conclusion is obviously out of accord with the fact that
these wheels are turning.
27
 It is to be noted that, in accordance with STR, Lorentz contraction means that the length
of a rod, under any conditions whatsoever, at any instant, is simultaneously different ‘viewed
from different inertial observers’, not that the rod has different lengths at different times or in
different situations. The length of a rod is always the consequence of all known and unknown
effects acted on it by all objects present in the Universe. Even granted that there is an ether,
the notion that, in the ether, when a rod is moving with speed v parallel to its length, its length
is shorter compared to its resting length, has nothing to do with the Lorentz contraction.
6 Time Dilation
Immediately after his discussion of length contraction, Einstein made another prediction.
He argued as follows:
“We imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to make the time t when at rest

relatively to the stationary system (the system S in this paper), and the time (t’ in this

paper) when at rest relatively to the moving system (S’ in this paper), to be located at the

origin of the coordinates of (S’), and so adjusted that it marks the time . What is the

rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system?”

“Between the quantities and , which refer to the position of the clock, we have,

evidently, and

Therefore,

Whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is

slow by seconds per second, or neglecting magnitudes of fourth and

higher order, by ”.

The late Herbert Dingle made a reasonable objection to Einstein’s conclusion. He

made a parallel passage, leading to the opposite conclusion [11, 12, 13]:

Which shows that the moving clock is fast by seconds per second, being in

28
conflict with Einstein’s conclusion.
In order to show Einstein’s conclusion being untenable, we should first ascertain what
he meant by the phrase ‘viewed in the stationary system’. In STR, this kind of phraseology
appears in every conclusion, and has different meanings in different conclusions, really being
an elixir playing the role of confusing reader’s mind. Here it may be in the place of the phrase
‘compared to the stationary clock’.
It is common sense that whenever one compares two things, there always exist two
exactly equivalent statements of the result. Take, for example, the comparison of the two
clocks, A and B. If one finds the clock A to be m seconds per second slower than B, one will
claim that the clock B is m seconds per second faster than A. In other words, ‘compared to B
the clock A runs slow’ is exactly equivalent to ‘compared to A the clock B runs fast’. Besides,

the relation is nothing but the equation

connecting the interval , ‘viewed from the moving system’, of the two events occurring

respectively at and , and the interval t, ‘viewed from the stationary system’, of the

same two events. Why is it ‘viewed in the stationary system’ but not ‘viewed in the moving
system’ that is to be added to the relation? Is science language games?
Therefore, Einstein’s conclusion is exactly equivalent to the assertion that the stationary
clock is fast by the same amount compared to the moving clock which, as shown by Dingle,
should be faster than the stationary clock. This is what is shown by Dingle to be the
inconsistency of the theory.
For refutation of Dingle’s objection, Max Born [14] and McCrea [15] made an
argument to the effect that Einstein’s conclusion results from the comparison of the proper
time interval of the moving clock to the stationary non-proper time interval, whereas Dingle’s
results from the comparison of the stationary proper time interval to the moving non-proper

time interval. The two conclusions therefore ‘refer to different physical situations’; and

have not the same meaning in the two expressions. Dingle’s conclusion is therefore not in
conflict with Einstein’s conclusion.
What a strange explanation. We now fail to know how many different meanings the

time t (or ) has. This is the first time we have heard that physical situation can alter the

nature of time. And we also fail to know why, neither Max Born nor McCrea explains
whether there is any relation between a proper time interval and its corresponding non-proper
time interval of the same coordinate system. As known, since clocks are all synchronized,
there must be a certain relation between the two intervals. As long as such relation exists,
whatsoever it may be, Dingle’s objection must hold good.
29
 The following demonstration may be necessary for further refuting Max Born’s

argument and similar ones. Between the two times and , there is a general relation that can

be drawn from the LT, and of which both Einstein’s and Dingle’s conclusionsare merely

special cases. Let us assume that at the time , a mass point M that is moving with

constant speed in the x-direction, passes through the origin of S, which coincides at that

moment with the origin of S’, and at S-time arrives at . According to Einstein’s logic

exactly, between the quantities and , which refer to the position of M, we have evidently,

and . Therefore, , where is the

Lorentz factor, whence it follows that the time marked by the clock of S’ (viewed in the

stationary system S) is slow by seconds per second when

, fast by seconds per second when .

Clearly, this result reduces to Einstein’s conclusion when , and to Dingle’s

when . Nothing shows that the two conclusions refer to different physical situations in

which and have not the same meaning. This general result is now the comparison of the

two non-proper time intervals between the same two events. What in this theory can make
now one, and then the other, the greater one?
Max Born’s argument means that, in the stationary system, although all clocks fixed at

different places are synchronized with each other, the non-proper time interval has no

relation to any proper time interval of the clock at rest at , namely, this clock has no

reading corresponding to , or in other words, that one cannot use any proper time interval of

the clock at to calculate the position of the moving clock, namely, if we let stand for

the proper time interval of the clock at , whatever may be, . If really so, we

would fail to understand as to what Einstein meant by “the property of homogeneity which we
refer to time”, and the theory would completely be meaningless, because it makes us unable
to determine even the position and velocity of the moon relative to the earth, since it is
impossible for us to place clocks at different points on the orbit of the moon. If not, however,
30
no matter what the relation between and may be, Dingle’s objection is valid.

In fact, the equality of to has been used by all authors, including Einstein

himself (Einstein clearly knows that a theory which even fails to give the relation between

and cannot be regarded as a good theory). The strong evidence is that in the quoted paper

Einstein simultaneously uses both proper time interval and non-proper time interval to

express the same velocity of light , namely, , using the proper time

interval, , using the non-proper time interval. This completely means that

the two time-intervals have the same meaning. We are surprised that those physicists claiming
to be of integrity should be regardless of these facts when they explain away Dingle’s
objection.

7 Concluding Remarks
Every problem presented above is fatal to STR. This determines that STR must suffer
acute refutation. We know that the STR is per se an observer-dependent theory. But this does
not mean that we should start from this viewpoint to disprove this viewpoint, and are
considered to be wrong when we demonstrate and assert something really independent of
observers. First to ascertain why it is observer-dependent, and then point out where and how it
goes wrong by demonstrating how and why it is really independent of observers, is a valid
way to disprove this theory.
It is surprising that, although some authors confess that STR is inconsistent, they hold the
doctrine that Einstein was so fortunate that he frequently came to the right conclusions by
using false reasoning, and claim that all relativistic paradoxes of length contraction of rods,
etc., have been resolved through absolute space and time physics, derived from the Galilei
covariant Maxwell equations. Clearly, according to the above analysis, these authors’ claim
shows only that their ‘theory’ is no better than STR.

References
[1] Wen-xiu Li, “Is Galilean Relativity Really Incompatible With Maxwell’s Equations?”,
Physics Essays 7, 255-260(1994).
[2] A. I. Miller, Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 205(Addison-Wesley,
Boston, 1981).
[3] Wen-Xiu Li, “On the Relativity of Length and Times”, Apeiron 2, 16-19(1995).
[4] W. Rindler,Essential Relativity, 2nd ed., pp. 7, 4 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977).
[5] A. Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, in H. A. Lorentz et al, The

31
 Principle of Relativity, p.41(Dover, New York, 1952).
[6] Wen-Xiu Li, “Logical Inconsistencies in Special Relativity theory”, Galilean
Electrodynamics 10, 49-50 & 56(1999).
[7] Xu Shaozhi and Xu Xiangqun, “A Reexamination of the Lorentz Transformation”,
Galilean Electrodynamics 3, 5-8(1992).
[8] Wen-Xiu Li, “On the Galilean Relativity of the Laws of Electrodynamics”, Physics Essays
7, 403-409(1994).
[9] P. G. Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, p. 33(Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N. J., 1942).
[10] Ref. 4, p. 33.
[11] H. Dingle, “Special Theory of Relativity”, Nature 195, 985-986(1962).
[12] H. Dingle, “Special Theory of Relativity”, Nature 197, 1248-1249(1963).
[13] H. Dingle, “Special Theory of Relativity”, Nature 216, 119-122(1967).
[14] M. Born, “Special Theory of Relativity”, Nature 197, 1287-1288(1963).
[15] W. H. McCrea, “Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct”, Nature 216, 122-
124(1967).

32
Criticism To Einstein’s Physics Thinking in His Book “The Meaning of Relativity”
Shi Yong-Cheng

，
(ShaoxingUniversity, Shaoxing 312000, P. R. China. E-mail:[email protected])

Abstract: It is discovered that Einstein’s book “The Meaning of Relativity” contains of a

supper mistake which leads to the famous twin “paradox”. It is proven that the principle of
constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum is the result obtained by artificially set of
measuring instruments and then the Galilean transformation and Lorenz transformation are
unified based on the verification of their equivalency crossing 300 years history of physical

－
space-time with one step smashing the shackles of Einstein theory of relativity limitation of

the velocity of macro object movement and eliminating the fairytale of Shrink-foot clock slow

Keywords:Lorentz transformation, Ideal clock, Geographic time-difference

1 Criticism to Einstein physics thinking in STR

The Galilean transformation
 x′ = x − V τ , y′ = y, z ′ = z , (1)

 τ ′ = τ , (2)
was put forward by physicist in the 16th century and it can make the equation of Newton
mechanics second law has covariance, but it can’t made that electromagnetic field equation
has covariance, therefore Einstein attempted to change general understanding for time in
Newton mechanics and then to build new transformation while he first employed the principle
of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum, to complete the definition of time by
[1]
means of his scheme of adjustment of the clocks at rest relatively to an inertial system K .
After these clocks are regulated according to the Einstein scheme in K, all these clocks have a
same rate and have not geographic time difference and then if the time t recorded by the clock
situated at rest at the origin O of the system K to be denoted by τ, the time t recorded by
arbitrary clock situated at rest at a point where x≠0 in the system K is same with τ, therefore
we have

t =τ. ( 2′ )
In his book[1] Einstein said that space and time data have a physically real, and a mere
fictitious, significance; in particular this holds for all the relation in which coordinates and
time enter .There is, therefore, sense in asking whether those equations are true or not, as well
as in asking what the true equations of transformation are by which we pass from one inertial
system K to another, K', moving relatively to it. We point out that Einstein’s problem and
33
thinking above are no any sense and are wrong. Since space and time data relate both of
different observers and different measurement instruments, therefore these data has not any
physically real significance and then the so-called true equations of transformation cannot be
uniquely settled. It was proven that equations of transformation settled by means of the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum is not uniquely true equations,
the equations of Galilean transformation are also true equations of transformation, they are
equivalent each other’s [4].
In order to obtain new equations of transformation to replace the Galilean transformation,
Einstein started from linear transformation of the type (see [1], p-32, (24) )

xµ′ = aµ + bµα xα , ( A)
where x'µ to be the space-time coordinates of an event in another inertial system K', moving
relative to K, applying the principle of special relativity and the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light , he obtained the Lorenz transformation[1] p-34

 x1 −ν l
 x1′ = ,
 1 −ν 2
 l −ν x1
( 29 ) l′ = ,
 1 −ν 2

 x2′ = x2 ,

 x3′ = x3 ,

where γ= 1/δ, δ = √(1-ν2), ν = v/c, and l (= ct), l'(= ct') to be light-time. This transformation
make that the Maxwell electromagnetic equations have covariance.
Eliminating x1 in the second equation of (29) by means of the first equation of (29), we
obtain following geographic time difference formula of clocks in moving inertial system K'

l ′ = δ l −ν x1′, ( B)
which indicates :(10) all clocks situated at rest at the space points where x1'≠0 have same rate
and different geographic time difference -νx1' with the standard clock situated at rest at origin
O', (20) the rates of all clocks situated at rest at the space points of the inertial frame of
reference K' are δ (= √(1-ν2)) time of the rate of the clocks situated at rest at the space points
of the inertial frame of reference K where all clocks have been synchronized according
Einstein’s scheme of adjustment of the clocks at rest relatively to an inertial system .
Replace x1, x2, x3, l by x, y, z, ct, these equations can be written in the form

 x′ = β ( x − vt ), y′ = y, z ′ = z, (1*)
 2
 t ′ = β (t − vx c ), (2*)

where β=1/δ. Since equations (A) has not any information which shows what measuring-
sticks and what clocks to be applied in the system K', the Lorentz transformation only
34
guarantees that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds, but it
cannotguarantees that the space-time coordinates of an event in system K' calculated by
means of Lorentz transformation do not conflict with his scheme of adjustment of the clocks
in another inertial system. Therefore it is fantasy that Einstein and his followers considered
that the coordinates (x', y', z', t') in K' are found in the same way as the coordinates in K by
means of standard clocks at rest in K' [2] (p36).
What measuring-sticks and what clocks should be applied for the system K’? whole
deducing process of Lorentz transformation indicates that they should not be decided by
Einstein and his followers, but they must be determined by Lorentz transformation. The
famous twin “paradox” in STR shows that the Einstein scheme of adjustment of the clocks
cannot be applied in the system K'. It is proven that the famous twin “paradox” in STR will
not existed after the clocks to be regulated according to the geographic time difference
formula (B)[4].

2Simultaneity and pig brain

When they consider the concept of simultaneously, they take same criterion for
simultaneity in K and K' and then obtained a mistake conclusion that the concept of
simultaneity has lost its absolute meaning[2](P34) since their criterion for simultaneity cannot
holds in K'. Their famous example on the simultaneity of two events occurring at different
points just verifies that Einstein scheme of adjustment of the clocks is unlawful in K'. Since
different clocks situated at rest at different places in K' have different geographic time
[3]( chpt.4)[4]
difference expressed by the formula (B) , they are simultaneous with the standard
clock situated at rest at the origin O' after their geographic time difference to be reduced.
Therefore the simultaneity between two event in different space points in system K still has
its exact meaning for the men as observers in K' since the signals of light can carry TV
information relating the registered exact time of local clocks when the event happening and
observers can transform local time to standard time. A pig reading in a flying aircraft cannot
understanding it is simultaneous events that a Peking dog and a Washington dog died at a
same Greenwich Mean Time when the TV signal coming from Washington early arrives at the
aircraft than the TV signal coming from Peking while its owner will understanding that the
two dogs are simultaneously died from registered time of the Washington local clock and
registered time of the Peking local clock whose images are showed respectively in the two TV
signals.

3 Twin “paradox” and Einstein’s super mistake

In order to expose the truthful face of Einstein’s mythology on moving clocks, let us to
examine the paragraph in page 36 of his book[1]as follows:“A clock at rest at the origin x1=0
of K, whose beasts are characterized by l = n , will, when observed from K', have beats
characterized by
35
 n
l′ = , (C )
1 −ν 2
This follows from the second of equation (29) and shows that the clock goes slower than if it
were at rest relatively to K'”. It is obvious here Einstein compared the clock (which is now
denoted by (C) situated at rest at origin O of K with the clock (which is now denoted by C'.)
situated at rest at a fixed point A' of the x1'.-axis. When l=n, the clock C just meeting the clock
C'. Therefore we can obtain the coordinate of the clock C' on x1-axis as follows

νn
x1′ = −ν l ′ = − .
1 −ν 2
Replace n by l in Eq. (C), we obtain

l = 1 −ν 2 l ′, ( C *)
Consider that the clock C' at rest at the origin x1'=0, we can obtain from the first and second
equations of (B)

l ′ = 1 −ν 2 l , ( C **)
Einstein and his followers considered that (C*), (C**) are equivalent to following formulas
respectively
∆l = 1 −ν 2 ∆l ′, ( D *)
∆l ′ = 1 −ν 2 ∆l , ( D **)
and then present the mythology of moving clocks based upon (D*) and (D**) which leads to
the famous twin “paradox”. However we will prove that the formula (D*) is not equivalent to
(C*) and it does not hold.

Since l , l ′ are instantaneously registered time, it is Einstein’s supper mistake that their

comparison has been considered as the criterion for the comparison of rates of clocks . We
must consider their started time respectively to compare their time difference respectively.
When the origin O coinciding with origin O', for all clocks situated at rest at different space
points in K, we have l = 0 since these clocks are regulated according to the Einstein scheme.
Therefore we have

∆l = l − 0 = n.
For clock C' when the origin O coinciding with origin O', its registered time can be obtained
from (B) by putting t =0 and x1'= -νl' as follows

 νn  ν 2n
l ′ = −ν  −  = .
2
 1 −ν  1 −ν 2

36
Fig 1. At t' = t =0, the clock C which is situated at rest at the origin O coinciding with the
origin O'
while the clock C' which is situated at rest at the point A' specified by
coordinate x'=x'1=-νl'
on the x'-axis records the geographic time difference l'=-ν2n/√(1-ν2).

Therefore we obtain

n ν 2n
∆l ′ = − = 1 −ν 2 n. (E*)
2 2
1 −ν 1 −ν
Then we have

∆l ′ = 1 − ν 2 ∆l , (E)
which is same with (D**) and leads to an opposite consequence to Einstein as follows: “The
clock goes faster than if it were at rest relatively to K'”. The formula (E) comes from (C*) and
(C**) respectively that shows that (E) and its physics deduction are independent of observers.
The local clocks situated at rest at different space points in K' go slower than the local clocks
situated at rest at different space points in K where Einstein scheme has been performed. This
result holds for all observers and then there is no a little of relativity.

4Equivalence between Galilean transformation and Lorentz transformation

From the pointing out of Galilean transformation to confirmation of Lorenz transformation by
Einstein and then the establishment of special theory of relativity by Einstein, it stepped over
about 300 years; therefore, the modern physics theory building was established in the 20th
century. However, the book “A Brief History of Time” (Stephen Hawking) became popular all
around world and Einstein theory of relativity of hundred years’ history was considered as
supreme civilization. The verification of the equivalency between Galilean transformation and
Lorenz transformation---marking the end of Einstein theory of relativity: utilizing the
following SGTD formula (Shi geographic time difference formula)

t = τ + λ x, (3) t ′ = τ ′ − λ x′, (4)

37
where

λ = 1 − 1 − v 2 c 2 / v = ( 1 + V 2 c 2 − 1) / V ,
( ) （5）
V = dx dτ , (6) v = dx dt , (7)
v =V 1 + V 2 c2 , (8)
utilizing extremely simple elementary mathematical operation, it can make strict derivation
each other between Galilean transformation (1) and(2)and Lorenz transformation (1*) and(2*)
(see relating paper 4 and 5), so it denies the traditional fallacy that Galilean transformation is
the low speed similarity of Lorenz transformation while the same correctness of these two
transformations is definitely proven. The velocity v, V in (6), (7) relate the different
definitions of velocity. Using clock without geographic time difference to measure time, the
velocity definition is (6), so we call it proper velocity. The macro object proper velocity and
light proper velocity obey the Galilean addition theorem for velocities, vacuum light speed is
changeable and Newtonian mechanics is beyond limitation of Lorenz transformation---
velocity is no limit. The velocity in (7) is coordinate velocity and macro object movement
coordinate velocity and coordinate light speed obey the Einstein velocities addition formula:
the vacuum coordinate light speed is not changeable, the coordinate velocity of any macro
object can’t surpass light speed in vacuum. In the application science filed of mechanics and
electrodynamics relating with large scale time and space area, it can use these two
transformations, however, Lorenz transformation relates with artificial setup of different
location with geographic time difference and it is not suitable to apply, therefore it does not
have the actual value and for space navigation, it is useless at all.
Considering the geographic time difference(3),(4) hided in time coordinate in Lorenz
transformation, the calculation made by the transformation shows: the moving clock and
static clock work at the same rate and moving rule and static ruler have the same length which
completely denies the fallacy of Einstein[4].

5Lorenz transformation in absolute Space-time

Because the time variable t in Maxwell field equation is measured by synchronous clock
without time difference, butLorenz transformation deduced by Einstein from symmetry
determines that the time variables before and after transformation all have non-zero time
difference, so the Lorenz transformation deduced by Einstein can’t be used for the Maxwell
electromagnetic field equation, however, we prove that Lorenz transformation still holds
giving up symmetry (see relating paper 4). In this article, we consider two inertial reference
frames K, K´ which is moving along positive direction of x- axis relative K. In K all clocks
are synchronized with zero geographic time differences. In K´ we take shorter unit
measurement rule which has δ* time of the length of the unit measurement rule used in K, her
δ* to be thecoefficient of Shrink-foot

38
 δ ∗ = 1 − v 2 C 2 ,.C ∈ ( v, ∞ ) , . (9)

here C is a constant and it can be arbitrarily chosen in the real interval (v,∞), and take slowly
δ time synchronized clocks than the clocks in K while non-zero geographic time differences
to be set for these clock according to following Shi formulas

vx ′
t ′ = δ ∗t − .
C2
Therefore the Galilean transformation can then be expressed in the form

 1
 x′ = δ ∗ ( x − vt ), y′ = y, z′ = z,

 t ′ = δ ∗t − vx′ ,
 C2
which is the Shi’s Galilean transformation which guarantees that the Maxwell equations to be
co-variant with respect to the transformation in the absolute space-time.Shi’s Galilean
transformation has the same mathematical formulas with the Lorentz transformation, but they
are different transformation since there are different installations of clocks and rules
respectively in two inertial systems for the Shi’s Galilean transformation, and then
iteliminating the fairytale of Shrink-foot clock slow. Shi’s Galilean transformation is
independent of the Einstein’s suppositions on the physical symmetry and the principle of
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum. Shi’s Galilean transformation continues to have
the fundamental hypotheses of the Newton mechanics:
(1). Time is absolute, (2). Length is absolute.
The transformation result of Lorenz transformation on Maxwell field equation keeps the
same physics effect with Galilean transformation besides their different mathematical
formats.
For the most typical physical deduction “the moving clock works slower” of Einstein
theory
of relativity, we change a letter for it in the result “the moving clock adjusts slower” as the
end of Einstein theory of relativity.
It has been proven that Shi’s Galilean transformation with its inverse transformation has
same artificial installation of measurement instruments.[6]
The curtain of a physical farce spanning the two centuries will fall down soon.

References
[1] Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton University Press.1955.
[2]C.Moller,The Theory of Relativity,Clarendon Press.Oxford,1972
[3]Bergmann.P.G.(1942).Introduction to the theory of relativity, Prentice Hall,New York
[4] Yong-Cheng shi , Einstein’s Mistakes in Special Theory of Relativity and their corrections,
39
Matter Regularity, Vol.11 Sum No.43, p6-p29 , 2011 USA.
www.qiji.cn/eprint/abs/3579.html. www.qiji.cn/eprint/abs/3580.html.(2007)
www.wbabin.net/science/yongcheng.pdf
[5] Using one letter to correct Einstein theory of relativity, Shi Yongcheng. .Beijing theory of
relativity association the 5th annual meeting paper album.4 VOL, 2009, p136-144
[6] Shi Yongcheng,The remark about “Using one letter to overrun the Einstein theory of
relativity”, 2010-3-19, Matter Regularity, p87ol.10 No38, 2010-4-30.
[7] Shi Yong-Cheng, Shi’s Galilean transformation, 2010-5. gsjournal.net
www.wbabin.net/science/yongcheng5.pdf
[8] Shi Yong-Cheng, The Demise of Eintein’s STR—Verification of the equivalency between
the Galilean and Lorenz transformations, www.wbabin.net/science/yongcheng7.pdf

40
Using Space-time Quantization to Solve the Problems Unsolved by General Relativity

Xu Jianmin
(Lawyer of Beijing Unitalen Law Office,[email protected])

Abstract: Based on the law of thermodynamics, the paper proposes the assumptions of
radiation and redshift, establishes the quantum gravitational field equations and motion
equations, and presents that particles move along the path with the minimum entropy
production. The paper also applies the equivalence principle of acceleration and the
gravitational field into the electromagnetic field, which makes the electromagnetic field
equation to have the same form with gravitational field equation. Under the quantization of
space-time, the unification of electromagnetic field and gravitational field is achieved. An
attempt is also made to propose a scheme to unify all fields, namely, all fields are quantum
metric fields. The reason for different strengths of fields is their different fine structure
constants. The problems of singularity in gravitational field and the infinity in quantum
electrodynamics are solved, and all equations return to classical theories under extreme
conditions.

Keywords: quantum field, redshift, minimum entropy production, general relativity

1Introduction
As is well known, the following problems of general relativity have not been solved:
firstly, the equivalence principle resulted from the direct proportion between inertia mass and
gravitational mass and the Mach principle notably established based on the assumption of
instantaneousaction-at-a-distance could not be the first principles. They should be rooted on a
higher level of principles. What is the final principle then? Secondly, the problem of
singularity. Since the establishment of general relativity, some solutions have occurred
singularities which make the metric difficult to be defined. Although some physicists believe
that both collapsed star and evolution of the universe would inevitably lead to singularities,
the equation of general relativity fails on the singularities with zero time existence, zero
volume, infinite density and infinite gravity. Thirdly, problem of unified field. After the
establishment of general relativity, Einstein attempted to unify gravitational field and
electromagnetic field based on the general relativity, but failed. The problem here is whether
the geometrization of space-time could be taken as the foundation of the total field. If not,
what is the foundation of the unification? Fourthly, the problem of quantization of space-time.
If all fields are defined on the framework of space-time, then the quantization of field is
actually the quantization of space-time, but it is the problem which has not been solved by the
general relativity. Obviously, problems above are fundamental and significant problems of
physics. It is impossible to solve the problems just in this paper. The paper only attempts to
draw the outline of the issue. The basic idea of the paper is to build the general relativity on a
higher level of principle, and based on this, to realize the quantization of fields and the
unification of gravitational field and electromagnetic field. Meanwhile, new theory is
consistent with the general relativity in the following aspects: Space-time is completely
dynamic; physical equations should be covariant to any transformation of coordinates. To all

41
observers, no matter whether it is uniform motion, accelerated movement or rotation, laws of
nature appear the same. The metric determines the space-time, and space-time affects the
metric. This is the so called background independence.

2General assumptions established based on law of thermodynamics

Any physical theory needs one or several basic assumptions, and these assumptions may
come from the observation of objective world or from logical reasoning. Early in the
beginning of the 20th century, Poincare pointed out that, if a scientific law is taken as the
observation result in the eyes of a mathematician, and is taken as a theorem of mathematics in
the eyes of observers, then the law could be taken as the consolidated and long lasting
foundation of the overall physics. He regarded the first and second law of thermodynamics
are these types of laws. Apparently, the law of conservation of energy is the foundation of
present physics, while the second law of thermodynamics is in an embarrassing position.
There is a serious contradiction between the law and the most of the physics. On the one
hand, almost all of our empirical processes are irreversible, and they should be interpreted by
the second law of thermodynamics; on the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics
almost has no reason to exist in all physics, including classical mechanics, quantum
mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and the theory of relativity. Some physicists like
Boltzmann hold that classical mechanics is the foundation of all physics, and the second law
of thermodynamics is just the logic conclusion of classical mechanics. So he attempted to use
mechanics to interpret entropy in order to solve the contradiction between classical mechanics
and the second law of thermodynamics, but failed. Along with the development of physics,
there has been an increasing awareness that taking mechanics as the foundation of physics is
not reliable. People think if the mechanics could not be used to interpret the entropy, then
whether it is possible to use entropy to interpret thermodynamics? The logical consequences
of the thinking above must be consistent with the ideal of Poincare, namely, the law of
thermodynamics is the only foundation of the overall physics. The paper attempts to establish
such a new physical theory, which accords with the viewpoint that entropy is irreversible and
could return to the currently applied and recognized kinetic theory under the extreme
conditions.
According to the statistical interpretation of Boltzmann on entropy, the nature of entropy
is that, in an isolated system, any biogenetic process always makes energy irreversibly tend to
a balance state, or each change of entropy is to make the physical system transfer towards a
balance state or towards a state with larger probability. This kind of balancing process should
include both the balancing of energy density and balancing of energy magnitude. Therefore,
we propose the following assumptions according to the concept of entropy:
1 ）Hypothesis of radiation and redshift. In an system consisting of material objects and
empty space, since the energy density of material object is larger than that of empty space, the
energy radiation from material objects to empty space is a spontaneous process; the redshift of
quantum in an isolated system is spontaneous, and the quantum could not automatically occur
blue shift;
2) Equivalence between acceleration and the gravitational field. Field generates particle
acceleration, and acceleration generates inertial field. The principle could also be expressed
like this: if a process tending to balance (redshift) is damaged by acceleration, then an inertial
field for the recovery of balance (blue shift) must be generated; if the former process is a
positive process, then the latter is a reversed process of recovery. Positive comes from
negative, vice versa. Inertia originates from entropy.
42
 3) Principle of minimum entropy production: particles moving along with the path with
the minimum entropy production

3 Quantum gravitational field equation

In an isolated system, the energy density of material objects is larger than that of space,
and the radiation of energy from material objects to space is a natural process. By taking the
earth as an example, given earth radiates quantum h ω with certain frequency, and its
momentum is as follows:
hω 0
p0 =
c
In the formula, h is simplified Planck constant ， ω is the frequency of quantum when t＝0,
0

and c is light velocity. According to hypothesis, the quantum should continue to carry out red
shift towards empty space, and the change of quantum momentum is:
h h
∆p = − (ω − ω 0 ) = − ∆ω = −( p − p0 )
c c
“-”stands for quantum redshift. The change of momentum could be expressed as:
∆p h ∆ω
=−
∆t c ∆t
Namely, the impulsive force generated by quantum redshift, (Note that, in order to provide
convenience, vectors used in the paper are one dimensional)

F =−
h ∆ω
c ∆t
（1）
Since the direction of impulse force is same with the momentum increase, the negative sign
shows that the direction of the force generated by quantum redshift points to field source. This
kind of radiation is isotropic spherical radiation, and the force of this radiation to the earth
surface is symmetrical.

Given
∆ω
f =
∆t
Then

F =−
h
c
f （2）
As a new function, f could be called frequency fluctuation rate. According to the equivalence
theory of mass and energy, energy quantum has mass, and the force generated by the quantum
should be equivalent to the universal gravitation of Isaac Newton, namely,
h hω
− f = 2 g
c c
f = − gk （3）
k = 2π
In the formula, λ is wave vector. Negative sign means that the direction of f
decrease is opposite to the field direction, namely, it is an attractive force. As a scalar
，
product the formula above could also be written as f = −gkcos θ . In the formula, θ is the

43
included angle between g and k; when θ = π / 2 , f = 0 , which means that no energy change
；
occurs on the equipotential line when θ = π ， f > 0 ，direction of g is opposite to that of
，
k namely, there is repulsive force.

Obviously, the solution of formula （3）is

ω = ω 0 exp( − gt / c ) （4）
Since the speed of gravitational field is light velocity, the formula above could be written as:
ω = ω0 exp( − gr / c 2 ) （5）
Meanwhile, the following formula could also be figured out based on c = λν .
k = k0 exp(−gr / c 2 )
Take the logarithm on both sides of equation (5),

g = − ln(
ω c2
)
ω0 r
（6）
This is the equation of static gravitational field. The equation shows that, all the fields
between same high frequency and same low frequency are equal, and they have nothing to do
with the matters of field source.
Under the circumstance of weak gravitational field, the frequency change could be taken as
continuous process, and equation （1） could be written as:
F =−
h dω
c dt
（7）
Given V is force potential.
F = −∇V (r )
r1 h
V (r ) = − ∫ f .dr + V0
r0 c

t1
= −h ∫ f .dt + V0
t0
（8）
= −h ∫ dω + V0
ω1

ω0

V (r ) − V0 = −h (ω1 − ω 0 )
The formula above indicates that the force field generated by quantum redshift is conservative
force field. Frequency difference constitutes potential difference. When considering k → ∇ ,
f = f0 exp(Gm / c 2 r) = ∇ 2ϕ
Poisson's equation is substituted into above equation.
f0 exp(Gm / c 2 r) = 4π Gρ （9）
4Comparison of quantum gravity space-time and general relativity space-time

If
ω 0 is taken as the quantum frequency measured by the clock moving along with the
，
observer and λ0 is ，
the space measured by a ruler moving along with observer then the

44
frequency and wavelength of next neighbouring quantum are ω and λ ，and they are
calculated by the following two equations:

（ ）
ω = ω 0 exp(−GM / c 2 r) 5a

λ = λ exp(GM / c r) （10）
0
2

Here, the space-time is quantized. In a strong gravitational field, it is neither possible to

continuously read values in space-time coordinates, nor to get zero, since the frequency and
wavelength could not be zero.
In the equations, exp(GM / c 2 r) is the quantum space-time metric, which is used to
measure the space-time. In quantum gravity, coordinate no longer has direct metric meaning.
Space-time coordinate is determined by metric, and meanwhile the space-time also affects
metric. Therefore, in a strong gravitational field, there is no globally unified space-time.

Under the condition of ， ，

GM / c 2 r <<1 namely, in a weak gravitational field Taylor
expansions of above two equations are made as follows:
（ ）
ω = ω 0 (1− GM / c 2 r +......) 11
λ = λ (1+ GM / c r +......) （12）
0
2

Obviously, 1+ GM / c 2 r is Schwarzschild metric. So, the time interval is ∆t = 1 / ∆ω , and

space interval is ∆r = ∆λ . Choosing a proper coordinate for equation (12), we can get the
following equation.
∆r = 4π G ρr 3 / 9c 2
In the equation, ρ is the mass density within the sphere. This is the Einstein's Law of space
mean curvature, namely, Einstein field equation.
The frequency and wavelength of quantum are related to the distribution of matters.
Therefore, space-time is not absolute, but changes along with different locations.
In strong gravitational field, the space-time variables are discrete, namely, quantized. In the
equation (5), when
r → R = Gm / c 2
The frequency of the quantum shows a nonlinear variation. But when r → 0
ω →0 ，
It indicates that the asymptotic freedom occurs inside the particles. Since the wavelength of
the quantum from particle radiation cannot be smaller than the particles themselves, and the
wavelength of the particles cannot equal to zero, which means that space-time has a limit, and
thus there can be no singularity problems. When r → ∞ , ω = ω 0
it is an inertial system with no field. But since the wavelength of quantum can neither be zero
nor infinity, the formula above will never occur, and there must exist at zero-point energy.
From the following formula,
∆ω = ω 0GM / c 2 r
it can be seen that changes of local phase generate the gravitational field, or, in other words,
the introduction of gravitational field is a must to keep local phase unchanged. Therefore,
quantum gravity field complies with the principles and specifications.

5 Equation of Motion
45
 Since
dω g gt
f = = − ω0 exp( − )
dt c c
Substitute the formula above into equation (7) to obtain
gt
hg −
F = 2 ω0 e c
c
hω0
m=
Considering the mass of energy quantum c 2 , and hence

（13）
gt
−
c
a = g0e
a is the acceleration of particles, and this is the equation of motion. The acceleration of
an object has nothing to do with its mass.
For object motion, the equation should be used in three levels.
Firstly, for extremely strong gravitational field, the object acceleration changes
exponentially.
gt
<< 1
Secondly, for strong gravitational field with particle oscillation, namely when c ,
conduct Taylor expansion to the left side of the equation above.

a = g0 −
g0 × v
c
+ ...... 14（ ）
In the formula,
v = g0 t . The first item on the right side of the equation is the inertial

field paralleled with

g 0 , which can be written as ; the second item on the right side
g//
g
g ⊥＝－
c is the inertial field vertical to a , which is named transverse field for short, and
can also be called gravitomagnetic field. These two fields can be referred to as dynamic
gravitational field, and they are the sources of gravitational waves. The resultant force on an
accelerating object in gravitational field with particle oscillation is:
F = m( g0 + v × ｇ ) （15）
⊥

Obviously, it is equivalent to the Lorentz force.

Thirdly, in the case that acceleration is very small or the gravitational field is very weak, the
second item on the right side of the above equation can be ignored, and then go back to
Newton's equation.

6 Wave Equation
Particle oscillation results in gravitational waves and the wave equations are:
k × g// = ω g⊥
k × g⊥ = µ0ε 0ω g//
Among them, ω and k are the frequency and wave vector of the field point energy level
respectively. In a weak gravitational field,
∇ × g// = ω g⊥
∇ × g⊥ = µ0ε 0ω g//
46
 Single particle acceleration won't produce gravitational waves, and only particles
oscillating back and forth would produce gravitational waves. When single particle
g g
accelerates, the inertial field // and the gravitational field 0 are in opposite directions, and
they can almost offset in a weak field, so that it's as if inside a lift free falling in the earth's

gravitational field. However ，when particles oscillate back and forth, g // and g ⊥ could form
and outspread gravitational waves through mutual excitation. Accelerating particles may
interact with the gravitational waves. This effect can be detected at the time of solar eclipse.
When solar eclipse occurs, the moon is suddenly attracted by the solar gravitational field to
accelerate, and then reverberated back due to the earth's gravity attraction, generating
oscillation (acceleration). At this time, the acceleration of the moon approximately equals to
the solar gravitational field for the moon orbiting the sun. According to formula (15), if
ignoring the transverse field, the inertial field generated by the moon equals to its acceleration
generated by the sun. The additional acting force imposed on moving bodies on the earth such
F ≈ mg 太
as torsional pendulum by this inertial field is . In the formula, m is the mass of the
g太
torsional pendulum, and is the gravitational acceleration of the sun. According to
GM 太
F≈ m ≈ 5.89 × 10 -3 m
estimation, the force is r2 . Since they are moving gravitational
field, they only affect accelerating objects. Only moving bodies (accelerating) produce
gravitational waves, and therefore gravitational waves can only be detected by moving
bodies. Experimental physicists are expected to inspect the conclusions drawn above.

7Entropy of Open System

Any reversible process accords with this equation

∫ fdt = 0 （16）
The work produced by quantum redshift
h
dw = Fdr = − fdr = −hfdt
c
2 t2 ω2
W = ∫ Fdr = −h ∫ fdt = − h ∫ dω = −h(ω 2 − ω1 )
1 t1 ω1

Thus equivalent work produced by quantum redshift only relates to the quantum at the
beginning and the end states, but has nothing to do with the path of the quantum. According to
the law of conservation of energy, the work generated from quantum redshift transformation
into field and their energy dissipations are equivalent. Therefore, it is in a reversible state
2
ω 2 − ω1 = R ∫
1
fdt = 0

∆ω = 0 f =0
R in the formula represents the integral along the reversible process.
However, in a static gravitational field, due to the quantum redshift, there must be
ω 2 < ω1
2

Hence ∫
fdt < 0
1

∆ω < 0 f <0

47
It is an irreversible process. To combine both reversible and irreversible circumstances
∆ω ≤ 0 f ≤0
That is to say, in a static gravitational field, frequency variation rate never increase.
Moreover, in a gravitational field, due to

（17）
gt
ω −
=e c
ω0
ω
ω 0 is the probability of quantum redshift, and take logarithms on both sides of the equation
above, obtaining
ω gt
ln(
)=−
ω0 c
ω
S = k ln( )
Therefore, entropy is
ω 0 (18)
gt
S = −k
or c
Among them, k is the Boltzmann constant. The equation above is the relationship between
field and entropy.
Since f ≤ 0 under the natural state, the entropy increase process is the decrease process of
frequency variation rate f .
g1r1 g 2 r2 V −V
∆S = S 2 − S1 = k ( 2
− 2 )=k 1 2 2 >0
c c c
V here is gravitational potential. The increase of entropy means the capability to produce
work declines.
Then we discuss the entropy change in the gravitational field with accelerating particle
system.
From the concept of entropy, quantum redshift is the natural direction of energy transfer,
and could proceed spontaneously. Blue shift is the unnatural direction, and it cannot proceed
without external influence. Acceleration is the unnatural direction, and cannot proceed
without external force. Here we popularize Prigogine’s Entropy Change Theory. Prigogine
thought the entropy change of system （ dS ） is equal to the sum of entropy flow

（ d S ）and entropy production（ d S ） within the system. Namely,

e i

dS = d S + d S ( d S ≥ 0)
e （19）
i i

in an isolated system,
de S = 0 ,

so
dS = d S ≥ 0
i .
In a system with acceleration, inertial field makes the original red-shifted quantum have
a blue shift again, like negative entropy flow entering the system from the outside.
de s < 0
However, since acceleration must be with a gravitomagnetic field vertical to it, and this field
makes no contribution to the quantum's blue-shift of the original field. This could also be
proven by the aspect of field to do work. An object accelerating at the radial direction
48
certainly generate a gravitomagnetic field vertical to the radial direction.

mg⊥ = mg0
1 ar
2 c3
× vr （20）
The displacement at radial direction is
vr dt = dr
Both sides of equation (20) multiply by vr dt , and the right side is 0, which means the
Coriolis field doesn’t do any work on the mass point, and the blue-shift of inertial field is not
able to restore the red-shifted quantum into original state, namely, there is always
de S + di S ≥ 0 （21）
So the second law of thermodynamics is effective generally.

8 Particles always move along the path with minimum entropy production
In classical mechanics, the movements of particles comply with the principle of least
action. According to the principle, the difference between mean kinetic energy and mean
potential energy of the path where particles go from one point to another point should be as
small as possible. Particles choose a shortest path after considering all the paths in the process
of movement. This seems contradictory with human intellect. Nobody could explain the
reason of the existence of such principle contradictory with human intellect even today. The
red-shift field theory could explain this. The acceleration of particle breaks the original
process (positive process) approaching to balance. So there must be a reversed process
(reverse process), and this reversed process will certainly approximate to the positive process
as far as possible. The difference of these two processes should be the least.
For a complete process of acceleration, the energy change is: under the circumstance of
weak gravitational field, doing Taylor expansion on formula (5) and ignoring small amounts
above second order, we can get
ω1 = ω 0 (1− gr / c 2 )
This is the change of red-shift of positive field. The change of blue-shift of inertial field
generated by particles' acceleration— reverse field is
ω 2 = ω1 (1+ gr / c 2 )
So the total change of energy is
ω 2 = ω 0 {1− (gr / c 2 )2 }
Apparently, the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy is a second order small
amount. The principle of least action is to ignore this second order small amount, namely,
δ ∫ ∆ω = 0
We know is the clock-measuring frequency difference fixed on the movement reference
system. It’s the reciprocal value of time difference, so the formula above could also be
expressed as the longest original time.
This is the principle of least action of reversible kinetics. The second law of
thermodynamics shows that every acceleration movement has a largest inertia
correspondingly, the difference between original field and inertial field is always the least,
and nature is always tending to balance. This is the essence of principle of least action.
However, for irreversible kinetics, the system’s tending to balance is still an irresistible force.
Nevertheless, when the boundary conditions prevent the system from going to a balance, the
system chooses the second best, going toward the state of minimum entropy production,
49
namely, approaching to the balanced state as far as possible. Particles move along the path
with minimum entropy production.
gr
S = −k
c2
dsi k dr Gm
Entropy production rate Θ = =
dt c 2 dt r 2
Entropy production could be expressed as the product of flow and force.
Without proving, we believe that the entropy production rate is constantly
positive. Θ > 0
When the system deviates from steady state, it transits to steady state
dΘ
<0
dt (deviating from steady state)
dΘ
=0
dt (steady state).
Entropy doesn’t change with the passage of time, dS = 0 , namely, de s = −di s < 0
.
The energy flow or material flow coming from the environment (acceleration of particles)
determines a negative entropy flow, but it’s counteracted by the entropy in the system, and the
system transmits entropy to the outside. A stationary state with nonequilibrium state is
formed.

9 The same principle and different metric field

If all the fields are defined on space-time, and the measurement of space-time is
accomplished by metric, then all the fields are metric fields. If the frequency and wavelength
of quantum is space-time itself, then unified field is the theory of using metric to measure the
changes of different frequencies and wavelengths.
The equivalence principle aforementioned is given by entropy theorem directly, which is
different from the Einstein's equivalence principle of general relativity. Firstly, the
equivalence principle is not restricted to gravitational field, and the new equivalence principle
is effective at all fields. Secondly, there is no need of auxiliary of Mach principle, and inertial
field is directly from acceleration, rather than from remote matters. We make this conclusion
before: all the fields between same high frequency and same low frequency are equal, having
no relation with the material of field source. If this field includes both gravitational field and
electromagnetic field, then we need to popularize the equivalence principle of acceleration
and gravitational field. This popularization is very simple, namely, equivalence of
acceleration and electromagnetic field, if
ω = ω 0 exp(−at / c)
Acceleration of electrons a = qE / m
e and m are respectively the charge and mass of electron, E is electric field strength.
Then we get
ω = ω 0 exp(−qEt / mc) （ 24）
Similarly, for electromagnetic field,
dω qE qEt
f= = ω 0 exp(− )
dt mc mc

50
 qE hω qEt
So F = 2
exp(− )
m c mc

We get
qE qEt
a= exp(− ) （ 25）
m mc
When at << c , ignoring small amounts above second order, then
qE qE qEt
a= − +......
m c m
F = q ( E0 + v × B )
Namely,
qEt
In the formula, v =
m
Above equations of gravitational field and electromagnetic field are not only unified in
forms, but also have the same generation mechanism, both being the products of quantum
frequency variation. For purpose of convenience, we express both fields by the formula of
e
E
g
gravitational field, only changing to m when involving electromagnetic field.

10 Export of fine structure constant

From equation （22), we can get
ω = ω 0 exp(−e 2 / 4πε 0 mc 2 r) （27）
In a weak field, when system is deviated from the steady state, the law of minimum
entropy production requires the system to tend to a steady stationary state.
ω e2
s = k ln = −k （28）
ω0 4πε 0 mc 2 r
s is a determined amount which does not change along with the time. In addition, it
should have a maximum value, so in the equation of (26), r should be the minimum value.
Based on quantization of space-time, it is not allowed to freely take values on the space-time
coordinates, and r should be the wavelength of a certain quantum. Since entropy requires that
particle is not allowed to radiate the quantum with higher static energy than itself. For
electromagnetic field, the minimum wavelength emitted from electron should not be smaller
than the Compton wavelength of the electron. The quantum wavelength of electron radiation
is most likely to be the Compton wavelength of the electron. r = D e then the exponential part
of equation（25）becomes a constant, and it is called fine structure constant. This constant
indicates the strength of this field. Then
ω = ω 0 e−α
In the formula, α is fine structure constant. For electromagnetic field
2
e 1
α= ≈
4πε0 ch 137.040
g2
For strong nuclear field α =
4πε0 ch
51
In the formula, g is strong nuclear

For the deduction of the fine structure constant of strong nuclear field, we must turn the
frequency of the quantum into the particle with mass. We assume π meson is the energy level
in atomic nucleus, and the redshift of the proton could only occur by reaching π with one
step. Namely,
g2
π = pexp(− )
4πε 0 m0 c 2 r0
In the formula, m0 and r0 are the mass and wavelength of proton respectively, the fine
structure constant of neutron is

α n = ln
π
p
= −(g 2 / 4πε 0 c 2 r0 ) = −1.91 ，（29）
Meanwhile, when proton has redshift to π meson, recoil must occur, so as to have an inertial
field in which particle blue shift occurs. So
π = ( p − π ) exp( g 2 / 4πε 0 c 2 r )
Fine structure constant of proton is:
π
α p = ln = 1.79
p −π （30）
Since the directions of transverse fields (magnetic field) generated by red shift and blue
shift are opposite, so the field strength is finally represented on the difference of the two
transverse fields, namely 0.12.
The hadronic charge is calculated through formula (27), namely, g = 2.59 × 10 −18 ,
which is 1.616 × 101 times of electron charge.
The ratio between the strength of strong nuclear field and that of electromagnetic field is
0.12 ／0.0073＝1.643×10 . 1

For gravitational field,

GM
α=
c2 R
R is radius of object. For example, the fine structure constants of sun and earth are
GM Sun
= 2. 11 × 10− 6
（31）
α gSun = 2
c r0

E
GMarth
= 6. 95 × 10−10
（32）
α gEarth = 2
c r0

For weak gravitational field, we could globally define the space-time, namely, the r of above
two equations could directly use the distance between sun and earth.
Under Planck length of L = Gh / c3 , fine structure constant is
Gh / c3r 2
Here, R is wavelength, and space-time must be locally defined.

11 Physical significance of fine structure constant and the physical problems solved
52
 We can see that, fine structure constant not only can measure the strength of fields, but it
is also the probability of mechanical quantity in the field to the inherent mechanical quantity;
meanwhile, it is taken as the metric to measure variation of space-time and phase.
h
，force
F =− f
It can be seen from c is in direct proportion to the frequency
fluctuation rate, and the frequency fluctuation rate is in direct proportion to frequency.
Therefore, the larger the fluctuation rate of frequency is, the larger the energy level spacing of
the equipotential surface, the more remarkable of its non-continuity and the stronger the force
will be. Along with the quantum redshift, the frequency decrease, frequency fluctuation rate
decreases, and the energy level spacing also decreases. Consequently, the far field energy
level will show continuity, and the force will become weaker. It can be seen from equation
ω
=0
(25), when r → ∞ ， ω = ω 0 , no field exists. When r is close to zero, ω 0 ，namely,
when the wavelength of particles is extremely small, the frequency will maintain unchanged,
which is also called asymptotic freedom. From the angle of the quantization of space-time, it
is not possible for above two cases to exist, because the wavelength of the quantum could
neither be infinite, nor be zero. As a result, the above two cases could only approximately
exist.
From above analysis, we can work out the relation schema between the total field intensity
and the particle wavelength.

λ
λl λ p λe λ g
Here,
λl ， λ ，λ ，andλ
p e g stands for Planck wavelength and wavelengths of proton,
constants on these
electron as well as graviton respectively. There are different fine structure
points. Since the particle mass is discrete, the fine structure constant is also discrete. Each fine
structure constant could only measure the strength of the section it represented, so the above
figure is only the rough description.
By using fine structure constant, we can solve the energy level and field problems inside the
hydrogen atom. Energy level or fields come from the quantum redshift caused by the energy
quantum radiated from nucleus. Therefore
1 1
= (1− q 2 / 4πε 0 me c 2 r)
λ1 De
When inertial field (blue shift) is generated by electron acceleration (transition), the change of
wave number of quantum is as the following:
1 1
= (1+ q 2 / 4πε 0 me c 2 r)
λ2 λ1

53
The average total energy change of a redshift and a blue shift is

λ
1
=
1
De
1
（ ）
{1− (q 2 / 4πε 0 mec 2 r)2 } 33
2
Time-space is quantized, so when r = nD e , (here n could be either integer or fraction, when
n = 1, 2, 3...... )
1 1 1
= {1− (a 2 / n 2 )}
λ De 2
In the formula, a is fine structure constant. This is the energy level of hydrogen atom.
The anomalous magnetic moment of particles could be calculated by using fine structure
constant.

Given r is the wavelength of the electron, namely, r =

h
mc
，then electron magnetic moment
could be calculated by equation (25).

us = −u0exp(−
a
2π
（ ）
) 34

In the formula, a is fine structure constant, and u0 is electronic inherent magnetic moment.

Since
a
2π
，
<< 1 the above equation could be written as:

us = −u0 exp{1− α / 2π +1 / 2(α / 2π )2 −...........}

Since electron acceleration generates an inertial field, namely, positive electron, and a
magnetic field. Inertial field restores the original field through blue shift, and generates a
magnetic field again at the same time. It is an alternating process between positive and
negative fields, so the above equation must be further corrected. We still make analogy of
vacuum polarization of quantum electrodynamics and electron self-energy process:
So called vacuum polarization means the red shift of atomic nucleus after radiating a photon.

ω1 = ω0 exp( −
a
2π
) ，
It accelerates electron and the acceleration generates an inertial field, namely positive
electron, which further makes photon blue shift, and is equivalent to an absorption of the
photons. Namely,
a a
ω 2 = ω1(1+) = ω 0 −ω0 ( )2
2π 2π
a
∆ω = ω 0 − ω 2 = ω 0 ( ) 2
2π
∆ω a
Or the probability is = ( )2
ω0 2π
The so called electron self-energy means electron is accelerated to emit virtual photon,
generating a positive electron and a magnetic field. The virtual photon is blue shifted by
a 2
positive electron, namely being absorbed, and its probability increases ( ) times. If the
2π
a 4
two processes above are continuous, then the probability is ( ) .
2π

54
 Since a field must have a reversed field, or a blue shift must be with a red shift, the
remaining ∆ω after the offset of both is accumulated, namely, path summing (quantum
electrodynamics is path integral) is the track of particle. By using above methods, the mutual
effect between light and matter and the mutual effect between electron and electron will not
occur infinity, so it is not necessary to carry out renormalization. Reason for infinity occurred
in quantum electrodynamics is that electron emission and assimilation of virtual photons must
involve the change of electron mass and electric charge, while the red shift and blue shift only
involves field. In other words, the electron acceleration has nothing to do with the mass and
charge of electron. It is the equivalence principle of electromagnetic field.
Anomalous magnetic moment of protons and neutrons: we have got the fine structure
constants of protons and neutrons respectively from equations of （27）and（28). Since
protons have electric charge and natural magnetic moments, proton magnetic moment
is un = un0 (1+1.79) In the formula, 1.79µ n0 is anomalous magnetic moment. Neutron has
.
neither charge nor natural magnetic moments, and its magnetic moment is un = −1.91uN ，all
of which are anomalous magnetic moments.
By the same token, the fine structure constant of gravitational field could be used to
calculate the curve of light movement and precession of perihelion of Mercury in
gravitational field. Bending of the light and the precession of perihelion of Mercury are the
results of the effect of gravitomagnetic field.

Given ω 0 is the frequency of incident photons, the frequency of photons after the effect
of gravitational field is,
ω = ω0 exp(-GM/c2 r) = ω0 ( 1 − GM / c 2 r )
G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of stars, and r is the radius of stars. The average
value of energy deviation in every degree of freedom is
∆ω / ω0 = GM / c 2 r
For the reason that the movements of photons have four degrees of freedom, among which no
one is superior to the others, namely, they are statistically independent, so the deflected angle
of photons is
∆ω 4GM
=
ω0 c2r
It must be pointed that when calculating the above red-shift, if not ignoring the small
GM 2
amount, the final result should have a modification of ( )
c2r .
∆p gr
= 2
p c is the probability of Mercury’s deviating from the normal track, so the deflected
2πGM
2
radian in one degree of freedom of each circle around the sun is c r . However among ，
the three degrees of freedom, no one is superior than the others, namely, they are statistically
3 × 2πGM
independent, so there must be c2r .To precisely calculate the procession of Mercury’s

55
 GM 2 GM
2
(
) 2
perihelion, small amount like c r should be included. c r is actually the irreversible
part, so the procession is irreversible, namely, the part of entropy production, which is also the
reason why procession is continuously cumulative.

12 Discussion about range of force and polarity

The repulsion problem of gravitational field: a positive field must be with a negative
field. If the positive field is a field along with time, then the reversed field will be against
time. We use Einstein elevator to explain this question.
When the lift goes free fall in the gravitational field of earth, acceleration would generate
an inertial field with a reversed direction against the gravitational field. Given this inertial
field is ginertia , ignoring horizontal field g0 ≈ −ginertia , we get

ω = ω 0 exp[−(g0 − ginertia )t / c] （35）

ω = ω0 f =0 g =0
Namely, the red-shift quantum forming gravitational field in the lift is blue-shifted by the
inertial field with reversed direction. There is neither energy change under the first order
approximation nor field in the lift. The objects in the lift have no acceleration and they are
under zero gravity condition.
Now assuming when the lift is in the free fall in gravitational field, a force with the same
direction and acceleration on the lift is exerted. According to the equivalence principle of
acceleration and field, this new field will surely generate an inertial field superposed with the
original inertial field. Then we get ginertia > g0 , from
ω = ω 0 exp[−(g0 − ginertia )t / c]
f >0
Namely, the quantum in the lift is blue-shifted, which means that the energy of system
increases, and leads to a repulsion force. If the lift is completely closed, the person in the lift
would feel there is a repulsion force between him and the floor of lift and he is making
accelerated movement toward the top of lift.
Why gravitational field is rarely seen? This is actually a problem of probability. Red-
shift has a larger probability than blue-shift. Because red-shift is a natural process in which
energy is tending to a balance without external force, while the realization of blue-shift needs
external force. Under natural state (not bound state), two electrons with the same nature are
impossible to have repulsion force. One electron accelerating to the other one under external
force would surely generate blue shift, generate repulsion force. So the blue-shift can’t take
place under natural state, and blue-shift is the cause of repulsion force.
If the mass (gravitational mass) which accelerates objects is positive mass, then the mass
of accelerated objects (inertial mass) is negative mass. This negative mass is against time, just
as the positive charge is an electric charge against time. Charge could only be distinguished
between positive and negative in an electromagnetic field. It’s meaningless to talk about the
polarity of electron without field. Similarly, gravitational mass and inertial mass could only be
distinguished in a field. The direction of gravitomagnetic fields (or called spin) generated by
gravitational mass are different from the one generated by the inertial mass.
The quantization of space-time would certainly lead to the quantization of the range of
force. From f = − gk we can see there is a frequency variation in every wave vector interval,
56
namely, a recoil force. So the range of force is in direct proportion to the wavelength. The
smaller the wavelength is, the shorter the range of force will be. The wavelength of
interacting particle of strong and weak nuclear force is small, so it’s a short-range force.
Along with the red-shift of quantum, the wavelength increases, and its change is not apparent
until it presents an approximate continuity, recoil force of single quantum getting close and
range of force increasing, which is the reason why gravity or electricity are long-range forces.
13. Discussion about dark energy and dark matter
According to the cosmologic observation, the mass determined by aster orbital velocity is
seriously inconsistent with the galaxy mass observed by direct counting and the former is ten
times higher than the latter, which make people think there is a kind of dark matter. The mass
determined by star orbital velocity is calculated on the basis of Newton’s laws of motion. We
know that Newton’s laws of motion is supposed to be modified. Spectrum redshift

z=
∆ω
ω0
=
gr
c2
（36）
According to Hubble’s law:

z=
H 0r r
c
=
R
（37）
H 0 is Hubble constant, and R is universe radius. Comparing the two formulas above we can
get:
r gr
=
R c2
c2
g= ≈ 1.5 × 10 −10 (m / s 2 )
R
This is the acceleration of cosmic expansion generated by gravitomagnetic field, which is not
included in the Newtonian mechanics. So the Newtonian mechanics must be modified as
follows:

（38）
ar
−
c2
g = g// e
gr
Under weak gravitational field or when << 1 , the Taylor expansion of above equation
c2
keeps the second order approximation
ar
（39）
g = g// − g//
c2
The second item on the right is vertical field

GM a⊥
g⊥ =
r c2
Vertical field is perpendicular to the direction of propagation r and changes along with 1/r. It
depends on the acceleration of aster in a simple and direct form. Without acceleration, there is
no such vertical field. Obviously, with the increase of spatial distance, the longitudinal field
g// changing with 1 / r 2 disappears, and only vertical field is left.
It is just because Newton law of gravitation cannot explain the expansion acceleration of
the universe; then people assume that there exists dark matter in addition to visible matter.
When Newtonian mechanics is corrected, and gravitational field is taken as the result of
57
quantum redshift, the hypothesis of existence of dark matter becomes needless.
Actually, vertical field is the result of quantum redshift, and the redshift is an immediate
inference of the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, redshift is the initial
causation of generation of gravitational force. The so-called cosmic expansion is based on the
theory of Doppler redshift. It indicates that the astral accelerated motion is the cause, and the
redshift is the result. In the absence of external force, objects accelerate automatically. This is
a process of entropy reduction, and it doesn’t accord with the second law of thermodynamics.
Therefore, we believe that it seems a little far-fetched to infer the existence of Doppler motion
from quantum redshift, then arrive at the cosmic expansion, and consequently reach a
conclusion of the existence assumption of dark energy.

Reference
Poincare, translated by Ye Yunli, Science and Hypothesis, Commercial Press, 1997, P92.

About the author: Xu Jianmin, male, born in February, 1960, native Beijing, a lawyer of
Beijing Unitalen Law Office
Mailing address: Ya Yuan, Western Hill, Baijiatuan, Wenquan Town, Haidian District, Beijing,
Tel. 13366005271

58
New Exploration for the Enigma of Paradox in Special Relativity
Dong Jingfeng
(Scientific and Technology Bureau in Rushi County, Henan Province, 472200, China)

Abstract : By the analysis of twin paradox, it is pointed out that the constriction of space-
time is the only effect of measurement and all paradox do not exist actually. The essence of
special relativity is a number method forways to provide math and physical idea. Experiments
to verify special relativity have verified general relativity.
Keywords: Twin paradox, Time Standard, Measurement effect

Since the establishing special relativity by Einstein in 1905, a century has passed. So
many experiments show that the theory is correct in very high precision. Special relativity has
been used widely and become one of the most important foundations of modern physics. But
meanwhile, so many paradoxes appears in the theory just as twin paradox, submarine
paradox, slide paradox soft rope paradox, right-angle level paradox, the paradox of strict
length limit, the paradox of seeing form of moving body and stress constriction of length and
so on. Theses paradox caused furious argument and much diverge. The understanding for
space-time constriction is very different: it is untrue, it is unphysical and true, it is apparent,
mathematical, it is seeing effect, it is decided by measurement, it is a relative result of
simultaneity and so on. Many beginners are puzzled by the space-time concepts of relativity
and the relativity of simultaneity. It is necessary for us to make clear the essence of special
relativity to eliminate theses paradox.

1 New explore for twin paradox

1.1 Definition of twin paradox
According to special relativity, suppose that new born twin A carried a digital clock A
and was at rest at the original point of the airship reference system representing by the
coordinate oxyz (time coordinate is t ). His brother B carried a digital clock B and was at
rest at the original point of the earth reference system representing by the coordinate OXYZ
(time coordinate is T ). Suppose that both reference systems are superposition each other at

time T1 = t1 =0, and the airship moved along + X axis in speed u . When A is 20 years old, the

airship returns along the same way. When airship arrived original place, according to
Einstein’s theory and without considering the change of speed from + u to − u , A found that
the recorded time of B clock was less and B is young than A . But B found that the recorded

59
time of A clock was less and A is younger than B . This is so-called twin paradox. The real
situation would be that A clock was less and A is younger than B . This conclusion is
recognized now (see document [1], page 60 ).

1.2 Analyzing on viewpoint of special relativity.

By consider the fact that the speed of airship changed from + u to − u , the adherent of
Einstein insists that both A and B are inertial systems in the process. They use the method
deducting the effect of simultaneity to eliminate twin paradox. . This is called as the method
of special relativity only to use the idea of special relativity (see document [1], page 60).
In fact, all so-called analyze, calculation and conclusion of special relativity on twin
paradox are incorrect. The reasons are follows.

The so-called twin paradox is calculated by using formula ∆T = γ ⋅ ∆t . But the

formula is effect only under the ∆x = 0 condition, ∆t ≠ 0 and ∆X = γ ⋅ u ∆t ≠ 0 . When A

returned to the earth, we have ∆X = 0 , so that the condition ∆X = γ ⋅ u ∆t ≠ 0 cannot be

satisfied. The calculation is wrong.

As shown in Document [2], 77 ～78, many scholars try to explain twin paradox
recurring to space-time diagram now. But they forget the basic and key conclusion which can
be considered correct, that is there are different time standard on different reference frame.
Because when airship swerved to return to the earth, its speeds and directions were different
before and after swerved. So the time’s reading of A clock are different before and after
swerved. Because of neglecting the difference of speed, the adherent of Einstein calculate the
new time standard in the swerved airship (according to special relativity, airship should be
considered as two different inertial reference system with different speed before and after
airship swerved.), so the result is certainly wrong.

There are some scholars who try to explain twin paradox by the atomic clock traveling
around the earth, the disk circumrotates and the µ meson fly to explain twin paradox (see

～
Document [1]61 88pages). This is also wrong. So called twin paradox is calculated by time

expansion formula ∆T = γ ⋅ ∆t . But the formula ∆T = γ ⋅ ∆t is deduced based on the

concept of inertial reference frame, so it is only suitable to inertial system. But the
experiments just as atomic clock traveling around the earth are not on inertial system, so these
experiments cannot verified twin paradox.
For this problem, some scholars consider that the orbit can be divided into infinite
limited sect and each sect can be considered as inertial system, though the process of airship
traveling around the earth is not inertial. Then by the integral of time quantum, we can still

60
obtain twin paradox (see Document [2], page 73 ～78, Document [1], page 61～88). This idea
is also wrong, for the result of integral only represent the time sum of each sect of inertial
processes. It does not represent the change of time standard caused by the change of speed
from an inertial system into another inertial system. So the result of integral is incorrect, (the
mistake is the same with
).Some scholars consider that the relativity of time originates from
the differences of time’s direction. The time observed in the static reference frame is the
time’s projection of moving reference frame down to the static reference frame. So the person
who travels by airship would be older for his time forms a curve. Meanwhile, the person who
is at rest on the earth would be younger, for his time is linear. But this opinion is untrue. In
fact, in light of Person A, his time is a linear, but in light of B, his time is curved.
The detail calculation above to use special relativity to explain the so-called twin paradox

《
referees to the professor Shi Jiaoming’s work The Enigma and Beauty of Dynamics 》 。
[3]

2 The essence of special relativity

The most important distinguish between special relativity and classical mechanics is the
definition of simultaneity. The essential difference between special relativity and classical
mechanics is the definition of simultaneity. Though the simultaneity is implicated in classical
mechanics, but there exists no sign which can propagate in infinite speed in practices, and we
can only use light signal to adjust clocks in reality. In other word, the contraction of moving
ruler and the slowing of moving clock are caused by our measurement using light as toll. If
we do not use light as toll, or do no any measurement, there would have no effect happen. For
a simple example, a man who is in an airship which moves in a high speed spend two minute
to drink a cup of water by his measurement But the person on the ground thinks that the man
on airship take longer time to drink water, because the person can only use light’s single
(which need time to propagate) to transform information for no infinite time setting signal.
However, the time the man on airship takes to drink water does not change. In this way, twin
paradox is easy to solve. No one of two twins becomes older actually though they think
another’s time becoming slow by measurement. If we do not think so, as an ideal experiment,
we let the earth splitting into two parts, each one carry one of twins apart away in a high
speed, then let them meet again. Which one is younger? No one can answer this problem if
we do not consider problem as above. Based on this nature of special relativity, we can
conclude that when an observer observes an object, owing to the difference of observational
conditions (the motion state of observer’s reference frame), he can reach completely different
results (the constrictions of time and length). This result explains a principle of philosophy,
i.e., condition decides law and observation.
By this character of special relativity, we prefer to consider it as a philosophic principle
in the name of physics, that is, for an observer, the result of measurement is completely

61
different under different condition (i.e., the moving state of reference frame which observer
located). It indicates a philosophic principle: condition decides law and measure results.
So the paradoxes of special relativity do not exist. Taken the submarine paradox as an
example, we first suppose that a submarine submerged keeps balance without raising or
sinking in sea water. Then suppose that the submarine moves in a speed nearing light’s speed.
Because the length would contract in the direction of motion, according to observers who are
at rest on the surface of sea, the density of submarine would become great so that the
submarine would sink. But according to the sailors who are in submarine, the sea water
moves back off, and the density of sea water becomes great with greater buoyancy, so that
submarine would be floated up. According to special relativity, two viewpoints are alright.
What would be for submarine, sinking or floating? By our viewpoint, it is easy to decide. The
contraction of sea water is only a measurement effect caused by observers in different
reference frames. But there are constrictions or both submarine and sea water. The paradox of
submarine does not exist actually.
So we can say that the essence of special relativity is only a method of mathematics. It
exposures the connection of space and time and provides mathematic method and physical
idea for general relativity.

3 Why does special relativity not represent practical space?

Because of the common existence of gravitation, there are always accelerations among
any reference frames. We have no real inertial reference systems. The Lorentz transformation
holds only for inertial reference systems which move in uniform speed. The experiment
verification of special relativity should be carried out in the inertial reference systems which
move in uniform speed, but this condition cannot be satisfied in practice.
The observation of modern astronomy shows that, men rotates with the earth, the earth
rotates with the sun, the sun rotates with the Milky and Way galaxy rotates around its center.
So there is no real inertial reference frame in the universe. The scale is bigger and material is
thinner, the gravity is weaker and the reference frame is more nearly inertial reference frame.
Even though the earth is considered as reference frame approximately, the experiments
carried out on it cannot avoid the influence of acceleration. It is an unverifiable problem
whether or not physical processes are the same in different inertial reference frames. Because
there are the relative motions of experimental instrument and observers between two
reference frames, if we want to verify the predication of special relativity, we should move the
instrument and matter from one reference to another through accelerating or decelerating it. In
this way, the non-inertial motions are involved.Because there are the motion processes of
acceleration and deceleration, the physical effect cannot be explained by special relativity.
So speaking strictly, “the space-time in which special relativity holds is the space-time
without material [4]”. As we know that space-time is the most foundational form of material’s
existence. The space-time without material is only theoretical abstraction, or does not exist
62
actually. From this angle, special relativity is only a method of mathematics. It points out that
the action of a universal constant c (light’s speed) in the law of nature. The relativity of
simultaneity is disclosed. The closed relation between time and space is uncovered by means
of the four dimensions space-time and the Lorentz transformation. The invariability of four
dimensions element ds2 provides mathematical method and physical idea for t general
relativity. It should be pointed out that the mathematical method here indicates the calculation
in “four dimensions”, not mathematical tools. It is obvious that what used in special relativity
are Euripides geometry and algebra equation, but in general relativity, what used are non-
Euripides geometry and tensor analysis. The effects of special relativity are not dynamic ones,
having nothing to do with the physical process of material and interaction force. It is only
kinematical ones relative to correlation between objects, just as the multi-values of velocities
[5]
.

4 The essence of experiments of special relativity is to verify the conclusion of general

relativity
The space-time theory of special relativity does not relative to acceleration. It only
considers the measurement relation of space-time between two references which are in
inertial motion states. At first, we suppose that they are at rest each other and define the same
unit time and length. Otherwise we cannot define the same unit time and length when two
reference frames are at relative motion states. It is necessary for us to accelerate one of them
if we want introduce relative velocity between two reference frames which are at rest each
other at beginning. After acceleration stops and two frames reach the state of relative motion,
the structure of space-time of accelerated frame would change[6]. This process of acceleration
can be explained by general relativity (the principle of equivalence), i.e., the frame can be
considered to place into gravity field. All experimental condition in the earth does not satisfies
the demand of inertial reference frame, why all experiments coincide with the predication of
special relativity? The practical space-time is that of general relativity. The transformation of
special relativity which is only ideal and linear one does not involve gravitation and
acceleration. The ideal situation can only be approached but not be reached. Just known this
localization of special relativity, Einstein developed general relativity. So speaking strictly,
special relativity is an only mathematics to disclosure the retraction of material moving state
on space-time as well as the closed connection between time and space. It provides a firm
foundation of mathematics and physics for general relativity. By means of the equation of
gravitational field, the space-time metric, and the energy and momentum of material motion
are connected by general relativity. In this way, the law of object accelerated motion in
gravitational field is obtained. General relativity is just the extension of special relativity.
In general relativity, the effects of rule becoming short and clock becoming slow is
determined by the potential of gravity or the material distribution and motion. The
measurement results of space-time have nothing to do with the choice of coordinate system.
63
What decides space-time is only the moving state of material. The does not depends on the
difference of observations. So the effects of general relativity are absolute, which do not
change with measurement method. The absoluteness is the real reason that special relativity
acknowledge that the effects of clock being slow and mass increasing is measurement effects
and the result verified by experiment is real effects and the objects moving in high speed have
physical changes. In general relativity, the effects of “clock becoming slow and ruler
[7]
becoming short” are the real result of dynamic, not measurement effect . That is to say, the
real reason to cause the changes of mass, length, time is acceleration or gravity fields.

5Conclusion
As we known that the effects of “ruler becoming short and clock becoming slow” in
special relativity are caused by the change of observation condition. They have nothing to do
with practical forms of observed objects. In other word, the practical forms do not changed
under different conditions of observation. The “reality” of special relativity stays in the level
of information, not in the ontological level. So many persons who discuss special relativity
confuse the reality of the two levels. They consider the original explain of Einstein about
“ruler becoming short and clock becoming slow”as a evidence to deny the reality of special
relativity, or demote it as “explaining relativity using traditional idea”. In fact, most
explanation about twin paradox, submarine paradox and so no are wrong. As long as
considering “ruler becoming short and clock becoming slow” as measurement effects, all
paradox would not appear.
Therefore, we cannot use special relativity to explain the experiments of atomic clock
travel around the earth, µ meson decay and mass increase, for these physical phenomena
represent the real change of objects which move in high speed. They are different from the
observation effect of special relativity. We should use general relativity to explain them. The
author thinks that there is a faultage between special relativity and general relativity. The
theory existing in this faultage can explain these experiments simply and clearly without
introducing any logical paradox. So the author hope that scholars are interesting in this
problem and do further research. The influence of frame’s recti lineal and uniform motion on
space-time structure is different from that of acceleration motion. Special relativity is only
suitable for the reference frame which is in uniform motion. As soon as it oversteps this
extent, special relativity would lose effect. Different from special relativity, general relativity
is suitable to non-inertial motion to explain the physical events when reference frame does
acceleration motion or in gravity fields. There is no any logical contraction and paradox to use
general relativity to explain these experiments. The author hopes other scholar who are
interesting in these problems to do further research.

References
[1] Zhang Yuanzhong, Experimental foundation of Special Relativity, Beijing, Science
64
 Publishing Company, 1979.9.
[2] Liu Liao, Zhang Yunzhong , Special Relativity, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Publishing Education
Company, 1987.9.
[3] Shi Jiaoming, Enigma and Beauty of Dynamics, [M], Hebei Science and Technology
Publishing Company, 2007.8
[4] Zhang Jialu, Relativity Physics, Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics, [M] Chinese
Science and technology Publishing Company. 1990
[5] Mei Xiaochun ,The Absolution of Velocity Caused by Acceleration Process and Absolute
Theory of Space-time with Variable Scalar of Space-time [J],( Wait for publication of)

．
[6] Xue Xiaochou, The philosophy Problems of Modern Physics [J] Journal of Xinxiang

Normal University ( Version of Social Scince), No.1, 1983

[7] Zhang Zhengjiu, Modern Relativity and Black hole Physics, Wuhan, Huazhong Normal
University Publishing Company 1986.8.
[8] Cheng Jianguo, Dong Jingfeng, Understanding and Treatment Relativity Correctly,
Advance Science, [J] No.3, 008.
About the author: The author is the Director of Scientific and Technology Bureau in Rushi
County, Henan Province, the commissioner of Special Committee of Chinese Physical
History, the visiting researcher of Institute of Innovative Physics in Fuzhou. The major area of
the author’s research is relativity, particle physics, atomic physics. As the master of partial
committee, the author has attended 15 domestic and international meetings of physics, and
has published more than 40 papers inScientific Inquiry, Matter Regularity, Advance Science,
Science, High Technology and Industrialization, Achievement of Science and Technology,
Journal Of Shandong Normal University, Learned Foreland.
Tel: 15516323715, E-mail: [email protected]

65
Unsolved Problems in Special Relativity and Methods to Solve Them
Duan Zhongxiao
(Member of Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation, Room 3-1-1, Building Jia-8,
No.77, Dongmao Rd., Shenhe District, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110161, China)
(E-mail: [email protected])

Abstract: The special relativity is based on the principle of constant speed of light and the
assumption that the inertial systems are all “Equality (Equal Right)”. However, through
comparing the two Lorentz transformations located at different regions, the author finds that
for two inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational motion, if two clocks
are synchronous in one system, they are also synchronous looked from another system; this
means that the relative character of simultaneity is not the ultimate source of temporal and
spatial transformation. Thus we know that it is wrong to introduce the one-way spreading
light signals along with all directions in space into transformation. Based on this the further
analysis proposes that, all the above mentioned problems can be solved only in the way that
theoretically introducing the vacuum matter, vacuum energy, as well as the two-way
spreading vacuum matter waves along with any directions in space. According to an
important characteristic of the Lorentz transformation, namely the continuous transformations
will be equivalent to one certain transformation, the author deeply considers the “Equality” of
inertial systems and concludes that, the principle of relativity and the “Equality” of inertial
systems are two entirely different things, the principle of relativity is correct, but the
“Equality” is wrong. Based on the above discussions, the author also finds many problems
and errors in the special relativity (for details see the text of this paper). On this basis, the
author already established “The Matter Space-time Theory of Relativity” (“Matter Theory”
for short). “Matter Theory” is based on the matter space only. The two principles and other
assumptions are no longer needed. “Matter Theory” overcomes almost all the problems and
errors in special relativity, explains all the contents that can be explained by special relativity,
and presents many new predictions, such as the conclusions of “Matter Theory” show that not
only the moving clock will slow down, but also all the inertial systems running the relative
uniform speed translational motion will have the characteristics of multi-level of space-time.
Besides this paper, other results can be found in reference [1].
Keywords: Matter space, vacuum matter wave, principle of relativity, application condition
of the principle of relativity, inertia reference system

1 Vacuum’s matter space essence and basic characteristics

1.1 Using Lorentz transformation to discuss vacuum’s matter space essence
66
 Looking at the single Lorentz transformation alone, vacuum’s matter space essence and its
action cannot be reflected in the transformation. Because as long as theoretically introducing
the light signal and based on the hypothesis of “Equality”, then the Lorentz transformation
can be established. However, when we compare the two Lorentz transformations in different
regions, the matter space and its action in the transformation are obvious.
Supposing that the space is uniform and isotropic, thus the transformation rule is not
restricted by time, region and direction. In this aspect the actual performance is as follows:
The experiment to test the validity of theory is not restricted by time, region and direction
also. For different times, different regions and different directions, doing the same
experiments, if the theory is correct and the experimental procedure is perfect also, thus the
results must be the same.
This objective fact can be described more strictly theoretically.
The Lorentz transformation is based on the Cartesian rectangular coordinate system, this
coordinates system is formed by the origin of coordinates and three frame straight lines.
However a very simple fact is, the origin is chosen arbitrarily, and not restricted by the spatial
location. Therefore, the frames are also chosen arbitrarily, and not restricted by the spatial
location.
Starting from this fact to discuss the problem, we find that the matter space is existed
really, and the action of matter space in transformation is irreplaceable.
Supposing that there are two inertial systems ΣA and ΣB running the relative uniform
speed translational motion, and the speed of ΣB relative to ΣA is v .
Choosing anyone straight line in ΣA and taking this line as the x coordinate axis in the
three coordinate systems to be established below. From this line arbitrarily choosing different

three points o A , o A1 , and o A 2 , and taking these three points as three origins. Thus in ΣA we

have established three Cartesian rectangular coordinate systems, namely

ΣA（x A, ） （x
y A , z A , t A , ΣA1 A1 , ）
y A1 , z A1 , t A1 , and ΣA2 （x A2 , y A2 , z A 2 , t A2 ）.
Similarly, choosing anyone straight line in ΣB and taking this line as the x coordinate
axis in the three coordinate systems to be established below. From this line arbitrarily

choosing different three points oB , oB1 , and oB 2 , and taking these three points as three

origins. Thus in ΣA we have established three Cartesian rectangular coordinate systems,

namely ΣB （x B, yB , zB , t B ）, Σ （ x
B1 B1 , ）
y B1 , z B1 , t B1 , and ΣB2 （x B2 , yB 2 , z B 2 , t B 2 ）.
In order to simplify the discussion, further provisions are as follows:
1) The x coordinate axis in the coordinate system ΣB is also the x axis in ΣA, and they
have the same direction;
2) The movement of ΣB is relative to ΣA along the positive directionof the common x
axis (in order to prove that the transformation rule is not restricted by the direction, we should
67
also discuss the case that ΣB is relative to ΣA along the negative direction of the common x
axis, but the process and result are the same to the case of positive direction, therefore we will
not discuss it);
3) In ΣA and ΣB, for all the cases, the coordinates y and z are all equal to zero;
4) Supposing that as t A = t B = 0 for the time in ΣA and time in ΣB, o A is superposed on

oB , o A1 is superposed on oB1 , and o A 2 is superposed on oB 2 (this moment,

t A = t A1 = t A 2 = 0 and tB = t B1 = t B 2 = 0 ).

Therefore at the time t A1 in ΣA1, the Lorentz transformation between ΣA1 and ΣB1 is as

follows:

xB1 = γ ( x A1 − vt A1 ) (1.1-1)

vxA1
t B1 = γ (t A1 − ) (1.1-2)
c2

At the time t A2 in ΣA2, the Lorentz transformation between ΣA2 and ΣB2 is as follows:

xB 2 = γ ( x A 2 − vt A 2 ) (1.1-3)

vx A2
t B 2 = γ (t A 2 − ) (1.1-4)
c2

Supposing that at the time t A in ΣA, the time in ΣA1 is t A1 , and the time in ΣA2 is t A2 .

Because for the same inertial system, the clocks are synchronous, therefore we have:

t A = t A1 = t A 2 .
For the reason that the light signal is also assumed arbitrarily, it is not restricted by the
time and region. Therefore, when we assume that one light signal is radiated from the origin

o A , we can also assume that at this time other two light signals are radiated from o A1 and

o A 2 respectively, and at the time t A in ΣA we have: xA = xA1 = xA2 = ctA = ctA1 = ctA2 .

Substituting xA1 = xA2 , tA1 = tA2 into Eq. (1.1-3) and Eq. (1.1-4), we can get

xB 2 = γ ( x A1 − vt A1 ) (1.1-5)

vxA1
t B 2 = γ (t A1 − ) (1.1-6)
c2

68
 To compare Eq. (1.1-1) with Eq. (1.1-5), and compare Eq. (1.1-2) with Eq. (1.1-6), we
can get

xB1 = xB2 , tB1 = tB2 (1.1-7)

Substituting Eq. (1.1-7) into Eq. (1.1-3), Eq. (1.1-4), we can get

xB1 = γ ( x A 2 − vt A 2 ) (1.1-8)

vxA2
t B1 = γ (t A2 − ) (1.1-9)
c2

For the reason that xB1 and xB 2 are located at the different regions of ΣB, therefore the

clocks used to measure t B1 and t B 2 are also located at different regions. For the same inertial

system the clocks are synchronous, therefore the two clocks are synchronous in ΣB. To
compare Eq. (1.1-2) with Eq. (1.1-6), we know that, observing from ΣA, the clock used to

measure t B1 and the one to measure t B 2 are also synchronous, then we can get the following

conclusions:
1) For two inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational motion, if the
clocks are synchronous in one system, observing from another system they are still
synchronous.
2) The relative character of simultaneity is not the ultimate source of the rule of temporal
and spatial transformation. Namely, the relative character of simultaneity serves no useful
purpose to the rule of temporal and spatial transformation.
3) It is wrong to introduce the one-way spreading light signals along with all directions
into transformation equation, and the relative character of simultaneity is nothing but the
apparent phenomenon appeared by introducing the one-way spreading light signal into the
equation.
4) Although the rates of the clocks in two systems running the relative uniform speed
translational motion may be different, the ratio of the rates of the clocks in two systems is
absolute. Therefore, the temporal and spatial transformation will not be reversible.
5) All the temporal and spatial transformations are not originated from the relative motion
of physical system.
6) Although the principle of relativity is correct, while the assumption that the inertial
systems are all “Equality (Equal Right)” is wrong.
We would like to emphasize several points in the above discussion, because they decide
the main features of the transformation rules.

1) The t A (including t A1 , t A2 ) in ΣA, the t B (including t B1 , t B 2 ) in ΣB, represent arbitrary

times in ΣA, ΣB. This indicates that the temporal and spatial transformation rules and their
69
actions are not restricted by time, they are existed eternally, and affect the rules of physical
state changes in the physical system.
2) In ΣA the origins of coordinates of ΣA1, ΣA2 are arbitrary non-superposed space points in
ΣA; in ΣB the origins of coordinates of ΣB1, ΣB2 are arbitrary non-superposed space points in
ΣB. Therefore the consistencies of above transformation rules (such as the consistencies of Eq.
(1.1-1), Eq. (1.1-2) and Eq. (1.1-5), Eq. (1.1-6)) show that the transformation rules are not
restricted by the spatial locations (namely the coordinate’s locations).
The more in-depth discussion on this content will present the more definite conclusions
as follows.
The temporal and spatial transformations between two systems running the relative
uniform speed translational motion exactly are the transformations between arbitrary space
points in one system and arbitrary space points in another system.
Our discussions are carried out in the uniform isotropic space, therefore

xA1 , xA2 , xB1 , xB2 and ( xA1 − vtA1 ) , ( xA2 − vtA2 ) can be interpreted as the set of points,
and based on this we can get the above conclusions by means of brief discussion.
3) In the above discussion we assume that the movement of ΣB is running along with the
positive direction of the common x axis. If we assume that the movement of ΣB is running
along with the negative direction of the common x axis, or changing the direction of x axis
and the direction of signal propagation, we can get the same results as above conclusions.
This means that the transformation rules are not restricted by direction.
In the above discussion, for the transformation equation, we deny the action of light
signals (one-way spreading along with all directions in space), but we do not deny the status
and action of c in the transformation equation. This requires us to give c a new physical
content.
In the transformation, if the action of c is irreplaceable, then from the basic
characteristics of the transformation roles we can get:
1) The action of c must not be restricted by time, and not restricted by spatial position
and direction; namely the actions of c are existed at anywhere and anytime, and effected on
the transformation rules eternally. This action of c fully explains its characteristics of matter
space. That means that c is the energy wave of matter space, and we name this wave the
vacuum matter wave.
2) In order to ensure the transformation rules do not appear the problems of the relative
character of simultaneity, and ensure the transformation rules are not restricted by directions,
the spreading of vacuum matter wave along with all directions in space must be two-way.
3) In order to ensure the relativistic effects of transformation rules (such as the rule of
moving clock slows down), the vacuum matter wave’s propagation velocity must be limited.
4) In order to ensure the transformation rules are always identical, and not restricted by
time and space (namely all the transformations between any space point in one system and
70
any space point in another system are identical), the spreading rates of vacuum matter waves
must be always identical at anywhere and anytime, and in the inertial systems running the
relative uniform speed translational motion, the vacuum matter waves’ propagation velocities
must be invariable (measured by each system’s clock and measuring ruler).

1.2 Theoretical foundation of vacuum matter, vacuum energy and vacuum matter wave
Based on the above discussions we can get the basic characteristics of matter space:
1) In vacuum the mass points with energy are uniformly distributed. The mass point’s
energy is spreading outward in the form of spherical wave. Therefore, each mass point not
only is spreading energy outward, but also receiving energy. This determines that the wave is
two-way spreading along with any direction in space. These matter, energy and energy wave
are named vacuum matter, vacuum energy and vacuum matter wave by us.
2) The vacuum matter waves are existed at anywhere and anytime; and spreading with
the limited invariable rate at anywhere and anytime. The spreading rate of vacuum matter

wave is indicated as cm .

3) The spreading rates of vacuum matter waves in the inertial systems running the

relative uniform speed translational motion are all equal to cm (measured by each system’s

clock and measuring ruler).

[1]
It should be noted that “The Matter Space-time Theory of Relativity” (“Matter
Theory” for short) is based on the matter space and vacuum matter wave, the two principles
and other assumptions are no longer needed.

2 Discussion on the application conditions of the principle of relativity

The author affirms the principle of relativity, but also proves that the application of
principle of relativity is conditional, while in the past this is not clear for many people. One of
the important reasons created the unsolved problems in special relativity is unclear for the
application conditions of the principle of relativity.
Although in the past many people do not know the application conditions of the principle
of relativity, but the correct theory and the correct parts of theory can be established with the
prerequisite to conform the application conditions of the principle of relativity. The correct
experiments testing theory are all in progress with the prerequisite to conform the application
conditions of the principle of relativity.
The principle of relativity tells us that, in all inertial systems running the relative uniform
speed translational motion, the laws of physics are identical in the mathematical form. But
both the establishment of laws of physics and the experiments testing theory must contain two

71
contents: 1) The observer and the inertial system at which the observer is located; 2) The
observation object (or experiment object).
The principle of relativity does not tell us that, whether or not all the physical objects
running the uniform speed translational motion relative to a certain inertial system will obey
the laws of physics established in this inertial system (for all the inertial systems the laws are
identical in the mathematical form).It also does not tell us that, in all the inertial systems
running the uniform speed translational motion relative to a certain physical object, whether
or not all the observing results about this physical object will obey the laws of physics
established in each inertial system (for all the inertial systems the laws are identical in the
mathematical form).
The following discussions will show that, for specific physical object, there are two
types of different inertial systems. The first one can make the correct observation and
description about the physical state changing rule of this physical object, while the second
cannot. In order to distinguish these two types of inertial systems, the first one is called the
inertial reference system of this physical system (in the past, the inertial system and the
inertial reference system are not distinguished).
After the deep discussion on the transformation between the two inertial systems running
the relative uniform speed translational motion, we can get:
1) In all the inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational motion, the
laws of physics with identical mathematical form are all established between the physical
system and its inertial reference system;
2) For the two inertial systems ΣA and ΣB, running the relative uniform speed
translational motion, if ΣA is the inertial reference system of ΣB, definitely ΣB is not the
inertial reference system of ΣA.
These two sections are the application conditions of the principle of relativity.
The application conditions of the principle of relativity are not the theoretical foundation,
but they are the prerequisite for establishing the theory, before the establishment of theory, we
must stress that the theory should be consistent with the application conditions of the
principle of relativity, otherwise the theory will not be valuable.
We will make the concrete argument below.

Supposing that there are three inertial systems, ΣA （ x 、 t ）, Σ （ x 、 t ） and

A A B B B

ΣC （ x 、 t ）, mutually running the relative uniform speed translational motion. Further

c c

assuming that the speed of ΣB relative to ΣA is v1 , the speed of ΣC relative to ΣA is v2 , and

v2 ＞ v , the speed of Σ
1 C relative to ΣB is w . For the sake of convenient, we make the

following provisions:
1) Supposing that the three x axes of ΣA, ΣB and ΣC are superposed.
72
 2) ΣB and ΣC are moving along with the positive direction of the x axis of ΣA.
From the Lorentz transformation we can get:
The transformation equations between ΣA and ΣB are as follows

（ ）
xB = γ ( x A − v1t A ) 2-1 t B = γ (t A −
v1 x A
c2
) （2-2）
The inverse transformation equations are as follows

x A = γ ( xB + v1tB ) （2-3） t A = γ (t B +
v1 xB
c2
) 2-4（ ）
The transformation equations between ΣA and ΣC are as follows

xc = γ ′( x A − v2t A ) （2-5） t c = γ ′(t A −

v2 xA
c2
（ ）
) 2-6

The inverse transformation equations are as follows

x A = γ ′( xc + v2tc ) （2-7） t A = γ ′(tc +

v2 xc
c2
（ ）
) 2-8

The transformation equations between ΣB and ΣC are as follows

（ ）
xc = γ ′′( xB − wt B ) 2-9 tc = γ ′′(t B −
wxB
c2
) 2-10（ ）
The inverse transformation equations are as follows

xB = γ ′′( xc + wtc ) （2-11） t B = γ ′′(tc +

wxc
c2
（ ）
) 2-12

Supposing that Eq. (2-1), (2-2), (2-5), (2-6), (2-9), (2-10) are all correct.
Substituting Eq. (2-1) and Eq. (2-2) into Eq. (2-9), we can get

 vx 
xc = γ ′′ γ ( xA − v1t A ) − wγ (t A − 1 2A )  = γ ′′γ ( x A −
w + v1  wv 
（
t A ) 1 + 21  2-
 c  wv
1 + 21  c 
c

13 ）
1 1
Because γ ′′ = ;γ = ，so Eq. (2-13) can be written as
w2 v2
1− 2 1 − 12
c c

73
  w + v1   w + v1 
 xA − t 1 + wv1 / c 2 )  x A −
2 A ( 2 A
t
1 + wv1 / c 1 + wv1 / c 
xc =   = 
2
（2-
(1 − w2 / c 2 )(1 − v12 / c 2 ) 1−
( w + v1 )
2
(1 + wv1 / c 2 ) c 2
14 ）Supposing
u=
w + v1
wv
（2-15）
1 + 21
c

Substituting Eq. （2-15） into Eq.（2-14）, we can get

xc =
( x A − ut A ) （2-16）
1 − u 2 / c2
Because the continuous transformations will be equivalent to one certain transformation,
comparing Eq. (2-16) with Eq. (2-5), we can get

v2 = u =
w + v1
1 + wv1 / c 2
（2-17）
Supposing that the inverse transformation equations between ΣB and ΣC are correct,

substituting Eq. （2-5）and Eq.（2-6）into Eq.（2-11）, it gives

 vx 
xB = γ ′′ γ ′( x A − v2t A ) + wγ ′(t A − 2 2 A ) 
 c 

= γ ′′γ ′( x A +
w − v2
1 − wv2 / c
t ) 1 − wv2 / c 2
2 A ( ) （2-18）
1
Substituting γ ′′ = ;γ ′ =
1
（ ）, it gives
into Eq. 2-18
1 − w2 / c 2 1 − v2 2 / c 2

 w − v2   wv2   w − v2 
 xA + 2 A 
t 1 − 2   xA + 2 A
t
1 − wv2 / c 1 − wv2 / c
xB =   c  
=
2
 （2-19）
(1 − w2 / c 2 )(1 − v22 / c 2 ) 1−
( w − v2 )
2
(1 − wv2 / c 2 ) c 2

Supposing

74
 u′ =
w − v2
1 − wv2 / c 2
（2-20）
Substituting Eq. （2-20） into Eq.（2-19）, it gives
xB =
( xA + u′t A ) （2-21）
1 − u′2 / c 2
Because the continuous transformations will be equivalent to one certain transformation,
comparing Eq. (2-21) with Eq. (2-1), we can get

v1 = −u′ = −
w − v2
1 − wv2 / c 2
（2-22）
Substituting Eq. （2-17）into Eq.（2-22）, it gives
w + v1
w−
1 + wv1 / c 2
v1 = −
 w + v1  2
（2-23）
1 − w 2 
/c
 1 + wv1 / c 
In order to guarantee Eq. (2-23) is correct, only in the case that w = 0 , however, from
the initial assuming we know that w ≠ 0 , so Eq. (2-23) is not correct. Eq. (2-23) is not correct
means that either Eq. (2-17) is not correct, or Eq. (2-22) is not correct, and both may be not
correct. Eq. (2-17) is derived by comparing Eq. (2-16) with Eq. (2-5), while Eq. (2-5) is from
the first set of transformation equation, we already assume that the first set of transformation
equation should be correct, so Eq. (2-5) is correct. Eq. (2-16) is derived by both of Eq. (2-14)
and Eq. (2-15), both of Eq. (2-14) and Eq. (2-15) are derived by three of Eq. (2-1), Eq. (2-2),
and Eq. (2-9). Eq. (2-1), Eq. (2-2) and Eq. (2-9) are from the first set of transformation
equation. We already assume that the first set of transformation equation should be correct, so
Eq. (2-1), Eq. (2-2) and Eq. (2-9) are correct, therefore Eq. (2-16) is correct. This means that
Eq. (2-17) is correct.
From the above discussion we know that, Eq. (2-23) is not correct only means that Eq.
(2-22) is not correct. While Eq.(2-22) is derived by comparing Eq.(2-21) with Eq.(2-1),
however, from the initial assuming we know that Eq.(2-1) is correct, so Eq.(2-22) is not
correct only means that Eq.(2-21) is not correct, Eq.(2-21) is derived by both of Eq.(2-20) and
Eq.(2-19), both of Eq.(2-20) and Eq.(2-19) are derived by three of Eq.(2-5), Eq.(2-6) and
Eq.(2-11), we already assume that both of Eq.(2-5) and Eq.(2-6) are correct, so Eq.(2-21) is
not correct only means that Eq.(2-11) is not correct.
From the results of above discussion we can get the conclusions as follows.
In the case that supposing that the first set of Lorentz transformation equations Eqs. (2-
1), (2-2), (2-5), (2-6), (2-9), (2-10) are all correct, then the inverse transformation equations
75
Eq. (2-11) and Eq. (2-12) between ΣB and ΣC will not be correct. While ΣB and ΣC are two
arbitrary inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational motion, so the
above results show that, between the two inertial systems running the relative uniform speed
translational motion, if one set of Lorentz transformation equations are correct, then another
set of transformation equations will not be correct. This conclusion has proven that for two
arbitrary inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational motion, they cannot
be “Equality (Equal Right)”.This conclusion is derived in the case that supposing that the first
set of Lorentz transformation equations Eqs. (2-1), (2-2), (2-5), (2-6), (2-9), (2-10) are all
correct, if they are really correct, then the above conclusion must be correct. However the
purpose of our discussion is to prove that for two arbitrary inertial systems running the
relative uniform speed translational motion, they cannot be “Equality (Equal Right)”. If that is
really true, then the Lorentz transformations cannot be mutually inverse. This means that in
the Lorentz transformation equations, only one set of transformation equation are correct. But
before the new theory is established, for the two sets of transformation equation (including the
inverse transformation equation), we don't know which one is correct. Therefore, we would
also like to assume that another set of Lorentz transformation (inverse transformation) are
correct, and use this set of transformation to discuss the problem of inertial systems’ “Equality
(Equal Right)”. If this discussion gives the same result as given in the previous conclusion, it
will be proven that regardless of which set of transformation equation are correct, the
conclusions are the same, namely: In the two sets of Lorentz transformation equations, if one
set are correct, the another set must not be correct. So, for two arbitrary inertial systems
running the relative uniform speed translational motion, they cannot be “Equality (Equal
Right)”.
Supposing that the inverse transformation equations Eqs. (2-3), (2-4), (2-7), (2-8), (2-
11), (2-12) are correct, substituting Eq. (2-11) and Eq. (2-12) into Eq. (2-3), it gives

x A = γ γ ′′( xc + wtc ) + v1γ ′′(tc + wxc / c 2 ) 

1
Because γ=
1
； γ ′′ = 2 2
，so it can be written as follows
2
1− v / c
1
2
1− w / c
w + v1 w + v1
( xc + t ) 1 + wv1 / c 2 )
2 c (
xc + tc
1 + wv1 / c 1 + wv1 / c 2
xA = =
2
（2-24）
(1 − v12 / c2 )(1 − w2 / c2 ) 1−
( w + v1 )
2 2
(1 + wv / c )
1 c2

Supposing

u=
w + v1
1 + wv1 / c 2
（2-25）
76
 Substituting Eq. (2-25) into Eq. (2-24), it gives

xA =
( xc + utc )
（2-26）
(1 − u 2 / c 2 )
Comparing Eq. （2-26） with Eq.（2-7）, we can get
v2 = u =
w + v1
1 + wv1 / c 2
（2-27）
Substituting Eq. （2-9） and Eq.（2-10）into Eq.（2-7）, it gives
x A = γ ′ γ ′′( xB − wt B ) + v2γ ′′(t B − wxB / c 2 ) 

w − v2 w − v2
( xB − t ) 1 − wv2 / c 2 )
2 B (
xB − tB
1 − wv2 / c 1 − wv2 / c 2
=
2 2 2 2
=
2
（2-28）
(1 − v2 / c )(1 − w / c ) 1−
( w − v2 )
2
(1 − wv 2 / c2 ) c2
Supposing

u′ =
w − v1
1 − wv2 / c 2
（2-29）
Substituting Eq. （2-29）into Eq.（2-28）, we can get
xA =
( xB − u′tB ) （2-30）
(1 − u′2 / c2 )
Comparing Eq. （2-30）with Eq.（2-3）, it gives
v1 = −u′ = −
w − v2
1 − wv2 / c 2
（2-31）
Substituting Eq. （2-27）into Eq.（2-31）, we can get
w + v1
w−
1 + wv1 / c 2
v1 = −
 w + v1 
（2-32）
w 
 1 + wv1 / c 2 
1−
c2
In order to guarantee Eq. (2-32) is correct, only in the case that w = 0 , however, from
the initial assuming we know that w ≠ 0 , so Eq. (2-32) is not correct. Eq. (2-32) is derived

77
by Eq. （2-31） and Eq.（2-27）, Eq. (2-32) is not correct means that either Eq. (2-31) is not
correct, or Eq. (2-27) is not correct, and both may be not correct. Eq.(2-27) is derived by
comparing Eq.(2-26) with Eq.(2-7), while Eq.(2-26) is derived by Eqs. (2-11), (2-12), (2-3),
Eqs. (2-11), (2-12), (2-3), (2-7) are all inverse transformation equations, we already assume
that the inverse transformation equations should be correct, so Eqs. (2-11), (2-12), (2-3), (2-7)
are all correct. Therefore Eq.(2-27) is correct. Hence Eq.(2-32) is not correctonly means that
Eq.(2-31) is not correct. While Eq.(2-31) is derived by Eq.(2-3) and Eq.(2-30), Eq.(2-3) is the
inverse transformation equation, we already assume that the inverse transformation equations
should be correct, so Eq.(2-3) is correct. Hence Eq.(2-31) is not correct means that Eq.(2-30)
is not correct. While Eq.(2-30) is derived by Eq.(2-7), Eq.(2-9) and Eq.(2-10), while Eq.(2-7)
is the inverse transformation equation, we already assume that Eq.(2-7) is correct, so Eq.(2-
30) is not correct only means that Eq.(2-9) and Eq.(2-10) are not correct.
The results of above discussion show that, between ΣB and ΣC, if Eq.(2-11) and Eq.(2-12)
are correct, then Eq.(2-9) and Eq.(2-10) will not be correct. The results of discussion show
again that in the two sets of Lorentz transformation equations, if one set are correct, the
another set must not be correct.
Synthesizing all the above discussions we can get the conclusions as follows:
1) Between arbitrary two inertial systems running the relative uniform speed
translational motion, the transformation equations cannot be mutually inverse.
2) For two arbitrary inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational
motion, they cannot be “Equality (Equal Right)”.
If ΣA and ΣB are two inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational
motion, from the principle of relativity we know that, in both of ΣA and ΣB, the laws of
physics with the same mathematical form can be established. However, the above two
conclusions tell us that, if the temporal and spatial changing rules established in ΣB will agree
with the transformation equation established in ΣA, then the temporal and spatial changing
rules established in ΣA will not agree with the transformation equation established in ΣB. If the
physical state changing rules of a physical system agree with the laws of physics established
in a certain inertial system, then we say that this inertial system is the physical system's
inertial reference system. (In the past, many people do not know the application conditions of
the principle of relativity, so the inertial system and the inertial reference system are not
distinguished.)
According to the above discussion we can induce as follows:
1) In all the inertial systems running the relative uniform speed translational motion, the
laws of physics with identical mathematical form are all established between the physical
system and its inertial reference system;

78
 2) For the two inertial systems ΣA and ΣB, running the relative uniform speed
translational motion, if ΣA is the inertial reference system of ΣB, definitely ΣB is not the
inertial reference system of ΣA.
These two sections are the application conditions of the principle of relativity.
The application conditions of the principle of relativity are not the theoretical foundation,
but they are the prerequisite for establishing the theory, before the establishment of theory, we
must stress that the theory should be consistent with the application conditions of the
principle of relativity, otherwise the theory will not be valuable.
According to the above conclusions we can get the following deduces:
1) The temporal and spatial transformations are not from the relative motion of the
physical system, but from the motion of the physical system relative to its inertial reference
system.
2) The so-called matter space is also the inertial reference system space.
3) The temporal and spatial transformation rules have nothing to do with the relative
character of simultaneity.
4) It is wrong to introduce the one-way spreading light signals along with all directions
in space into equation.

3 Brief Introduction to “The Matter Space-time Theory of Relativity”

“The Matter Space-time Theory of Relativity” (“Matter Theory” for short) is the theory
established to solve many unsolved problems in special relativity. “Matter Theory” is based
on the matter space only. The principle of constant speed of light, the principle of relativity
and other assumptions are no longer needed. “Matter Theory” overcomes almost all the
unsolved problems in special relativity, explains all the physical phenomena and experiments
that can be explained by special relativity, and presents many new predictions. Here we take
the temporal and spatial transformations as examples to explain the following problems. The
temporal and spatial transformations of “Matter Theory” show that not only the moving clock
will slow down, but also the same inertial system space will have the characteristics of multi-
level of space-time. For different levels of space-time, the clock rates are different, the masses
are different, and the energies are also different, but there is not the contraction of moving
ruler. Although we have the multi-level of space-time, for each level, the space is always
three-dimensional, the time is always one-dimensional. The indivisible four-dimensional
space-time does not exist in the world of objective reality. Of course, also there are not the
phenomena of time-like interval, space-like interval, time sequence reverse, cause and effect
reverse, and so on. These errors are the apparent phenomena resulting from special relativity
introduced one-way spreading light signals along with all directions in space.
The special relativity is a systematic theory, so “Matter Theory” is also a systematic
theory, and covers a wide range, besides this paper, other results can be found in reference [1].

79
Reference
1 Duan Zhongxiao, The Matter Space-time Theory of Relativity, Matter Regularity, 2012,
Vol.12, No.5, Sum No.53, 30-63

80
Shortcomings and Applicable Scopes of Special and General Theory of Relativity
Fu Yuhua
(Beijing relativity theory research federation, Beijing, 100049, China)(E-mail:
[email protected])

Abstract: The special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity have three basic
shortcomings. First, the special and general theory of relativity respectively have two basic
principles, altogether have four basic principles in the interior of relativity, these obviously
do not conform to the truth uniqueness; Second, for the two basic principles of special
theory of relativity and the two basic principles of general theory of relativity, no one is
generally correct; Third, establishing the physical theory from the mathematics principle
instead of the physical principle. Based on these, the applicable scopes of special and
general theory of relativity are presented. Some wrong results caused by the theory of
relativity (including the Lorentz transformation) are pointed out, such as the problems
caused relativity is in a sad plight that the sonic speed in vacuum permanently is equal to
zero, the twin paradox that the two brothers' state of motion are quite same, and so on.
Moreover, in this paper not only solving the problem of a body’s restrained motion in
gravitational field such as a small ball rolls along an incline that cannot be solved by
relativity, but also with the help of relativity deriving the improved Newton’s universal
gravitation formula that gives the same results as given by general relativity for the problem
of Mercury’s advance of perihelion and the problem of gravitational defection of a photon
orbit around the sun. This paper proposes that taking law (principle) of conservation of
energy as the interdisciplinary grand unified theory to unified process all the problems
related to energy in physics, astronomy, mechanics, chemistry, biology, medicine,
engineering and so on; taking the unified variational principle for quantization in dynamic
Smarandache multi-space and the fractal method as the interdisciplinary grand unified
method; and taking the “science of conservation of energy” to replace or partially replace
the theory of relativity.
Keywords:Special and general theory of relativity, shortcomings, applicable scope, science
of conservation of energy

Introduction
People generally believe that Einstein is the greatest scientist in the 20th century, and his
achievement is only next to Newton.
At the same time, the scientific circles generally thought the theory of relativity is one of
the greatest scientific achievements in the 20th century.
81
 But on the other hand, since the 1920s, Einstein and the theory of relativity have been
gradually held in both hands to the god world.
Enter into the 21st century, the situation has changed, Einstein and the theory of relativity
already start to go down the god world.
The Chinese renowned scientist Academician Song Jian boldly questions Einstein, and
calls the young scientists dare to innovate. He read out the science report entitled
“Astronautics, Astronavigation and Light Barrier” in the 242nd Xiangshan conference.
Pointed out that, 100 years ago, Einstein, in his paper about special relativity that shocked the
scientific circles, proposed a famous saying, it is impossible to exist any movement to travel
faster than the speed of light. The present scientific circles name this phenomenon “light
barrier”. However, this “extrapolation” certainly hasn’t been proven by any direct experiment.
Many men of insight already pointed out that, taking the research and challenge to the
theory of relativity as the turning point, will have the possibility to lead more scientists to
occupy the more and more scientific peaks gradually.
As we analyze the theory of relativity, besides the positive, remorseless, careful and
valuable consideration, also emphasize and give prominence to the aspects of philosophy and
critique. All of these provide the beneficial imagination space for surmounting Einstein and
the theory of relativity. The people are not difficult to understand that, from the angle of
natural sciences theory to criticize the theory of relativity, is an extremely difficult matter, this
paper truly involves many contents about this aspect, however the effects will wait for the
reader to comment; Whereas, from the angle of philosophy to challenge and criticize the
theory of relativity, will have the possibility to let the reader easy to understand, and may
extrapolate, positively join the beneficial exploration.
The rivers and mountains breed the talent person from generation to generation. Einstein
and the theory of relativity will be surpassed; this is the matter of sooner or later.
Recently, some scientists pointed out, the theory of relativity had not considered
temperature factor, this is a big flaw. While considering the temperature factor, the theory of
relativity inevitably must be rebuilt.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the shortcomings and applicable scopes of special
and general theory of relativity

1 Shortcomings of special and general theory of relativity

The first basic shortcoming of the special and general theory of relativity is that they do
not conform to the truth uniqueness.
In the natural sciences domain, as dealing with a specific issue, should only have one
truth.
But, the two basic principles of special theory of relativity are the special principle of
relativity and the principle of constant speed of light; the two basic principles of general
theory of relativity are the principle of equivalence and the principle of general covariance; In
82
other words, the special theory of relativity has two truths; the general theory of relativity also
has two truths; while in the entire theory of relativity, altogether has four truths. These
obviously do not conform to the truth uniqueness.
For the reason to disobey the truth uniqueness, between the two basic principles of
special theory of relativity, as well as between the two basic principles of general theory of
relativity, inevitably will appear the contradictions which are unable to solve.
The second basic shortcoming of the special and general theory of relativity is that, for
the two basic principles of special theory of relativity and the two basic principles of general
theory of relativity, no one is generally correct. Therefore it is wrong to take them as the
general truth.
This certainly doesn’t mean that, the special theory of relativity and general theory of
relativity are completely wrong. For some partial questions, the special theory of relativity
and general theory of relativity also may produce the correct conclusions or the approximate
results.
The third basic shortcoming of the special and general theory of relativity is that, to
establish the physical theory from the mathematical principle instead of the physical principle.
If this road is correct, then the mathematicians will have the ability to govern physics
and nearly all natural sciences. But this obviously is not impossible.
In the physics domain, to command physics with mathematics, instead of command
mathematics with physics, this is the biggest misguide to physics given by Einstein. As a
result of this kind of misguide, besides some individual success, the innumerable time and
energy of many people with outstanding ability (including Einstein himself) have been
wasted.

2 Contradictions between the basic principles of special and general theory of relativity
Firstly we discuss the contradictions between the two basic principles of special theory
of relativity.
The special principle of relativity states that physical laws should be the same in all
inertial reference frames.
The principle of constant speed of lightstates thatlight is propagated in empty space in
straight lines with a velocity c= 300,000 km/s.
Einstein firstly noted the apparent incompatibility of the law of propagation of light with
the principle of relativity. It can be stated briefly as follows [1].
As such a system let us again choose our embankment. If a ray of light be sent along the
embankment, the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the
embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again traveling along the
railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light.
Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage, w is
the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have
83
 w = c−v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes cut
smaller than c.
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity. For, like every other
general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuum must, according to the
principle of relativity, is the same for the railway carriage as reference body as when the rails
are the body of reference.
For this apparent incompatibility, Einstein proposed two kinds of choices: (1) abandon
either the principle of relativity or the law of the propagation of light in vacuum; (2)
systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at.
This theory has been called the special theory of relativity, which was established by
Einstein according to the second choice.
Now we must discuss the question that, whether or not the special theory of relativity
can truly solve the contradiction between the law of propagation of light and the special
principle of relativity. Our answer is that it cannot.
Considering all the possible situations, the people cannot help to ask: As deriving the
Lorentz transformation, why only the principle of invariance of light speed was used? Why
didn't consider the principle of invariance of other speed?
Obviously, for the principle of invariance of other speed, combining with the special
theory of relativity, similarly may obtain other one kind of transformation relations. Thus
inevitably appears the irreconcilable contradiction.
Then, whether or not the principle of invariance of other speed is existed? The answer is
affirmative. For example, in all the reference frames at the vacuum state, the sound
propagation velocity is zero.
In addition, we also may find many examples that the conclusions of special theory of
relativity (including the Lorentz transformation) bring on the wrong results, see below.
Therefore, the special theory of relativity doesn’t successfully solve the contradiction
between the law of propagation of light and the special principle of relativity.
Whether has the other way to successfully solve this contradictory? The answer is
affirmative. For the apparent incompatibility of the law of propagation of light with the
principle of relativity, besides the two kind of choices proposed by Einstein, still may
simultaneously give up the special principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light in
vacuum, and choose another principle or law (for example, the law of conservation of energy)
as the only truth, to establish the new physical system. This choice may be considered as a
correct way to surmount or replace the theory of relativity. Certainly, it is very difficult to
reach this achievement.
Secondly we discuss the contradictions between the two basic principles of general
theory of relativity.
Einstein stated that, The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Argument for
84
the General Postulate of Relativity. Its main content is as follows[1].
We imagine a large portion of empty space, as reference body let us imagine a spacious
chest resembling a room with an observer inside who is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation

，
naturally does not exist for this observer. To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed

externally a hook with rope attached, and now a “being” begins pulling at this with a constant
force. The chest together with the observer then begin to move “upwards” with a uniformly
accelerated motion. He is then standing in the chest in exactly the same way as anyone stands
in a room of a home on our earth. If he releases a body which he previously had in his land,
the body will approach the floor of the chest with an accelerated relative motion. Relying on
his knowledge of the gravitational field, the man in the chest will thus come to the conclusion
that he and the chest are in a gravitational field which is constant with regard to time. Of
course he will be puzzled for a moment as to why the chest does not fall in this gravitational
field. Just then, however, he discovers the hook in the middle of the lid of the chest and the
rope which is attached to it, and he consequently comes to the conclusion that the chest is
suspended at rest in the gravitational field.
Guided by this example, Einstein attempted to point out that, our extension of the
principle of relativity implies the necessity of the law of the equality of inertial and
gravitational mass.
Here Einstein attempted to explain that the two basic principles of general theory of
relativity (the principle of equivalence and the principle of general covariance) do not have
contradictory. But this endeavor is a futile effort.
Einstein said that, our extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the
law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass.
According to this viewpoint, how to process the temperature mass and electromagnetic
mass, friction mass and so on? Whether or not our extension of the principle of relativity
implies the necessity of the law of the equality of the three of temperature, inertial and
gravitational mass?
If the three masses are not equal, then between “the principle of equivalence” (at present
it should be the equality of the three of temperature, inertial and gravitational mass) and the
principle of relativity (the principle of general covariance) the contradiction is appeared.
If the three masses are equal, then it is a wrong conclusion. Because as the object
temperatures are different, it will contain the different thermal energy. According to the
special theory of relativity, the energy may be translated into mass, thus for the same object,
when its temperatures are different, its masses are different. But the reason for this mistake is
the supposition that the two basic principles of general theory of relativity (the principle of
equivalence and the principle of general covariance) do not have contradictory. Therefore this
supposition is wrong.

85
 It should be noted that, because the temperature, inertial and gravitational mass are not
equal, in passing we find another example that between the special theory of relativity and the
general theory of relativity the contradictory is appeared.

3 Mistakes of the basic principles of special and general theory of relativity

Firstly we discuss the mistakes of the two basic principles of special theory of relativity.
According to the special principle of relativity, physical laws are the same in all inertial
reference frames.
If the meaning of “same” is “completely equal”, then the special principle of relativity
has the question in the philosophy.
In the world never have two completely equal leaves.
For any two reference frames (coordinate systems), the descriptions to some physical
laws impossibly to be completely same. Regarding the different reference-bodies (or their
state of motion), at least we may say, the convenient degrees to describe “the law of nature”
are different. That is the reason that the rectangular coordinates and polar coordinates are
more universal (or more predominant) than other coordinates.
Especially, if these physical laws refer to the quantity relations, or for the reason that
some conditions are different, the descriptions for them may be completely dissimilar.
For example, for the law of sound velocity, we may say that, “on the earth's surface with
air temperature is 15℃, the sound velocity is 340m/s”.
But, for the airplane flying with the sound velocity, if its flight direction is consistent
with the sound propagation direction, then the sound velocity is 0m/s. If its flight direction is
opposite to the sound propagation direction, then the sound velocity is 680m/s.
Moreover, for the coordinate systems in vacuum state, among them the sound simply
cannot propagate, thus the sound velocity is 0m/s forever. Please note this conclusion,
because we can see later that no other than this conclusion, will cause the Lorentz
transformation to induce the wrong result.
The reader may display own imagination as far as possible, to find more misgivings
about the special principle of relativity.
According to the principle of constant speed of light, light is propagated in empty space
in straight lines with a velocity c= 300,000 km/s.
For the experimental confirmations to the principle of constant speed of light, we should
say that the experiments are extremely limited, many factors have not considered. For
example, under the strong heat source radiation, whether or not the speed of light is the same
as no heat source radiation?
For the light propagation, if on a certain point to project two lights along the opposite
direction at the same time, then the speed for these two lights to be mutually far away no
longer is a speed of light, but is two times of speed of light. In other words, if taking one of
these two lights as the reference system, then the speed of another light is -2c. Not only this
86
example indicates that the principle of constant speed of light is wrong, but also demonstrates
the contradiction between the special principle of relativity and the principle of constant speed
of light.
Moreover, Einstein also pointed out that, one of the significant inferences from the
general principle of relativity is: in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in
gravitational fields. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position. Therefore the special theory of relativity cannot
claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard
the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).
Here we have a problem immediately: Only in the gravitational field could the light be
curving?
Be careful, Einstein wrote that, the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited
domain of validity. In other words, this is another example that between the special theory of
relativity and the general theory of relativity the contradictory is appeared.
Second we discuss the mistakes of the two basic principles of general theory of
relativity.
Now we discuss the question of the principle of equivalence (inertia mass and
gravitational mass are equal). Still consider the temperature question. For the heavenly body
moves around the sun, if the sun does not radiate the heat energy, then the principle of
equivalence may be correct. But, the sun radiates the heat energy. Front already has said, as
the object temperatures are different, then its masses are also different, therefore, the inertia
mass under one kind of temperature is not the same as the gravitational mass under another
kind of temperature.
Thus it can be seen, the principle of equivalence at least should be revised as follows:
Under the same temperature the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are equal.
But another question will be coming, the masses of some objects also could be changed
in the electromagnetic field, thereupon the principle of equivalence should be revised again as
follows: Under the same temperature and the same electromagnetic field situation the inertial
mass and the gravitational mass are equal.
To this analogizes, when will such revisions be finished?
As for the question of principle of relativity (the principle of general covariance), it does
not need us to point out, Einstein himself already revised his original viewpoint. In other
words, to withdraw a stride from his originally proposed principle of relativity (the principle
of general covariance).
In reference [1] Einstein pointed out that, the following statement corresponds to the
fundamental idea of the general principle of relativity: “All Gaussian coordinate systems are
essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature”.
Here, Einstein already has obviously drawn back a step, from “All coordinate systems
are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature”, drew back to be
87
restricted in “all Gaussian coordinate systems” only.
As for the reason to draw back this step, we cannot find the explanation.
A logical explanation is that the general principle of relativity has encountered the
problem.
Moreover, it also has another question: Why has to draw back to “all Gaussian
coordinate systems”? We cannot find the explanation also. A logical explanation is that,
because the general theory of relativity used the Gaussian coordinate systems, therefore it
could not draw back further.
It is difficult to understand that, the Einstein already discarded the general principle of
relativity, i.e., “All coordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the
general laws of nature” (or similar statement), but at present it still be used in many
textbooks!
Here we present an example to show that all coordinate systems are not essentially
equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature.
As well-known, the fractal distribution reads

C
N=
rD
The fractal distribution is a straight line only in the double logarithmic coordinates.
Therefore, if some law of nature conforms to the fractal distribution rule, then the law that
“the change of this natural phenomenon conforms to the linear rule” is only correct in the
double logarithmic coordinates.

4 Applicable scopes of special and general theory of relativity

Firstly we discuss the applicable scope of special theory of relativity.
Because the two basic principles of special theory of relativity are the special principle
of relativity and the principle of constant speed of light, we may say that, in the case that
these two principles are correct simultaneously, generally the special theory of relativity is
applicable.
For the experiment of Fizeau, these two principles are correct simultaneously.
It should be noted that, in special case, even if these two principles are correct
simultaneously, it also possibly causes the wrong result. For example the Lorentz
transformation may cause the wrong result.
Secondly we discuss the applicable scope of general theory of relativity.
Because the two basic principles of general theory of relativity are the principle of
equivalence and the principle of general covariance, we may say that, in the case that these
two principles are correct simultaneously, generally the general theory of relativity is
applicable.

88
 For the problems of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, deflection of light by a
gravitational field, displacement of spectral lines towards the red and so on, these two
principles are correct simultaneously.
Similarly, in special case, even if these two principles are correct simultaneously, it also
possibly causes the wrong result.

5 From mathematics principle or physical principle to establish the physical theory

Einstein thought that , every general law of nature must be so constituted that it is
[1]

transformed into a law of exactly the same form when, instead of the space-time variables x,
y, z, t of the original coordinate system K, we introduce new space-time variables x', y', z', t'
of a coordinate system K'. In this connection the relation between the ordinary and the
accented magnitudes is given by the Lorentz transformation. Or in brief: General laws of
nature are covariant with respect to Lorentz transformations. This is a definite mathematical
condition that the theory of relativity demands of a natural law, and in virtue of this, the
theory becomes a valuable heuristic aid in the search for general laws of nature.
This speech extremely and clearly indicated the viewpoint that to command physics with
mathematics, instead of command mathematics with physics. This really is Einstein’s biggest
misleading to the physics.
Every general law or principle of physics must automatically satisfy the covariance in
some significance (but it is not the covariance in the significance of theory of relativity), or it
is correct for all coordinate systems (but it doesn’t have the completely same forms). For
example, the law of conservation of energy may automatically satisfy the covariance in some
significance, namely it is correct for all coordinate systems. But it doesn’t have the
completely same forms, for different coordinate systems, the sizes of conservation are
different.
Therefore, it completely is unnecessary to propose the explicit mathematical condition to
the physical law in advance. The physical theory should be established from the physical
principle.
It should be noted that, Newton and Einstein formed a sharp contrast. As well-known,
Newton was the greatest mathematician, while Einstein wasn’t a mathematician. But as
establishing the physical theory, Newton simply didn’t apply the profound mathematical tool.
The Newton’s first law and third law nearly didn’t apply mathematics. The second law only
applied the multiplication operation. The law of universal gravitation also only applied the
multiplication, division and square operation. Newton’s rich and profound mathematical
knowledge only was applied to realize the utilization of the simple and important physical
laws.

6 Wrong results caused by Lorentz transformation

89
 First example, suppose we have two reference systems at the vacuum state and their
relative speed isn’t equal to zero, there is an alarm clock in a reference system, because it is at
the vacuum state, the sound propagation speed is equal to zero. According to the Lorentz
transformation, in the second reference system the sound propagation speed will not be equal
to zero. This obviously is wrong.
Second example, from the Lorentz transformation expression we may see that, the speed
of light is the limit of speed. Once appear the speed faster than light, the Lorentz
transformation either is not correct, or will cause the wrong conclusion.
But we already said in front, if on a certain point to project two lights along the opposite
direction at the same time, then the speed for these two lights to be mutually far away is two
times of speed of light. In other words, in this case, the Lorentz transformation will obtain the
speed for these two lights to be mutually far away is still equal to the speed of light. That is
wrong.
The Lorentz transformation causes the wrong conclusions that certainly are not limited
in these two examples, the reader may try to propose other examples.

7 Other mistakes caused by theory of relativity and some questions cannot be solved by
theory of relativity
The phenomena of “rods look shorter and clocks look slower” derived by theory of
relativity can be stated as follows.
The rigid rod is shorter when in motion in the direction of its length than when at rest,
and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod.
As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.
Now we consider the phenomenon of “clocks look slower”, the purpose is to present a
wrong conclusion derived by theory of relativity.
As well-known, the phenomenon of “clocks look slower” causes the twin paradox:
According to theory of relativity, supposing there are pair of twins, the younger brother keeps
on the Earth, the elder brother roams through the outer space as an astronaut. As the elder
brother returns to the Earth, he will be much younger than his younger brother. The twin
paradox means: Because the movement is relative, also may think the younger brother is
carrying on the space navigation, therefore the younger brother should be much younger than
the elder brother. Such two conclusions mutually conflict.
There are many explanations given by theory of relativity to this twin paradox (some of
them even use general theory of relativity to carry on the complex computation), but their
basic starting point is as follows: Two brothers' states of motion are different. Thereupon we
may make another special twin paradox that two brothers’ states of motion are quite same. If
the younger brother doesn’t keep on the Earth, but the elder brother and the younger brother
all ride their respective high speed airships, facing the completely opposite directions to
navigate from the identical time and the identical site with the same speed along a straight
90
line, after a quite long period they begin to decelerate simultaneously until static, then they
turn around to navigate again along the same straight line with the manner of front to front,
finally simultaneously return to the starting point. From the younger brother's viewpoint that,
according to the theory of relativity, the elder brother should be much younger than the
younger brother; Similarly, from the elder brother's viewpoint that, according to the theory of
relativity, the younger brother should be much younger than the elder brother. Who is much
younger to the end?
With the theory of relativity, how to explain this special twin paradox that two brothers’
states of motion are quite same?
According to the kinetic energy formula of special theory of relativity, when the speed v
approaches speed of light c, the kinetic energy approaches infinity; when the speed v is
greater than speed of light c, the kinetic energy is an imaginary number. But, it already
pointed out in reference [2] that there is no speed barrier in the universe. We also pointed out
that, if on a certain point to project two lights along the opposite direction at the same time,
then the speed for these two lights to be mutually far away no longer is a speed of light, but is
two times of speed of light. In this case, can we have the imaginary number kinetic energy?
We cannot. Here the wrong result is derived by the kinetic energy formula of special theory of
relativity.
We already pointed out that, the two basic principles of special theory of relativity, in
certain situations, will not be correct. Therefore, all conclusions of special theory of relativity,
in certain situations also are not correct. The most famous formula in theory of relativity,
E=mc2, also is not exceptional, it needs to be revised in certain situations. Some of the revised
formula may be found in the related literature or on the internet.
Einstein believed that, there is no more common−place statement than that the world in
which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum.
Space is a three-dimensional continuum. By this we mean that it is possible to describe
the position of a point (at rest) by means of three numbers (coordinates) x, y, z, and that there
is an indefinite number of points in the neighborhood of this one, which may be as near as we
choose to the respective values of the coordinates x, y, z, of the first point.
Minkowski thought that the “world” is naturally four dimensional. For it is composed of
individual events, each of which is described by four numbers, namely, three space
coordinates x, y, z, and a time coordinate, the time value t.
The four-dimensional mode of consideration of the “world” is natural on the theory of
relativity, since according to this theory time is robbed of its independence.
But, in many situations, it is not enough to describe the movement of an event in space
by means of three numbers (coordinates) x, y, z. For example, for the planet movement
around the sun, it needs six coordinates (other three coordinates are those to determine the
planet rotation around x, y, z axis). In fact, in the engineering, those six coordinates have
already been used. For example, in finite element structure analysis, as well as in ship
91
movement analysis.
Now we have this question: How many coordinates are needed to describe the movement
of an event in space? Six coordinates are sufficient?
As if we may say that, the coordinate numbers to describe the movement of an event in
space should not be fixed. For different question, should have the different solution. For
example regarding certain questions, if facilitates, we may again add the temperature
coordinate, mass coordinate and so on.
In fact, at present many physical theories have already been established in higher
dimensional space. Such as the string theory and so on, they must be established in the space
higher than nine-dimension, some even in 26-dimensional space.
As for time, it also does not need to define as one-dimensional. At present, the time was
four-dimensional, three-dimensional, six-dimensional and so on already are proposed. Now
we derive one kind of three-dimensional time according to the related formula of Lorentz
transformation.
Choosing two different reference systems S and S', their coordinates are x, y, z and x',
y', z' respectively. At beginning S and S' are superposition, in system S there is a radial line
r to pass the origin of coordinates O, the angles between r and x, y, z are α,β,γ respectively.
The corresponding radial line in system S' is r'. Then the origin of coordinates O' of system
S' moves with uniform speed V along the direction of radial line r, and x', y', z' are always
paralleled with x, y, z respectively. The signs tx,ty,tzand trdenote the times in the directions

of x, y, z respectively in system S, the signs t ' x ' , t ' y ' , t ' z ' and t ' r ' denote the times in the

directions of x’, y’, z’ respectively in system S’.

Suppose the system S is absolutely at rest, then we have

t x = t y = t z = tr = t （1）
For the theory of relativity, suppose system S' is transmitted along x-axis, then the time
transformation formula in Lorentz transformation reads

t' =
t − (V / c 2 ) x
(1 − V 2 / c 2 ) 1/ 2
（2）
According to this, suppose system S' is transmitted along the direction of r, then the time
transformation formula in the direction of r’ reads

t 'r ' =
t − (V / c 2 ) r
(1 − V 2 / c 2 ) 1/ 2
（3）
To project it into the directions of x', y', z', we obtain the times of t ' x ' , t ' y ' , t ' z ' along the

directions of x', y', z' in system S' are as follows

t ' x ' = t ' r ' cos α （4）

92
 t ' y ' = t 'r ' cos β （5）
t ' z ' = t 'r ' cos γ （6）

Thus, for a special case all the related formulas of the three-dimensional time in system
S’ have already been derived.

Now we discuss the problem of a body’s restrained motion in gravitational field such
as a small ball rolls along an incline that cannot be solved by relativity
Firstly, the variational principles established by the law of conservation of energy can
be given with least squares method (LSM).
Supposing that in a closed system the initial total energy equals W (0) ，for time t the
total energy equals W (t ) ，then according to the law of conservation of energy, it gives
W (0) = W (t ) （7）
It can be written as

RW =
W (t )
W ( 0)
−1 = 0 （8）
According to LSM, for the interval [ t1 ,t 2 ] ，we can get the following variational
principle

（9）
t2

Π = ∫ RW2 dt = min 0
t1

where, min 0 denotes the minimum value of functional Π and it should be equal to zero.
Besides the time coordinate, another one also can be used. For example, for interval
[ x1 , x 2 ], the following variational principle can be given according to the law of conservation
of energy

（10）
x2

Π = ∫ RW2 dx = min 0
x1

The above-mentioned principles are established by using the law of conservation of

energy directly. Sometimes, a certain principle should be established by using the law of
conservation of energy indirectly. For example, a special physical quantity Q is
interested ，not only it can be calculated by using the law of conservation of energy, but also
can be calculated by using other laws (for this paper they are the law of gravity, Newton’s
second law and so on). For distinguishing the values, denotes the value given by other laws
as Q ，while denotes the value given by the law of conservation of energy as Q' ，then the
value of RW can be redefined as follows

RW =
Q
Q'
−1 = 0 （11）
93
 Substituting Eq. （11）into Eqs.（9）and（10），as Q' is the result calculated with
the law of conservation of energy, it gives the variational principle established by using the
law of conservation of energy indirectly. Otherwise, it is clear that the extent of the value of
Q accords with Q' .

Substituting the related quantities into Eq. 9 （ ）or Eq.（10），the equations derived
by the condition of extreme can be written as follows

∂Π ∂Π
=
∂ai ∂k i
=0 （12）
After solving these equations, besides the original undetermined values, the improved
law of gravity, and Newton’s second law can be reached at one time. According to the value
of Π , the effect of the solution can be judged. The more close to zero of the value of Π , the
better effect of the solution.
Now we discuss an example. As shown in Fig.1, we assume that a small ball (as a mass
point) rolls along a long incline from A to B. Its initial velocity equals zero and the friction
and rotating energy are neglected.
Let circle O' denotes the Earth, M denotes its mass; m denotes the mass of the small
ball (taken as mass point P), Supposing that O’A is a plumb line, coordinate x uprights to
O’A, coordinate y uprights to coordinate x (parallel to O’A), BC uprights to O’A. The
lengths of OA, OB, BC, and AC are all equal to H, O’C equals the radius R of the Earth.
For this example, the value of v P2 which is the square of the velocity for the ball
located on point P is interested, for the sake of distinguish, denotes the value given by the
improved law of gravity and Newton’s second law as v P2 ，while denotes the value given by
the law of conservation of energy as v ' 2P ，then Eq.（10）can be written as
0
vP2
Π = ∫ ( 2 − 1) 2 dx = min 0
v' P
（13）
−H

Fig.1 A small ball rolls from A to B

Now the improved law of gravity and Newton’s second law with the form of constant
dimension fractal can be written as follows

94
 F =−
GMm
rD
（14）
F = ma1+ε （15）
where, D = const , ε = const .
According to the improved law of gravity, i.e., Eq. (14), the gravitational potential
energy of the ball located on point P reads

V =−
GMm
( D − 1)rOD'P−1
（16）
According to the law of conservation of energy, we can get

−
GMm
D −1
1
= mv'2P −
( D − 1)rO ' A 2
GMm
( D − 1)rOD'P−1
（17）
And therefore

v' 2P =
2GM 1
[ D −1 −
1
D − 1 rO 'P ( R + H ) D −1
] （18）
Considering the straight line between A and B reads

y = x+H （19）
For the ball located at point P

dv/dt = a （20）
Because

ds 2dx
dt = =
v v
Therefore

vdv = a 2 dx （21）
The force along to the tangent is

Fa =
GMm 1
rOD'P 2
（22）
According to the improved Newton’s second law, for point P, the acceleration along to
the tangent is

a=(
Fa 1 / 1+ε
m
)
GM 1 / 1+ε
=( D
rO 'P 2
) （23）
From Eq. (21), it gives

95
 vdv = { 2
GM
2 D/2
[( H + x) + ( R + H − y ) ] 2
}1/1+ε 2dx （24）
For the two sides, we run integral operation from A to P, it gives

（25）
xP
GM
vP2 = 2 ∫ { 2 2 D/2
}1/1+ε ( 2 )ε /1+ε dx
−H
[( H + x) + ( R − x) ]
Then the value can be calculated by numerical integral method.
The given data are assumed as follows: For the Earth, GM =3.99×1014m3/s2; the radius
of the Earth R =6.37×106m, H = R /10, try to solve the problem shown in Fig. 1, find the
solution for the value of vB2 ，and derive the improved law of gravity and the improved
Newton’s second law at one time.
Firstly, according to the original law of gravity, and the original Newton’s second law
(i.e., let D =2 in Eq. (14), ε =0 in Eq. (15)) and the law of conservation of energy, all the
related quantities can be calculated, then substitute them into Eq. (13), it gives
Π0 =571.4215
Here, according to the law of conservation of energy, it gives v '2B =1.0767× ，
×107 while
according to the original law of gravity, and the original Newton’s second law, it gives
v B2 =1.1351× ，
×107 the difference is about 5.4%. For the reason that the value of Π 0 is not
equal to zero, then the values of D and ε can be decided by the optimum seeking method.
At present the optimum seeking methods can be divided into two types, one type may not
depend on the initial values which program may be complicated, and another type requires
the better initial values which program is simple. One method of the second type, namely
the searching method will be used in this paper.
Firstly, the value of D is fixed so let D =2 ，then search the value of ε ，as
ε =0.0146, the value of Π reaches the minimum 139.3429；then the value of ε is
fixed，and search the value of D ，as D =1.99989, the value of Π reaches the minimum
137.3238；then the value of D is fixed，and search the value of ε ，as ε =0.01458, the
value of Π reaches minimum 137.3231. Because the last two results are highly close, the
searching can be stopped, and the final results are as follows

，
D =1.99989 ε =0.01458 ， Π =137.3231
Here the value of Π is only 24% of Π 0 . While according to the law of conservation
of energy, it gives v '2B =1.0785× ，
×107 according to the improved law of gravity and the
improved Newton’s second law, it gives vB2 =1.1073×
×107, the difference is about 2.7% only.
The results suitable for this example with the constant dimension fractal form are as
follows
The improved law of gravity reads

GMm
F =− (26)
r 1.99989
96
 The improved Newton’s second law reads

F = ma1.01458 (27)
Now we discuss the dimension (unit) of the improved law of gravity and the improved
Newton’s second law. Two precepts can be given.
1+ε 1
First one: To prescript the dimensions of a and r 2−ε use the same for a and r 2
separately.
Second one: To handle the dimension, for each formula, the right side multiplies by a
factor, for example, the improved Newton’s second law can be written as
F = K ' ma1+ε ，where the value of K ' is equal to 1, while the dimension of K ' should be
chosen to make the dimensions of the left side and right side identical.
The first precept is used in this paper for the advantage that the formula form may not
be changed, while for the second one the formula form will be changed. Of course, other
precept also may be discussed further.
Now we discuss the result given by the special relativity for this example. According to
SR, the Newton’s second law reads

F=
d
dt
(mvγ ) （28）
1
where, γ =
v2
1−
c2
For the case as shown in Fig.1, from Eq. (28) we can get
dv mv 2 dv v2 v 2γ 3
F ≈ γm +γ 3 2 ≈ ma (1 + 2 + 2 ) (29)
dt c dt 2c c
Substituting v B2 =1.0767× ×108 m/s into Eq. (29), it gives
×107 m2/s2, c=3×
F = ma(1 + 1.7945 × 10 −10 )
This means that, if 5 significance digits are required, then the special relativity will
give the same result as given by the original Newton’s second law, namely the result of SR
is not agreed with the result given by the law of conservation of energy.
Now we discuss the results given by the variable dimension fractal.
Supposing that the improved law of gravity and Newton’s second law with the form of
2 −δ
variable dimension fractal can be written as follows: F = −GMm / r , δ = k 2u ;
F = ma1+ε , ε = k1u ; where u is the horizon distance that the small ball rolls
（ u = x + H ）.
With the similar searching method, the values of k1 , k 2 can be determined, and the
results are as follows

ε = 8.779 ×10−8 u ， δ = 1.206×10 −12

u
The results of variable dimension fractal are much better than that of constant
dimension fractal. For example, the final Π =0.1906446, it is only 0.033% of Π 0 . While
according to the law of conservation of energy, it gives v '2B =1.0767× ，
×107 according to the
97
improved law of gravity and the improved Newton’s second law, it gives vB2 =1.0781×
×107,
the difference is about 0.13% only.

Einstein believed that, the Newtonian mechanics was unable to solve the problem of
advance of Mercury’s perihelion and the problem of gravitational defection of a photon orbit
around the sun. Only the general theory of relativity was able to solve these problems.
Actually it is not the case. With the help of some results of general relativity, the improved
law of gravity can be derived.
As discussing the problem of planet’s movement around the sun according to the general
relativity, the following equation can be given[7]

1 3GMu 2
u"+u = + (30)
p c2

where, u =
1
r
；G – gravitational constant；M – mass of sun；c – velocity of light； p -
half normal focal chord.
Due to the central force, the orbit differential equation (Binet’s formula) reads

F
h 2 u 2 (u"+u ) = − (31)
m

2
where, h – a constant.

Substituting Eq. (30) into Eq. (31), we have

1 3GMu 2
F = − mh 2 u 2 ( + ) (32)
p c2
The original law of gravity reads

GMm
F =− 2
= −GMmu 2 (33)
r
For Eq. (32) and Eq. (33), comparing the terms including u2, we have

h 2 = GMp

2
Substituting h into Eq.(32), we have

3G 2 M 2 mpu 4
F = −GMmu 2 − (34)
c2

1
Substituting u = into Eq. (34), the improved law of gravity reads
r

98
 F =−
GMm 3G 2 M 2 mp
r2
−
c2r 4
（35）
where: G is gravitational constant, M and m are the masses of the two objects, r is the
distance between the two objects, c is the speed of light, p is the half normal chord for the
object m moving around the object M along with a curve, and the value of p is given by: p =
a(1-e2) (for ellipse), p = a (e2-1) (for hyperbola), p = y2/2x (for parabola).
For the problem of planet’s movement around the sun, substituting p = a (1-e2) into Eq.
(35), it gives

F =−
GMm 3G 2 M 2 ma(1 − e 2 )
r2
−
c2r 4
（36）
For the problem of gravitational deflection of photon orbit around the sun, according to
the general relativity, the hyperbolic half normal focal chord reads

c 2 r02
p=
2GM
where, r0 represents the nearest distance to the center of the sun as shown in Fig.2.
Hence, we have the following improved law of gravity

F =−
GMm 1.5GMmr02
r2
−
r4
（37）

Now we prove that, according to Eq. (37), the deflection angle calculated by Newton’s
Mechanics equals two times of the value given by the original law of gravity, and equals to
the value given by general relativity.

Fig.2 Gravitational deflection of photon orbit around the sun

Supposing that m represents the mass of photon. Because the deflection angle is very
small, we can assume that x=r0; thus on point (x, y), its coordinate can be written as

（r ，y）, then the force acted on photon reads

0

99
 Fx =
Fr0
(r + y 2 )1 / 2
2
（38）
0

GMm 1.5GMmr02
where, F = − −
r2 r4

Because

dy 1
mv x = ∫ Fx dt = ∫ Fx
vy c ∫
≈ Fx dy

Hence

GMr0 dy 1.5GMr03 dy
∫−∞ (r02 + y 2 )3 / 2 ∫
∞ ∞
vx ≈ − −
c c −∞ (r + y 2 ) 5 / 2
0
2

Then we have

vx ≈ −
2GM 2GM
cr0
−
cr0
（39）
The deflection angle reads

vx 4GM
φ ≈ tgφ ≈ = (40)
c c 2 r0

The value of φ is the same as given by general relativity. This means that the improved

Newton’s formula also can be used to solve the problem of movement with high velocity.

It should be noted that in the area of experiment, reference [6] already pointed out that
the momentum-energy relation given by relativity didn’t agree with some experimental
results.

8 New theory to replace or partially replace the theory of relativity

How to establish the new theory to replace or partially replace the theory of relativity?
We think that the law (principle) of conservation of energy may be taken as the
interdisciplinary grand unified theory to unified process all the problems related to energy in
physics, astronomy, mechanics, chemistry, biology, medicine, engineering and so on; taking
the unified variational principle for quantization in dynamic Smarandache multi-space [4] and
the fractal method as the interdisciplinary grand unified method; and taking the “science of
conservation of energy” to replace or partially replace the theory of relativity.
In fact, the concept of “science of conservation of energy” already appeared in 2004 [3, 5].
In science of conservation of energy, the law of conservation of energy plays a leading

100
role. For all problems related with energy, the law of conservation of energy is the only truth;
other laws will be derived from or verified by the law of conservation of energy. At present
four issues are discussed. First, the relationship between force, mass and velocity is
reconsidered according to the law of conservation of energy. It is shown that in the general

expression of the force F = f (m, v, x, y, z, t ) , the form of the function can be obtained by

applying the law of conservation of energy. Second, it is shown that other laws, such as the
law of gravity and law of Coulomb, can be derived by applying the law of conservation of
energy. In passing, the changing rule for the gravitational coefficient (the so-called
gravitational constant) is given. Thirdly, it is shown that other laws should be verified or
denied according to the law of conservation of energy, and as examples, it is shown that the
law of conservation of momentum and the law of conservation of angular momentum are not
correct (as their results are in contradiction with the law of conservation of energy). Fourthly,
an old discipline of sciences can be updated into a new one; for example, Newton’s
mechanics can be updated into New Newton’s mechanics, in which the law of conservation of
energy is taken as the source law to obtain the law of gravity and Newton’s second law. New
Newton’s mechanics can be used partly in place of relativity and even can be used to solve
problems which cannot be solved by relativity.
Here we actually already propose a new method to establish the natural science theory,
i.e., through taking a principle or law as the only truth, to establish a new discipline. This
discipline may process unified many questions that is related to this principle or law in many
different original disciplines.
Perhaps the reader wants to ask that, why we take the law of conservation of energy as
the only truth? Whether or not the law of conservation of momentum or the law of
conservation of angular momentum can be taken as the only truth?
Essentially, the law of conservation of momentum or the law of conservation of angular
momentum also can be taken as the only truth, thus establish the science of conservation of
momentum or the science of conservation of angular momentum. But, the applicable scope of
the law of conservation of energy is much greater than that of the law of conservation of
momentum or the law of conservation of angular momentum. For example in chemistry,
medicine and so on, the law of conservation of momentum or the law of conservation of
angular momentum law nearly cannot be used. Therefore we should take the law of
conservation of energy as the only truth.
As for taking the unified variational principle for quantization in dynamic Smarandache
multi-space and the fractal method as the interdisciplinary grand unified method, the reason
can be stated briefly as follows.
Firstly, we discuss the applications of Dynamic Smarandache Multi-Space (DSMS)
Theory. Supposing for the n different dynamic spaces (n is a dynamic positive integer and the
function of time) the different equations have been established, as these n different dynamic
101
spaces synthesize the DSMS, and they are mutually affected, some new coupled equations
need to establish in the DSMS to replace some equations in the original dynamic spaces, as
well as supply other equations to process the contact, boundary conditions and so on. For the
unified processing of all equations in the DSMS, this paper proposes to run the quantization
processing to all the variables and all the equations and establish the unified variational
principle of quantization with the collocation method based on the method of weighted
residuals, and simultaneously solve all the equations in the DSMS with the optimization
method. Thus by using the unified variational principle of quantization in the DSMS and the
fractal quantization method, will pave the way for the unified processing of the theory of
relativity and the quantum mechanics, and the unified processing of the four foundational
interactions. At present this method can be used to find the coupled solution for the problem
of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Secondly, as well-known, the fractal method has been successfully used in some fields, it
is used to find the organized structure that deeply hidden in the complex phenomenon.
According to many scholars' viewpoints, it will be able to have great development and obtain
a bigger success in the 21st century.
At present for the fractal method in common use, the fractal dimension D is a constant,
for example the fractal dimension D for the coastline may be taken as 1.02, 1.25 and so on.
This kind of fractal may be called the constant dimension fractal. But, in nature the
phenomenon that strictly satisfies the relation of constant dimension fractal simply does not
exist. Therefore the massive complex phenomena are unable to process with constant
dimension fractal. In order to overcome this difficulty, now the concept of variable dimension
fractal has been proposed, namely the fractal dimension D is the function of the characteristic
scale r. Later, based on the complex number dimension fractal and the fractal series, the
variable dimension fractal in hyper complex spaces (in which the fractal dimension D is the
function of variable and hyper complex) also is presented.
In a word, the domestic and foreign scholars have already developed the fractal method
in many aspects.
Therefore, the fractal method will certainly have the extremely widespread applications.

References
[1] Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Methuen & Co Ltd, 1924
[2] Smarandache, Florentin, There Is No Speed Barrier In The Universe, Bulletin of Pure
and Applied Sciences, Delhi, India, Vol. 17D (Physics), No. 1, p. 61, 1998
[3] Florentin Smarandache, V. Christianto, Fu Yuhua, R. Khrapko, J. Hutchison, Unfolding
the Labyrinth: Open Problems in Physics, Mathematics, Astrophysics, and Other Areas of
Science, Hexis-Phoenix, p. 85-99, 2006
[4] Fu Yuhua, A Unified Variational Principle for Quantization in Dynamic Smarandache
Multi-Space, in: Applications of Smarandache’s Notions to Mathematics, Physics, and Other
102
Sciences (Edited by Yuhua FU, Linfan MAO, and Mihaly BENCZE), ILQ, 2007
[5] Fu Yuhua, Science of Conservation of Energy. Journal of Dezhou University. 2004(6):

20 ～24 (in Chinese)

[6] Ji Hao, On Experiment that Measures the Momentum-Energy Relation of Moving
Electrons, Engineering Sciences, 2006, 8(10), 60~65(in Chinese)

：
[7] Hu Ning, General Relativity and Gravitational Field Theory. Beijing Science Press,

2000(in Chinese)

103
Reconsideration on Validity of the Principle of Relativity in Relativistic
Electromagnetism
Guo Kaizhe1, Guo Chongwu2
1 Electronic Engineering College, University of Science and Technology of China, Chengdu,
China;
2 Hoff Lu Matter Regularity Institute, Shanghai, China

Abstract: The applicability of the principle of relativity was reconsidered. There are
magnetic field forces between positive charge and negative charge in an electric dipole which
is moving in a laboratory reference frame. Whereas, examining the electric dipole in a
reference frame which is at rest relative to the electric dipole, we find no magnetic field force
exists between the two charges. The results obtained in the two frames are different, which
indicate some electromagnetism laws do not satisfy the principle of relativity whether under
Galilean transformation or under Lorentz transformation. The form invariance of Maxwell’s
equations under Lorentz transformation has been regarded as deeply significant, but the
present research shows that the form invariance of the field equations is nothing more than an
expression of the Doppler Effect.
Keywords:The principle of relativity; validity; inertial reference frame; magnetic field force;
Lorentz transformation; Maxwell’s equations

1 Introduction

The Special Relativity has changed the space-time concepts formed in Newton’s time, and it
was based on the principle of relativity and the constancy of the velocity of light [1]. In the
past century, the two postulates had been accepted universally. Nevertheless, the Special
Relativity has been challenged continuously since its establishment from both theories and
experiments. In 2000, Nature journal declared an experiment result finding super-light
velocity by L. J. Wang et al. [2]. Thenceforth, different laboratories in the world have
successively accomplished a series of parallel test results about super-light velocity. In 2007,
C. W. Guo proved that the crossed Doppler Effect of light existed in Newton’s space-time
concepts [3], that is to say, a moving clock runs slow cannot be thought to be “time dilation”.
In 2011, C. W. Guo revealed a conflict between the relativistic mechanics and the momentum
conservation law [4], which indicated that the relativistic mechanics was faced with a serious
difficulty.
In the classical physics, the mechanics laws satisfy the requirement of the principle of
relativity under Galilean transformation. Upon the development of Maxwell’s equations for
electromagnetism, those equations were not found to satisfy that same principle under the
104
same transformation. With the establishment of the Special Relativity, the laws of mechanics
were revised to satisfy the principle of relativity under Lorentz transformation, and Maxwell’s
equations were shown to satisfy that same principle under Lorentz transformation.
Thenceforth, the principle of relativity has been thought to be applicable for all physical laws,
which mean that all physical laws maintain invariant form in all inertial reference frames
connected by Lorentz transformation.
However, in the present research, it was discovered that some laws in electromagnetism are
not quite like that. Furthermore, it was found that the form invariance of Maxwell’s equations
has a precedent in the familiar Doppler Effect.

2 Force Analysis within an electric dipole

In a laboratory reference frame S, we have an electric dipole. The positive charge P and

negative charge N within the electric dipole lie on x , y -coordinate plane, and the

coordinate values of the negative charge N are bigger than those of the positive charge P .
Denote by α the angle between the direction of line segment PN and the x -axis, let the
distance between the two charges be r , and the electricity quantities of the two charges be q
and − q respectively. Suppose that the electric dipole is moving with a velocity v along the

x -axis direction, according to Biot-Svart law, we get the magnetic strength at point N
produced by the positive charge P ,

µ 0 q v sin α
BN =
4π r2
And according to Ampere law, we have the magnetic force acting on negative charge N ,

µ 0 q 2 v 2 sin α
FN = (1)
4π r2

FN directs towards the y -axis direction. With the same method we get the magnetic force

acting on the positive charge P by the negative charge N ,

µ 0 q 2 v 2 sin α
FP = − (2)
4π r2

Where minus denote that FP is towards the negative y -axis direction. Equation (1) and (2)

indicate that the direction of the electric dipole PN will be perpendicular to the x -axis under

the actions of FN and FP unless the initial condition is α = 0 .

Suppose we have a reference frame S' that is moving relative to the laboratory reference
frame S at the velocity v along the x -axis direction, the electric dipole is motionless from

105
the view point of observers in the frame S'. The magnetic forces between the positive charge
and negative charge are zero when computing with Biot-Svart law and Ampere law, therefore,
the electric dipole PN may point to any directions in the frame S'. The result is absolutely
inconsistent with that in the laboratory reference frame. Apparently, some electromagnetism
laws can not satisfy the requirement of the principle of relativity whether according to
classical electromagnetism or according to relativistic electromagnetism.

3 Result of Maxwell’s Equations in Lorentz Transformation

The analysis below shows that the form invariance of the field equations is nothing more than
an expression of the Doppler Effect.

Set up two inertial reference frame S and S'. The x -axis is coincident with the x' -axis, y -

axis is parallel to y ' -axis and z -axis parallel to z ' -axis. The frame S' is moving at a velocity

v relative to frame S in the x direction. When the origin of frame S' passes the origin of
frame S, the clocks at the two origins read zero.
Transition of Maxwell’s equations in going from the frame S to the frame S' by Lorentz
transformation gives the equations for Lorentz transformation of the electromagnetic field:

E x' = E x

E y' = γ ( E y − vBz )

E z' = γ ( E z + vB y )

B x' = B x

B y' = γ ( B y + vE z / c 2 )

B z' = γ ( B z − vE y / c 2 )

1
Where γ = , E x , E y , and E z are electric field strengths in the directions of x -
1− v2 / c2

axis, y -axis, and z -axis, respectively, B x , B y , and B z are magnetic field strengths in the

directions of x -axis, y -axis, and z -axis, respectively, and c is the velocity of light. In the
r
free space, the relations between the electric field strength E and the magnetic field strength
r
B in the electromagnetic waves are
r r r
E = −c n × B

106
 r 1 r r
B = n×E
c
r
Where n denotes the unit vector in the direction of the propagation of electromagnetic waves.
Now we suppose the light source that is at rest in the frame S emits light and the light
propagates in the x direction. From the above equations we get

E y' = γ ( 1 − v / c) E y

E z' = γ ( 1 − v / c ) E z

B y' = γ ( 1 − v / c) B y

B z' = γ ( 1 − v / c ) B z

It seems that the equations are the same as the expression of the Doppler Effect.

4 Conclusion

The principle of relativity has been widely recognized to be applicable for the
electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation for as long as one century. However the
present research shows that some electromagnetism laws do not meet the requirement of the
principle of relativity.
In addition, the form invariance of Maxwell’s equations under Lorentz transformation has
been regarded as deeply significant. However, the present research shows that the form
invariance is just a reflection of the Doppler Effect.

References

[1] Einstein A. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies [J]. Ann. Physik,1905, 17: 891-
921.
[2] Wang L J, Kuzmich A, and Dogariu A. Gain-assisted Superluminal Light Propagation [J].
Nature, 2000, 406: 277-279.
[3] Guo C W. Researches of the Crossed Doppler Effect in the Classical Physics [J]. Galilean
Electrodynamics, 2007, 18 (Special Issues 1): 2-6.
[4] Guo C W. Contradictions in the Relativistic Mechanics [J]. Science and Technology
Innovation Herald, 2011, 5: 237-238.

107
Is “The General Theory of Relativity"a Scientific Theory?
Guo Ying-Huan
(Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Beijing 100049. P. R
.China.)
Guo Zhen-Hua
(Dept. Phys. and information technology, Baoji Univ. Arts & Sci., Baoji 721007, Shaanxi,

，
China P. R .China. e-mail:[email protected] ）
Abstract:By carefully comparing the results given by the general theory of relativity and the
actual astronomical observation, the contradiction between them is found to be difficult to
overcome. Furthermore, there is no sign so far of the existence of “the waves” predicted by
the general theory of relativity. Therefore, the general theory of relativity is pointed as a
wrong theory. All the research results and inference based on the general theory of relativity
should be queried.

，
Keywords:The general theory of relativity Gravitational field, the time and space,

curvature, torsion, Field energy, the universe, the origin, evolution.

1 Introduction
Einstein’sresearch in physics, achieved brilliant success, (Special) relativistic far-fetched to
propose a general theory of relativity. General relativity theory is a description of the
gravitational interaction between celestial bodies in the universe. Material strong (S), weak
(W), electromagnetic (EH), gravitational (G) are four interaction theories of gravitation
theory. Evidence that he was “far-fetched”, is due to Newton’sability to prove “the existence
of absolute space-time reference system”, which proposed “rotating bucket experiment”: The
aqueous phase (spinning) “Barrel wall” spin down [relative (in the inertial reference system)
still] the water is flat; the water phase (spinning) “Barrel wall” relatively static [relative (in
the inertial reference system) rotation—bucket of water synchronous rotation ] “sunken”. That
is to say, the “complex and mysterious”“Barrel wall” said absolute reference system. The
Mach thus Mach's principle “by the reference system of the universe all of substances ‘Barrel
wall’ (it’s external) decision is an absolute reference system”. Einstein was thus impatient to
the basis of Mach's principle, proposed his “all space-time reference system ( affine )
equivalent to each other”, the General Principle of Relativity (space-time general covariance),
the creation of a general theory of relativity. In this theory, the material between the
gravitational interactions—gravitational field, and as a material in which the space-time
geometry was treated. However, we have strict that [1], Newton's rotating bucket experiment,

108
in essence,has completely proven the universal principle of relativity flat space-time. Perhaps
Einstein has long been aware of this, which makes him later abandon his general theory of
relativity, Mach's principle reasons for it. This body out of nowhere “principle of general
covariance, talking nonsense like given” generalized principle of relativity, and thus the
establishment of the castles in the air general relativity. The last century, the general theory of
relativity was holding red fire, and took pains (this theory has a complex mathematical
structure) rather inexplicably given theory: “The structure of the universe substances , dark
matter , dark energy”; “universe, the origin of the Big Bang”; “the expansion of the universe,
the evolution of explosive expansion”; “time tunnel” through which can pass through to the
“past” and “future”, etc. This undoubtedly gives a magical and magical. However, the huge
theory and human practice activities (navigation, aviation, aerospace...) irrelevant.
Therefore, very natural scholars: Use general relativity to study our side in the universe’s
meticulous observation part of the structure of the universe. This can either theoretically be a
more accurate understanding of our cosmic environment, but also further witness the absolute
correctness of the theory of general relativity. This proposal is very good. In this way, we now
know very clearly, ironclad accurate observation of facts, to absolute falsification of general
relativity.

2 Questioned:The general theory of relativity is a scientific theory

Proposition: General relativity is false scientific theories
Proof 1: We first give the main results of the general theory of relativity, and then given the
hard facts observed by the human universe’s survival. Directly according to the review, see
“General Theory of Relativity” is correct?

2.1 Some of the main conclusions of the theory of general relativity [2,3]

General relativity to Riemannian space-time R 4 ( x µ / 0 ≤ µ ≤ 3) structure of the affine

reference system based on infinitesimal distance given in R 4

ds 2 = g µν dx µ dxν 。（1）
r
gµν become symmetrical Association 2-order metric tensor in R 4 . The vector a translation
r
deterioration δ a in R 4 , Contact Γκµν covariant/inverter derivative

δ aκ = −Γκµν aκ δ xν (δ aκ = −Γκµν aκ δ xν ),

Γκµν =
1 κλ
2
g ( g µλ ,ν + gνλ , µ − g µν ,λ ), （2）
a;µκ = a,µκ + Γ λκ
µ
a λ (aµ ;κ = aµ ,κ − Γ λµκ aλ ).
Particle in R 4 the trajectory—the geodesic equation

109
d 2 xκ
。（3）
µ ν
κ dx dx
+ Γ =0
ds 2
µν
ds ds

Where Γκµν is contact in R 4 ? Riemann curvature tensor given by the vector of the R 4 2 order

exchange covariant derivative of 2-dimensional surfaces

aλ ,
a;[κµ ,ν ] = Rµνλ
（4）
κ

,λ − Γ γµ Γ λν + Γ γν Γ λµ .
κ
Rµνλ = Γκλµ ,ν − Γνµ
κ κ γ κ γ

In Riemann space-time R 4 , covariant indicators symmetry due to contact, 1-dimensional

motion of the particle track—the geodesic torsion Tµνκ identically zero.

Tµνκ = Γ κµν − Γνµ

κ
= 0. （5）
In the R 4 , these substances of symmetry energy—momentum—tension tensor density Tµν ( x)

of Einstein's gravitational field equation

Gµν = −8π GTµν ;

Gµν = Rµν −
1
g µν R, Rµν = Rκµν
κ
, R = g µν Rµν .
（6）
2

Where Rµν for Ritchie curvature tensor, Gµν for the Einstein tensor.Centroid of the coordinate

origin in R 4 , the quality of the m objects, the strict geometry in the R 4 [equation (5)
Schwarschild’s rigorous solution]

ds 2 = (1 −
2Gm 2 2
2
cr
)c dt −
1
2
1 − 2Gm / c r
（）
dr 2 − r 2 (dθ 2 + sin 2 θ dϕ 2 ). 7

This means that there are 3 space spherically symmetric structure in the R 4 .
2.2. The human universe survival observed irrefutable fact that [4, 5]
Since the birth of mankind on Earth,“Pan gu created the heaven splitting”. The discovery of
the day, month, and stars. Claudius Ptolemaeus (BC90-168) in the 2nd century AD, the
geocentric draw geocentric system celestial bodies figure. Copernicus (1473-1543) in the
early 16th century proposed the heliocentric system. Which gives the extremely concise
description of the laws of celestial bodies, which is more objective truth. This is entirely in
line with the truth avenue from simple principle. Now no one I do not know: The earth goes
around the heliocentric (approximate) turn, the moon orbits around the center of the earth
(approximate) transfer. To the precise results of the observations of the heliocentric system,
−5 −4
Earth orbit curvature about 1.15 ×10 . Not only curvature about lunar orbit 1.39 ×10 , and

−4
torsion about 1.155 ×10 .Visible the lunar orbit torsion or large.

110
2.3. Directly from the above results, we see that, in General Relativity, due to the symmetry
of the R 4 , the moderate regulatory covariant indicators Riemann space R 4 torsion constant 0.
Torsion of the actual trajectory of the planet (such as the moon) the heliocentric system is
non-zero. Huge contradiction between the results and the actual observed facts which make
the “general relativity”. Some scholars may be aware of this problem, and torsion of general
relativity [6]. Riemannian space-time R 4 with torsion, however, will lose the only three-
dimensional spherical symmetry in the R 4 , which makes R 4 no symmetry (covariant) sexual.
This theory will completely and “special/general relativity principle” irrelevant, no say
general relativity? Therefore, the contradiction here is absolutely impossible to approve the
amendment of the general relativity to be overcome. A theory with actual observations are
completely the opposite, that the theory can be absolutely sure is wrong. However, this theory
is generally as “science”, we can only say that this “science” must be pseudo-science.(QED)
Proof 2: General relativity in the Riemannian space-time R 4 painstaking claimed Riemannian
space-time from which an object has energy. But where in the energy density of the number,
but not precise and uniform. In-laws are different. Only opposite result, this space-time
energy radiation of gravitational waves. Moreover, now has positive mass conjecture
“proved” positive mass theorem. That gravitational waves will be sky everywhere. “Only the
curved space-time, there would be no gravitational waves”? It is not to mention the “trickery”
suspected. On the recognition of gravitational waves, it is a long time, of a lot of effort, has
yet to detect gravitational waves gossamer ant trails.
The results showed that ( S, W, EH, G) in the gravitational interaction (gravitational field). It
has been four kinds of interactions between substances [7-9], homogeneous and isotropic flat
space-time, through its quantum negative phase of the overall state of the U (1) specification,
given its quality (Netherlands); through its quantum state U (1) local gauge negative phase,
resulting in its gravitational field. The gravitational field is a negative energy field. The
gravitational field cannot be positive energy to the material source external radiation of
gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are impossible to detect gravitational source. Day-
to-day experience of everything, including a free-fall and Mossbauer
Effectexperiments,areproven.
Here is also clear from the energy given the need to question the general relativity scientific
argumentation.(Q.E.D)
In short, we can clearly see, general relativity as the basis of the results of all the findings and
inferences are impossible to set up.

References

[1] Guo Yinghuan , Guo Zhen-Hua , Guo Wei , Modern Physics, 2009 ( 5)(in Chinese) ;
[2] TheRelativistic Introduction P . G. The Bergman book , Zhou Qi , Hao Ping translation ,
People's Education Press , Beijing (1961 ) (in Chinese) ;
111
[3] field theory , Л.Д. Landau , EM Li Fu Xizi forward , any Lang , Yuan Bingnan translation
, Higher Education Press , 1959 , Beijing(in Chinese) ;
[4] Astronomy new concept , the Soviet Union should be compiled , Science Press , ( 2009 ,
Beijing ) (in Chinese) ;
[5] planets , stars , galaxies , of the SJ Inglis book , Lizhi Sen , Lee Chong Wei , He Xiangtao
, Xiao Xinghua translation, Science Press, Beijing (1979 ) (in Chinese);
[6 ] Wan Ming Fang , flex time and space gravitational unified theory of electromagnetic
fields , Wuhan University of Technology ( Transportation Science & Engineering ),
2000 , 05 ; Luo Shijun , Peng Guangxiong torsion scalar - - tensor theory of gravity
inflationary universe model, Hubei Automotive Industries Institute , 1996 , 01 ;
Zhangcheng Min , Liu Xindian , it Shuxian , the gravitational effects of the torsion and
its background , the Capital Normal University ( natural Science Edition) , 1994 , 01 ;
paragraph Shao light , with general relativity plus torsion interpretation of Galactic
rotation , Chongqing University , in 2003,06(in Chinese) ;
[7] Wei Guo , Guo Yinghuan , Guo Zhen-Hua , The Weyl-U(1) Gaugefield theory of
gravitation and it’s universe,Matter Regularity, 2010 , ( 5) 43; frontier science, 2012,1 ,
Volume 6 , total 21 , 49-64 (in Chinese);
[8] Guo Wei of Guo Guo Yinghuan , Guo Zhen-Hua , gravitational field characteristics of
negative energy—a whole new view of the universe , frontier science , 2011 , (1 ) 68 (in
Chinese);
[9] Guo Wei , Guo Ying Huan , Guo Zhen-Hua , the gravitational field of negative energy
characteristics and steady state evolution of the universe, Matter Regularity, 2012 ( 5 )
17 (in Chinese).

112
The Theory of Relativity and Compressibility Ether
Hu Chang-Wei
Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation
([email protected])

Abstract: Its physical basis and limitations do not be explained by the theory of relativity
itself, so that it seems that is an existence without matter. Its physical basis is, in fact, the
macroscopic physical vacuum, which is called ether. In the absolute space-time theory, the
ether is a compressible superfluid, a change in the ether density causes a change in the actual
space-time standard, and thus, the phenomena occur. The relativity made up the shortcoming
of absolute space-time theory in quantity, while the physical basis of relativity can be
described and its limitations can be showed on the basis of absolute space-time theory.
Relativistic and absolute space-time theories are two different space-time theories in nature. It
is not the relation that one negates the other and yet there are certain discrepancies,
corresponding relationships and complementarities between them

Keywords: The theory of relativity, Compressibility ether, Absolute space-time theory,

Quantitative effect, Corresponding relationship,

1 Introduction

The theory of relativity is one of the bases of modern physics. Nevertheless, it is like an
axiomatic system that derived a series of quantitative relations from several principles but the
mechanism why this quantitative relation can be established does not be explained. Therefore
what it describes is only some appearance. The relativity should not be an existence without
matter, what is its material basis? It is a physical vacuum. A vacuum is not a void, which is
showed by Casimir effect[1.2] and so on. The matter of vacuum state is called ether, which is
different from the mechanical ether in 19th century, is a compressible superfluid, and can be
used to explain Michelson-Morley experiment and the origin of Lorentz invariability, namely
the uniformity of the four dimensional space-time continuum.
In the 80’s of the 20th century, I was already to point out that the Lorentz transformation
can be derived by means of fluid mechanics[3]. Contemporaneously, Liao Mingsheng
discovered that the equations with form of relativistic formula can be obtained through taking
Lorentz covariance to the fundamental equations of fluid mechanics[4.5]. Later, Yang Xintie
and others considered that relativistic effects are similar to compressible effects of fluid[6.7].
These can provide leads for researches in physical basis and limitation of relativity.

2 The Lorentz transformation is derived with means of fluid mechanics

113
 In fluid mechanics, the velocity potential φ of an incompressible fluid satisfies the

following equation:

∆φ ( x. y.z ) = 0 . （1）
Let a body move with velocity v in an infinite compressible fluid, which causes
disturbances in the velocity, density and pressure. If the disturbances are assumed to be
infinitesimal quantities of the first order, the equation of linearization can be obtained[8]:

 v 2  ∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ v
1 − 2  2 + 2 + 2 = 0 ( < 1) , （2）
 c  ∂x ∂y ∂z c
Where c is the speed of sound in the fluid.
The following transformation (3) can be used:
 
 x' = β x  
 '
 y = y β =

1 
2 
, （3）
 z =z
' v
1− 2 
 
 c 

Substituting (3) into (2), the resulting equation is identified with (1): ∆φ x ' . y ' .z ' = 0 .
( )
Therefore, Eq. (3) is the transformation of the fluid from a compressible to an incompressible
state.
If two parallel right-angled coordinate systems O1( x1 , y1 , z1 ), O2( x2 , y2 , z2 ) are
constructed on two special fluids that satisfy equation (2), if their x-axes are superposed, and
if O2 with speed v moves in the positive x-direction, a Galilean transformation can be
performed between them, as in Eqs. (4) and (5):

x2 = x1 − vt1 y2 = y1 z2 = z1 , （4）
x1 = x2 + vt2 y1 = y2 z1 = z2 . （5）
(Note: Here, the time t is written as t1 and t2 separately.)

Substituting（3）into（4）and（5）, where x1 in （4）and （）

x2 in 5 do not change

because they are of the proper length, gives Eqs. (6) and (7):

x2' = β ( x1' − vt1 ) y2' = y1' z2' = z1' , （6）

x1' = β ( x2' + vt2 ) y1' = y2' z1' = z2' , （7）
Substituting the first equation in （6）into（7） leads to

114
  x1' ( β 2 − 1) 
t2 =
1 '
vβ
2 ' 2
( x1 − β x1 + β vt1 ) = β  t1 − vβ 2  ，β 2
=
c2
c2 − v2
,
 
 vx ' 
t2 = β  t1 − 21  .
c 
（8）

If the speed of sound c in the special fluid is the speed of light in a vacuum, then the

combination of （6）and（8）is the Lorentz transformation.

Above special fluid, whose distribution is infinite in space where the speed of sound is
the speed of light in vacuum, cannot be a conventional fluid. It is, in fact, the macroscopic
physical vacuum, namely the ether. Moreover the Galilean transformation expresses the
absolute space-time theory, and the Lorentz transformation expresses the relativistic space-
time theory, therefore the ether, absolute and relativistic space-time theories are linked
together by above derived course.

3 Macroscopic ether is a compressible superfluid

The theory of quantum fields assumes that a physical vacuum is the ground state of the
quantum field, which is a microscopic description. The image of matter can lead to a
significant difference between the microscopic and the macroscopic descriptions. For
instance, microscopically, water is composed of molecules, which move at random, and it is
difficult to find its most fundamental characteristic as a fluid of continuity. Above derived
course shows that the macroscopic ether is a continuous fluid. The following ether are all the
macroscopic ether.
Moreover any body can move without resistance in the ether, whether it is smooth, rough
or full of cracks. Therefore, the ether is a superfluid, and only a superfluid can satisfy the
established condition of equation (2) completely. There are two different sounds in a general
super-fluid: The first sound of density wave, which is the conventional sound; and the second
sound of temperature wave[9], which propagates with heat. In the vacuum, the thermal
propagation is carried out through thermal radiation, namely, similar to the electromagnetic
wave, therefore the electromagnetic wave, including the light, is the second sound in ether.
The ether theory in the 19th century was already to be negated by the Michelson-Morley
experiment, how is the explanation of compressibility ether theory? This question, in fact, was
already to have a definite answer. In compressible fluid, there exists the phenomenon where
the stripe of loop sound interference is invariant to the speed of wind, which was verified by
Liu Weiping, Su Benqing, Xi Deke and Yang Xintie with numerical simulation and sound
interference experiment; and Norbert Feist, a Germanic engineer, made an experiment of
Galilean velocity meter in high-velocity car, and the stripe of loop sound interference is also
invariant[10]. These facts show that the moved effect of fluid is offset by compressible effect
of fluid, which mean that the relativistic effect is equivalent to compressible effect of ether.
115
 The derivation of the Lorentz transformation by means of fluid mechanics shows that the
ether is the compressible in absolute space-time theory, and it became the incompressible in
the relativistic space-time theory. The incompressible ether, whose density can’t be changed,
is homogeneous and isotropic, it is, in fact, the four dimensional space-time continuum, which
also is the origin of relativistic space-time uniformity or the Lorentz invariability.

4 The formulas of relativistic form are derived from the formulas of fluid mechanics
The ether is an incompressible superfluid in the relativity, so that we can regard ether
as an ideal fluid, in which having a disturbances of sound, its equation of state is

dP = dρc 2 , （9）
Where the dP is the tiny increment of ether pressure; the c is the sound velocity; the d ρ is

tiny increment of ether density.

The Eq.(9) is identical with the mass-energy relation of relativity formally, which seems
to mean that the relativistic energy is corresponds to the tiny increment of ether pressure and
the relativistic mass is corresponds to the tiny increment of ether density. Has whether such a
corresponding relation universality? Let us make some analyses further.
∂ρ r
The ether should satisfy the equation of continuity: + div ρ u = 0 . Using the Lorentz
∂t
covariance, it can be shown that

ρ ' = βρ (1 − vux / c 2 ) , ρ ' u x' = β ( ρ u x − v ρ ) , ρ ' u y' = ρ u y , ρ ' uz' = ρuz . (10 ）
Where the u is the velocity of moved body; the v is the velocity that a frame of reference

O '( x ', y ', z ') relative to O ( x, y , z ) and its direction is parallel to the x -axis.

Substituting the first equation into the second, third and fourth equations in Eq. (10),
gives Eq. (11):

u x' =
ux − v
1 − ux v / c 2
, u 'y =
uy
β (1 − u x v / c 2 )
, u '
z =
uz
β (1 − u x v / c 2 )
. （11）
Moreover,
r2 ur 2
u = u x2 + u y2 + u z2 ; u ' = u x'2 + u '2y + u z'2 . （12）
According the Eqs.(11) and (12), the Eq.(13) can be proved[5]

1 − u '2 / c 2 =
1 − u2 / c2
β (1 − u x v / c 2 )
. （13）
By the first equation of (10) and (13), it can be obtained

116
 ρ'
= β (1 − u x v / c 2 ) =
1 − u 2 / c2
，那么then
ρ 1 − u '2 / c 2

ρ ' 1 − u '2 / c 2 = ρ 1 − u 2 / c 2 = ρ 0 （a constant），hence

ρ=
ρ0
. （14）
1 − u 2 / c2
Taking differentiation of density in the two sides of Eqs. (10) and (14), gives Eqs. (15) and
(16):

 '  vu x 
 d ρ = β d ρ 1 − c 2 
 

u x d ρ = β ( u x d ρ − vd ρ ) ,
' '
（15）
 u 'y d ρ ' = u y d ρ

 u z' d ρ ' = u z d ρ

dρ =
d ρ0
. （16）
1 − u 2 / c2
Obviously, the Eq. (11) is the formulae of velocity transformation in the relativity; and the
density ρ can be replaced by mass m in (15) and (16), which are separately the transformation
of mass and momentum, and the mass-velocity formula, in the relativity. Therefore there is
universality that the relativistic mass is corresponds to the tiny increment of ether density.
Why is it so? This question concerns the space-time theories.

5 The relations between two space-time theories: The quantitative effects

The derivation of the Lorentz transformation by means of fluid mechanics shows that the
absolute and relativistic space-time theories are two different space-time theories in nature.
Newton said that the space and time can be divided into the absolute and the relative[11]. The
absolute space and time are not related to matter, and they are difficult to be measured
directly because the measure is a course interacted or interlinked between a measuring tool
and a measured body. The relative space and time are related to matter and can be measured
directly. The physics is an experimental science, whose space-time are all the measurable
relative space-time. What the classical physics researches are the physical phenomena in low
velocity or weak gravitational field, where the differences are very small and may be omitted
between relative and absolute space-time, so that the space-time of the classical physics was
considered to be the absolute space-time. The differences are obvious between these two
space-time in high velocity or strong gravitational field, and thus, the relativistic phenomena
occur.

117
 A few people or groups’ intuitions are not reliable, but the intuitions of entire mankind
are the real generally. The absolute space-time, which describes the world with an invariable
space-time standard, considers that the space is flat three dimensions and the time is
homogeneous one dimension, which is a reflection of human intuitions. However, the actual
standard tools of length and time, such as rulers, clocks and light, can vary with the
environment due to temperature, velocity and gravitational potential. Thus, there are always
certain differences between the actual quantitative relation and the absolute space-time theory.
Now the most accurate standards of length and time are defined by light and the invariable
velocity of light, for example, a meter is the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in
1/299,792,458 of a second, where the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in a second is
always 299792458 meters whether it is fast or slow, the light speed become an invariable
definitional speed, which is just a premise of relativity, so that we can regard the relativity as
a quantitative theory with light as the measure of space-time. There seems in absolute space-
time theory that the theory of relativity regards a change of space-time standard as a change
of space-time itself, which is only a practicable mathematical model.
The description on the basis of absolute space-time theory is called the absolute
description, which describes the world with an invariable space-time standard. The
description on the basis of measuring data is called the quantitative description, which
describes the world with a variable space-time standard. There are always certain differences
between the quantitative and absolute descriptions. The effects caused by this differences or
the variability of space-time standards are called quantitative effects. The theory of relativity
is a theory of quantitative description, and the relativistic effects are the quantitative effects.
There can be different representations one thing in different space-time theory, or there
are certain discrepancies between two different space-time theories, that is to say, there seems
that any quantitative theory may be twisted more or less by aquantitative effect.

6 The corresponding relationships between two descriptions

Above equations of fluid mechanics are established on the basis of the absolute space-
time theory. Using the Lorentz covariance, these equations would are transformed into
relativistic space-time theory, and thus, the meaning of related physical quantities will change,
so that there are some corresponding relationships between transformation before and after,
which is just the meaning of above “the relativistic mass is corresponds to the tiny increment
of ether density”. Because mass is a characteristic of an object (the matter with mass) and
does not have spatial extension, and in view of the relationships between mass and a
gravitational field, the intrinsic relationship among the ether, gravitational field and objects
can be found. The distribution of the ether density is closely related to the objects in the
unified ether ocean of the cosmos. The object is the core of the ether density wave-packet, and
its mass center is the point of maximal value of the ether density. Here, the corresponding
relationships between the quantitative and absolute descriptions are as follows: The absolute
118
value of the gravitational potential corresponds to the ether density, the intensity of the
gravitational field corresponds to the gradient of the ether density, and the mass corresponds
to the tiny increment of the ether density (relative to the average density of the ether). The
energy corresponds to the tiny increment of the ether pressure (relative to the average pressure
of the ether).
As indicated above, the ether is without mass but is closely related to an object. The
2 −2
dimension of ether density equals the dimension of the gravitational potential, it is m ⋅ s ,

or m 2 ⋅ kg ⋅ s −2 (energy ) / kg ( mass ) . The deflection of light in gravitational field can be seen

that a light beam bends to where the ether density is higher, which is just as the sound would
bend to where the atmosphere density is higher.

An object with mass m , the relation between its gravitational potential φ and the

distance r away from it is φ ∝ m / r 。It can be known with simple calculation that the φ of
the earth < φ of the sun < φ of the galaxy and so on at a point of the ground. Therefore Prof.

Tsao Chang said: “The ether background field seems a very deep sea, and the change of ether
density nearby a object is only small wave on a surface of this sea”.[12] Then it is practicable
that the mass of an object is regarded as the tiny increment of density in ideal ether fluid.

7 The quantitative effects equations of relativity and its application

The theory of relativity, in fact, does not depart from the absolute space-time theory
because it explains how the space-time standard changes with the help of the relative
invariable quantity of the absolute description. The proper quantities in relativity are the
particular quantities of absolute description, and thus, there would be certain
complementarities between the quantitative and absolute descriptions.
The special theory of relativity shows that the relation between unit length dr or unit
time dt and velocity v are

dt =
dt 0
2 2
dr = 1 − v 2 / c 2 dr0 （17）
1− v / c

Where dr0 and dt 0 are the proper unit length and time, respectively. They do not vary

with velocity and are used to measure the change of space-time standards on objects in
relative motion with any velocity. Thus, they are the unit length and time in the absolute
description on this inertia frame of reference, and Eq. (17) is the equations of quantitative
effects in the special theory of relativity.
Similarly, it can be proven there are Eq. (18) [13]

119
 dt0
dt = dr = 1 + 2ϕ / c 2 (18)
2
1 + 2ϕ / c

Where the dt 0 and dr0 are the proper unit length and unit time on the reference frame

that is far away from the gravitational field, the ϕ is the gravitational potential of a heavenly

body. The dt 0 and dr0 do not vary with the gravitational potential; that is, they are the

quantity in the absolute description. Eq. (18) is the equations of quantitative effects in the
general theory of relativity.
The equations of quantitative effects can be used to explain relativistic phenomena
simply. One example is given below.
The experiment on the delay of radar echo[14.15] showed that the velocity of light becomes
slower in a gravitational field, which can be solved simply using (18): The relation between
the velocities of the quantitative description ( dr / dt ) and the absolute

description （ dr / dt ）is
0 0

dr / dt =
1 + 2ϕ / c dr0
2
= (1 + 2ϕ / c 2 )dr0 / dt 0 （19）
dt 0 / 1 + 2ϕ / c
Let the velocity of light without the gravitational field is c. Then, the velocity of light

with units dr0 / dt 0 in the gravitational field is

c 0 = (1 + 2ϕ / c 2 )c = (1 −
2GM
c2r
)c (dr0 / dt 0 ) （20）
Eq. (20) is identical to the calculated result of the general theory of relativity with complex
way.
Obviously, the conclusion that the velocity of light becomes slower in a gravitational
field is an absolute description, which is the result of measuring the velocity of light over the
whole gravitational field with an invariable space-time standard. Quantitatively, the principle
of the invariability of the velocity of light is still established because the standards of space-
time in a gravitational field can vary with gravitational potential. Using the quantitative
space-time standard of one point to measure the velocity of light of this point, according to

(19), if the quantitative unit dr / dt is substituted for the absolute unit dr0 / dt 0 in (20), then

the velocity of light is always constant c , which shows a complementary between these two
descriptions.

8 The mechanism responsible of relativistic effects

The mechanism responsible of relativistic effects was already to be described in certain
degree by above ideas of macroscopic vacuum and quantitative effects. The relativistic effects
120
include kinematical effects of the special theory of relativity and the gravitational effects of
the general theory of relativity. Both of them can be seen as the effects of density change in
the ether. A change in the ether density causes a change in the actual space-time standard, or
where the density of the ether is greater, rulers become shorter, and clocks run more slowly.
The kinematical effects are due to the compressibility of the ether: If an object moves in a
compressible ether, its own density is increased such that a ruler becomes shorter, and a clock
runs more slowly. The gravitational effect is due to the ether density, which corresponds to the
gravitational potential, so that where the absolute value of the gravitational potential is
greater, a ruler becomes shorter, and a clock runs more slowly.
According to the method of fluid mechanics, the ether can be described as being
composed of countless ether particles. Then, the unit length is proportional to an interval
between two adjacent ether particles, and the unit time is proportional to the time interval that
the light travels through an interval of ether particles. Using such standards to measure the
ether, it becomes homogeneous and isotropic, and the light velocity is invariable. In addition,
both of the standards of length and time have a relationship with the interval of the ether
particles. Thus, the space and time are entangled, and are turned into the four dimensional
space-time continuum. Therefore we can say that the ether is the material basis of the
relativity.
The general theory of relativity considers that the four dimensional space-time
continuum is homogeneous and isotropic but it is bent, where it regards the change rate of
standards of space-time as the curvature of time-space. As the absolute space-time theory see
it is only a mathematical model describing the distribution of ether is not homogeneous.

9 The limitation of relativity

The relativistic phenomenon is caused by the changes of the ether density. Then, relative
motion can be divided into formal motion and substantial motion, the formal motion is that
the ether density himself of the moving objects does not change, it would only produce the
observed effect and the formulas of relativity are ineffective. The substantial motion is that
the ether density himself of the moving objects can change, it would produce real effects, and
the formulas of relativity are effective. The phenomenon of the stars moving around the earth
is caused by the earth's rotation, which is only the formal motion because they do not affect
each other between the ether wave-packets of the earth and stars. Of course, the pure formal
motion or pure substantial motion does not exist. It is probable that both of relative motion,
one is the substantial motion and the other is formal motion mainly. For example, the
movement of a particle in the earth ether field is a substantive motion, while the earth moves
relative to this particle is the formal motion because earth ether wave packet does not be
affected by the particle overall. The relative motions between the sun and earth,
comparatively speaking, the movement of the earth around the sun is a substantive motion,
and the movement of the sun around the earth is a formal motion. Therefore the heliocentric
121
theory is greater than the geocentric theory, and the relativity of the movement is always set
up in the form, but both of relative motions are not necessarily equalization essentially.
When a body moves, the ether’s distribution around it would change, so that the ether is
not an absolute frame of reference. Because the kinematical effects are due to the
compressibility of the ether, the ether where an object is located must be used as the reference
frame. When studying the movement of a body in the galaxy, the sum of the ether wave-
packet without the galaxy could be regarded as a homogeneous background field, and thus,
the galactic ether wave-packet should be used as the reference frame. When studying the
movement of a planet in the solar system, the galactic ether wave-packet becomes part of the
background field because the distance is nearly the same between each planet and the galactic
center. Thus, the solar ether wave-packet should be used as the reference frame. However, the
solar ether wave-packet also becomes part of the background field on the surface of the earth,
and thus, the ether wave-packet of the earth should be used as the reference frame when
studying phenomena on the earth. The experiment of atomic clocks flying around the earth
conducted by Hafele and Keating in 1971[16.17] proved this point. The experiment showed that,
on average, a flying clock is slower by 59×10-9 seconds than a clock on the ground after
flying towards the east, and the flying clock is faster by 273×10-9 seconds than the clock on
the ground after flying towards the west, which demonstrates that “a moving clock is always
slower” is not necessarily true. Here, the center of mass of the earth must be taken as the
origin of the coordinates system. Only in this way can the calculations with the formulae of
the special theory of relativity lead to results that are roughly in agreement with the
experiment. Actually, this coordinate system with the center of mass of the earth as the origin
is the same as the coordinate system with the ether wave-packet of the earth as the reference
frame.
In addition, there are certain approximations in relativity. In the past, the cosmological
principle was used to derive the Lorentz transformation intentionally or unconsciously. The
meaning of cosmological principle is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, which
ensures that the Lorentz transformation is linear[17], and also leads up to his approximation
because time and space is closely related to object in relativity, and the cosmological principle
can only be a large range of statistical approximation. In fact, the derivation of the Lorentz
transformation by means of fluid mechanics in this book also shows the approximation of the
relativistic formulas because the formula (2) is linearized, which means that it is conditioned
and approximate, and it is correct only in the ether as a complete superfluid. The superfluid
would have a certain critical speed, critical density, critical pressure and so on. The ether
density can vary with the velocity, and would lose his super-fluidity when it is risen certain
height, and thus, the relativistic formulas will be no longer effective. Actually, Einstein said:
“For the large field density and the material density, field equations and the field variables in
these equations would not have the true mean. Overall, need a clear understanding that the
equations must not be extended to this region”.[18] Also we point out that the relativistic mass
122
is corresponds to the tiny increment of ether density and the relativistic energy is corresponds
to the tiny increment of ether pressure. Those indicate that the theory of relativity is
ineffective for the dense and huge heavenly body or superluminal.

10 Conclusions
As indicated above, Absolute space-time theory is a scientific abstract, where the
ether is a compressible superfluid, whose density field is the gravitational field, and a change
in its density causes a change in the actual space-time standard, and thus, relativistic
quantitative effects occur. The relativity, which is a quantitative theory with light as the
measure of space-time, made up the shortcoming of absolute space-time theory in quantity.
Nevertheless as absolute space-time theory sees it, the relativity, which regards the change of
the actual space-time standard as the change of space-time itself, is a practicable
mathematical model. The absolute and relativistic theories are two different theories in nature.
It is not the relation that one negates another and yet there are certain discrepancies,
corresponding relationships and complementarities between them. The relativity is quite
effective when the increment of ether density is tiny, or the velocity of a body is lower than
light velocity; and it is ineffective for the dense and huge heavenly body or superluminal.

References

[1]H. Casimir, D. Polder, The influence of retardation on the London-van der Waals forces,
Phys. Rev, 1948, 73 (4), 360-372.
[2] Larrimore, L. Vacuum fluctuations and the Casimir force, physics, 115, 1-4(2002).

[3] Yue Gong （Hu Changwei）, The theory of Interval Field Ether, Potential Science No. 4
1989, pp39-40 (in Chinese).
[4] Liao Mingsheng, Establishment of the Relativity of Fluid Mechanics Potential Science
No. 4 1989, pp33-38, (in Chinese).
[5] Liao Mingsheng, Invariability Theory of Fluid, Shanghai Science and Technology Press,
1993, (in Chinese).
[6] Yang X T, et al. The application of aerodynamic method in the development of relativity [
A ]. IWCCPA[ C ] , Nanjing, China, 2001.
[7] Yang X T, et al. Lorentz time2space relation is only a transform from incompress flow to
compress flow[A ]. IWCCPA[C], Nanjing, China, 2001.
[8]Y. C. Fung, A First Course in Continuum Mechanics, Beijing, Tsinghua University Press,

2005, pp. 257-259 。

[9] Л. Д. Ландау, E. M. Лифшиц, The Mechanics of Continual medium, Beijing, The

Publishing House Of People Education, 1960 ，p672 (in Chinese).

123
[10] LiuWeiping1 , Su Benqing2 , Xi Deke1 , Yang XintieMackerson-Morei Experiment in
Sound Interference of Compressible Fluid,Mechanical Science and Technology
forAerospace Engineering, Vol. 26 , No. 9, 2007 (in Chinese).
[11] S. I. Newton, The Newton’s Principia
[12] Tsao Chang, Research on the Theory of Space and Time, Shanghai Science and
Technology Document Press, 2011, p.57 (in Chinese).
[13] Hu Chang-Wei, Vacuum, Space-time, Matter and the Models of Smarandache Geometry,

USA, Educational Publishers, 2012 。

[14] I. I. Shapiro, et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1265(1968).
[15] J. D. Anderson, et al, Astrophys, 200, 221(1975).
[16] C. Hafele, R. Keating, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time

Gains[J], Science, 1972, 177: 166-167 。

[17] C. Hafele, R. Keating, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time

Gains[J], Science, 1972, 177: 168-170 。

[18] A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Fifth Edition, 1955.

124
 mc 2
New Gravitational Formula: F =−
R
Jiang Chun-Xuan
P. O. Box 3924, Beijing 100854, P. R. China
[email protected]

Abstract: Using two methods we deduce the new gravitational formula. Gravity is the
tachyonic centripetal force. Anybody may understand gravity. This paper is the first human to
a true description of gravity.

In the Universe there are two matters: (1) Observable subluminal matter called
tardyon and (2) unobservable superluminal matter called tachyon which coexist in motion.
Tachyon can be converted into tardyon, and vice versa. Tardyonic rotating motion produces
the centrifugal force, but tachyonic rotating motion produces the centripetal force, that is
gravity. In this paper using tardyonic and tachyonic coexistence principle we deduce the new
gravitational formula,
We first define two-dimensional space and time number [1]

 ct x 
Z =   = ct + jx, （1）
 x ct 
where x and t are the tardyonic space and time coordinates, c is light velocity in vacuum,

0 1
j =   .
1 0
(1) can be written as Euler form

Z = ct 0 e jθ = ct 0 (chθ + j sh θ ), （2）
where ct 0 is the tardyonic invariance, θ tardyonic hyperbolical angle.

From (1) and (2) we have

ct = ct 0 ch θ , x = ct 0 sh θ （3）
ct0 = (ct) 2 − x 2 . （4）
From (3) we have

θ = th −1
x
ct
u
= th −1 .
c
（5）
where c ≥ u is the tardyonic velocity.
Using the morphism j : z → jz , we have

125
jz = x + jct = x 0 e jθ = x 0 (ch θ + j sh θ ), （6）
where x and t are the tachyonic space and time coordinates, x0 is tachyonic invariance, θ

tachyonic hyperbolical angle.

From (6) we have

x = x0 ch θ , ct = x0 sh θ . （7）
x0 = ( x ) 2 − (ct ) 2 . （8）
From (7) we have

θ = th −1
ct
x
c
= th −1 .
u
（9）
where u ≥ c is the tachyonic velocity.

Fig. 1. Tardyonic and tachyonic coexistence principle

Figure 1 shows the formulas (1)-(9). j : z → jz is that tardyon can be converted into
tachyon, but j : jz → z is that tachyon can be converted into tardyon. u = 0 → u = c is the
positive acceleration, but u = ∞ → u = c is the negative acceleration, which coexist. At the
x − axis we define the tachyonic unit length

X 0 = lim u t = constant .
u →∞
（10）
t →0

Since at rest the tachyonic time t = 0 and u = ∞ , we prove that tachyon is unobservable.
126
Assume θ = θ , from (5) and (9) we get the tardyonic and tachyonic coexistence principle [1-

4]

uu = c 2 . （11）
Using the analytical method we deduce the new gravitational formula. Differentiating (11) by
the time, we get
2
du
dt
 c  du
= − 
 u  dt
. （12）
du du
and can coexist in motion, but their directions are opposite.
dt dt
We study the tardyonic and tachyonic rotating motions. In 1673 Huygens discovered that
the tardyonic rotation produces centripetal acceleration

du u 2
dt
=
R
, （13）
where R is rotating radius.
Substituting (13) into (12) we have the tachyonic centrifugal acceleration

du
dt
c2
=− .
R
（14）
(13) and (14) have the same form. From (13) we get the tardyonic centrifugal force

F=
Mu 2
R
, （15）
where M is the inertial mass.
From (14) we get the tachyonic centripetal force, that is gravity

F =−
mc 2
R
, （16）
where m is the gravitational mass converted into by tachyonic mass m . Eqs. (15) and (16)
have the same form. Eq. (16) is the new gravitational formula.

Using the geometrical method we deduce the new gravitational formula...

Figure 2 shows that the rotation ω of body A emits tachyon mass m , which forms the
tachyon and gravitation field and gives the body B revolutions u and u .

127
 du du
Fig.2. On body B and coexistence [2].
dt dt

From Fig. 2 .it follows

u∆t ∆u
R
=
u
. （17）
From (17) it follows the tardyon centripetal acceleration on the body B [2-4],

du
= lim
∆u u 2
dt ∆∆ut →→00 ∆t
=
R
. （18）
From Fig. 2. it follows

u∆t
R
=−
∆u
u
. （19）
From (19) and (11) it follows the tachyon centrifugal acceleration on the body B [2-4],

du
= lim
∆u
dt ∆∆ut →→00 ∆t
=−
uu
R
c2
=− .
R
（20）
du du
On body B and coexistence.
dt dt
From (18) it follows the tardyon centrifugal force on body B [2-4],

128
 F=
M Bu 2
R
, （21）
where M B is body B mass.

From (20) it follows the tachyon centripetal force on body B , that is gravity [2-4],

F =−
mc 2
R
, （22）
where m is the gravitation mass converted into by tachyon mass m which is unobservable,
but m is observable.
(22) is the new gravitational formula. On body B F and F coexistence.

Fig.3. On body B F and F coexistence[2].

From Fig. 3, it follows

（ ）
F + F = 0 . 23
From (21), (22) and (23) it follows

m u2
= 2 .
MB c
（24）
Body B increases mass m and centrifugal force is greater than gravitation force, then body
B expands outward.
From (22) it follows Newtonian gravitation formula. The m is proportional to body A mass

M A , in (24) m is proportional to M B , is inversely proportional to the distance R between

body A and body B . It follows

129
m=k
M AM B
R
, （25）
where k is constant
Substituting (25) into (22) it follows the Newtonian gravitation formula [2-4]

F = −G
M AM B
R2
, （26）
where G = kc 2 = 6.673 ×10−8 cm3 / g⋅ sec 2 is gravitation constant.

References
[1] Chun-Xuan Jiang, A Theory of Morphisms Between the Tardyon and Tachyon,
Physics(Chinese), 4. (1975)119-125.
[2] Chun-Xuan Jiang, On Nature for Gravitation, J. Beijing observatory (Chinese),
7(1976)32-38.
[3] Chun-Xuan Jiang, An Approach on the Nature of Attractive Force, Potential Science
(Chinese), 4(1982)19-20.
[4] Chun-Xuan Jiang, A Unified Theory of the Gravitational and Strong Interactions,
Hadronic J., 24(2001)629-638.

130
The Expansion Theory of the Universe without Dark Energy
Jiang Chun-Xuan
P. O. Box 3924, Beijing 100854, P. R. China
[email protected]

2
Abstract:This paper found a new gravitational formula: F = − mc , established the
R
4
expansion theory of the universe ,and obtained the expansion acceleration: g e = u .
C 2R
Keywords: The universe equation; the universe expansion theory

1Introduction
According to Jiang idea[1],in the Universe there are two kinds of matter: (1)
Observable subluminal matter called tardyons(locality) and (2) unobservable superluminal
matter called tachyons(non-locality). They coexist in motion. What are tachyons? Historically
tachyons are described as particles which travel faster than light. Describing tachyon as a
particle with an imaginary mass is wrong[2]. In our theory[1] tachyon has no rest time and no
rest mass. It is unobservable. Tachyons can be converted into tardyons and vice versa.
Tardyonic rotating motion produces the centrifugal force but tachyonic rotating motion
produces the centripetal force which is force of gravity. Using the coexistence principle of
tardyons and tachyons it follows that
2
a new gravitational formula: F = − mc . We establish the expansion theory of the
R
universe. We obtain the expansion acceleration:
4
ge = u .
C 2R
2
2The new gravitational formula: F = − mc
R
We first define two-dimensional space and time number[1]

 ct x 
z =  = ct + jx, （1）
 x ct 
where x and t are the tardyonic space and time coordinates, c is light velocity in vacuum,

0 1
j =   .
1 0
(1) can be written in Euler form

z = ct0e jθ = ct0 (ch θ + j sh θ ), （2）

131
 ct 0
where is the tardyonic invariance, and θ is the tardyonic hyperbolical angle.
From (1) and (2) it follows

ct = ct 0 ch θ , x = ct 0 sh θ （3）
ct0 = (ct) 2 − x 2 . （4）
From (3) it follows

θ = th −1
x
ct
u
= th −1 .
c
（5）
1 u/c
where c ≥ u is the tardyonic velocity, ch θ = and sh θ = .
2
1 − (u / c) 1 − (u / c) 2
The z denotes space-time of the tardyonic theory.
Using the morphism j : z → jz , it follows

jz = x + jct = x 0 e jθ = x 0 (ch θ + j sh θ ), （6）

where x and t are the tachyonic space and time coordinates, x0 is tachyonic invariance, θ

tachyonic hyperbolical angle.

From (6) it follows

x = x0 ch θ , ct = x0 sh θ . （7）
x0 = ( x ) 2 − (ct ) 2 . （8）
From (7) it follows

θ = th −1
ct
x
c
= th −1 . 9
u
（）
1
where u ≥ c is the tachyonic velocity, ch θ = and
1 − (c / u ) 2

c/u
sh θ = .
1 − (c / u ) 2
The jz denotes space-time of the tachyonic theory. Both the z and the jz form the entire
world but the jz world is unexploited and unstudied.

132
 Fig. 1. Minkowskian space-time diagram

Figure 1 shows the formulas (1)-(9). j : z → jz shows that a tardyon can be converted into
a tachyon, but j : jz → z shows that a tachyon can be converted into a tardyon.
u = 0 → u = c is a tardyonic velocity, but u = ∞ → u = c is a tachyonic velocity, which
coexist. At the x − axis we define the tachyonic string length

x0 = lim u t = constant .
u →∞
（10）
t →0

where t is the rest time.

Since at rest the tachyonic string time t = 0 and u = ∞ , it shows that the tachyon is a string
which is unobservable. In the rest system the tachyonic string motion is an action-at-a
distance motion. This simple thought made a deep impression on me. It impelled me toward
the only string theory[1]. Other string theories all are guesses.

Assume θ = θ , from (5) and (9) it follows that the tardyonic and tachyonic coexistence

principle[1,3,4]

uu = c 2 . （11）
Differentiating (11) by the time, it follows
2
du
dt
 c  du
= − 
 u  dt
. （12）

133
 du du
and can coexist in motion, but their directions are opposite.
dt dt
We study the tardyonic and tachyonic rotating motions. The tardyonic rotation produces
centripetal acceleration

du u 2
dt
=
R
, （13）
where R is rotating radius.
Substituting (13) into (12) it follows that the tachyonic rotating produces centrifugal
acceleration

du
dt
c2
=− .
R
（14）
It is independent of tachyonic velocity u , only inversely proportional to radius R .
Eqs. (13) and (14) are dual formulas, which have the same form. It is unique and perfect.
From (13) it follows the tardyonic centrifugal force

F=
Mu 2
R
, （15）
where M is the inertial mass.
From (14) it follows the tachyonic centripetal force, that is gravity

F =−
mc 2
R
, （16）
where m is the gravitational mass converted into by tachyonic mass m which is
unobservable but m is observable.
Whether u = 0 or u ≠ 0 , all matter produces gravity. Eqs. (15) and (16) are dual formulas,
which have the same form. Eq. (16) is a new gravitational formula called an equation that
changed the universe. This simple thought made a deep impression on me. It impelled me
toward a theory of gravitation. It has simplicity, elegance and mathematical beauty. It is the
foundations of gravitational theory and cosmology. In the universe there are two main forces:
The tardyonic centrifugal force (15) and tachyonic centripetal force (16) which make
structure formation of the universe.
Now we study the freely falling body. Tachyonic mass m can be converted into tardyonic
mass m , which acts on the freely falling body and produces the gravitational force

F =−
mc 2
R
, （17）
where R is the Earth radius.
We have the equation of motion
134
 mc 2
R
= Mg , （18）
where g is gravitational acceleration, M is mass of freely falling body.

From (18) it follows the gravitational coefficient

η=
m Rg
= 2 = 6.9 × 10 −10 .
M c
（19）
Eötvös(1922) experiment η ~ 5 ⋅10 −9 and Dicke experiment η ~ 10−11 [5]. Since the

gravitational mass m can be transformed into the rest mass in freely falling body, we define

Einstein’s gravitational mass M g = M i + m and inertial mass M i = M [6]. It follows

M g > Mi . （20）
Therefore it shows that the principle of equivalence is nonexistent.

3The expansion theory of the universe

The Big Bang threw all the matter in the universe outwards. Both Newton’s and
Einstein’s theories of gravity predict that the expansion must be slowing down to some
degree: The mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in all the galaxies should be
pulling them inwards. But measurements of distant supernovae show just the opposite[7] . All
the matter in the universe appears to be accelerating outwards. Its speed is picking up. There
is no agreement yet about how to explain these mysterious observations. Now we explain our
accelerating universe.
Using (16) we study the expansion theory of the Universe. Figure 2 shows an expansion

model of the Universe. The rotation ω 1 of body A emits tachyonic flow, which forms the

tachyonic field. Tachyonic mass m acts on body B , which produces its rotation ω 2 ,

revolution u and gravitational force

F1 = −
mc 2
R
, （21）
where R denotes the distance between body A and body B , m is gravitational mass
converted into by tachyonic mass m which is unobservable but m is observable.
The revolution of the body B around body A produces the centrifugal force

F1 =
M Bu 2
R
, （22）

135
 Fig. 2. An expansion model of the Universe

where M B is the inertial mass of body B , u is the orbital velocity of body B .

At the O 2 point we assume

F1 + F1 = 0 . （23）
From (23) it follows that the coexistence of the gravitational force and centrifugal force.
From (21)-(23) it follows the gravitational coefficient
2

η=
m u
=  .
MB c
（24）
At the O3 point the tachyonic mass m can be converted into the rest mass m in body B , it

follows

F2 =
M B u 2 mu 2
R
+
R
. （25）
Since F2 + F1 > 0 , centrifugal force F2 is greater than gravitational force F1 , then the body

B expands outwards and its mass increases. This is an expansion mechanism of the Universe.
From (21)-(23) we have

mu 2
F.2 + F1 = = M B(26)
ge
R
From (26) we obtain the expansion acceleration
2
g e = mu
. (27)
M BR
Substituting (24) in (27) we obtain

u4
ge =
C 2 R 136
 . (28)

If body A is the Earth, then body B is the Moon; if body A is the Sun, then body B is the
Earth; …. It can explain our accelerating universe. In this model universe there are no dark
matter and no dark energy. This simple thought made a deep impression on me. It impelled
me toward an expansion theory of the universe without dark matter and dark energy.
If the body A is the Sun and body B is the planet. We calculate the gravitational coefficients
η as shown in table 1.

Table 1:Values of the gravitational coefficients η

Planet u (km/sec) η (10 −10 )

Mercury 47.89 255.2

Venus 35.03 136.5
Earth 29.79 98.7
Mars 24.13 64.8
Jupiter 13.06 19.0
Saturn 9.64 10.3
Uranus 6.81 5.2
Neptune 5.43 3.3
Pluto 4.74 2.5

Since gravitational mass m can be transformed into the rest mass in body B , we define
M g = Mi + m Mi = MB
Einstein’s gravitational mass and inertial mass [6]..
It follows

M g > Mi . （29）
Therefore it shows that the principle of equivalence in the Solar system is nonexistent. Of all
the principles at work in gravitation, none is more central than the principles of
equivalence[5], which could be wrong.
The tachyonic mass m can be converted into electrons and positrons which are the basic
building-blocks of elementary particles [8,9]. In this universe there are no Higgs particles.
They have not been produced at the Large Hadron Collider and other particle accelerators.

From (21) it follows Newtonian gravitational formula. The m is proportional to M A , which

137
denotes inertial mass of body A , in (24) m is proportional to M B , is inversely proportional

to the distance R between body A and body B . It follows

m=k
M AM B
R
, （30）
where k is a constant.
Substituting (30) into (21) it follows Newtonian gravitational formula[3,4]

F1 = −G
M AM B
R2
, （31）
2
where G = kc is a gravitational constant.

We have Einstein’s gravitational mass

M g = M i + m = M i (1 + η ) . （32）
Substituting (32) into (31) it follows Newtonian generalized gravitational formula

F1 = −G
M A (1 + η A ) M B (1 + η B )
R2
, （33）
where η A and η B denote gravitational coefficients of body A and body B separately.

Assume ρ A and ρ B denote the densities of body A and body B separately. In the same

way from (33) it follows unified formula of the gravitational and strong forces [4]

F1 = −G 0
ρ A M A (1 + η A ) ρ B M B (1 + η B )
R2
（34）
−10
where G0 = 5.2 × 10 cm9/g3·sec2 is a new gravitational constant.

In the nucleus exists the strong interactions. It follows[4]

Strong interaction G
= s = 1038
Gravitational interaction Gg
（35）
Gg = 6.7 × 10 −8 cm 3 / g⋅ sec 2 Gs = 6.7 ×1030 cm3 / g⋅ sec2
where and

In the nucleus we assume

ρ A = ρ B = ρ . From (34) it follows

Gs = G0 ρ 2 （36）
From (36) it follows the formula of the particle radii

r = 1.55[m(Gev)]1/ 3 jn , （37）
138
 −15
where 1 jn= 10 cm and m (Gev) is the mass of the particles.
From (37) it follows that the proton and neutron radii are 1.5 jn[4,10].Pohl et al measure the
proton diameter 3 jn[11].
We have the formula of the nuclear radii[12]

r = 1.2( A)1/ 3 fm, （38）

−13
where 1 fm= 10 cm and A is its mass number.
It shows that (37) and (38) have the same form. The particle radii r < 5 jn and the nuclear
radii r < 7 fm.

Similar to equation (10) we define the tachyonic momentum of a string length x0 [1,4].

P0 = lim m0 u = const,
m0 →0
（39）
u →∞

m0
where is tachyonic string rest mass.
Since u → ∞ and t = 0 , tachyonic string has no rest mass and no rest time, it shows that
tachyon is unobservable, that gravity is action-at-a-distance and gravitational wave is
unobservable. If quantum teleportation, quantum computation and quantum information are
the tachyonic motion[13], then they are unobservable.

4Conclusion
Special relativity is the tardyonic theory. Einstein pointed out those velocities greater
than that of light have –as in our previous results-no possibility of existence [14], which could
be wrong. But gravitation is the tachyonic theory and an action-at-a-distance.
What is gravity? Newton wrote, “I have not been able to discover the cause of those
properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses ….” Einstein’s theory of
general relativity answered Newton’s question: Mass causes space-time curvature which is
wrong. Gravity is the tachyonic centripetal force.
Where did we come from? Where are we going ? What makes up the universe? These
questions have occupied mankind for thousands of years. Over the course of history, our view
of the world has changed. Theologians and philosophers, physicists and astronomers have
given us very different answers. Where did we come from ? We answer these questions this
way m → m ,tachyons → tardyons, that is gravitons can be converted into the electrons and
positrons which are the basic building-blocks of particles. In this model Universe there are no
quarks and no Higgs particles. Where are we going? We answer this question this way

m → m , that is the tardyons produce tachyons. The tardyons and tachyons make up the

Universe.
139
 2
F = − mc
Jiang found a gravitational formula[3] : R , where m is the tachyonic mass. In
2
F = − mc
2004 Jiang studied the Universe expansion and found R , where m is gravitational

mass converted into by tachyonic mass m .

References
[1] Jiang,C-X.A Theory of Morphisms Between the Tardyons and Tachyons, Wuli (Physics)
(Chinese), 4, (1975)119-125.
[2] Mignani, R. and Recami, E,Classical Theory of Tachyons(Special relativity extended to
superluminal frames and objects).Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento,4,(1974)209-290.
[3] Jiang,C-X,On Nature of Gravity, J. Beijing Observatory (Chinese), 7,(1976)32-38.
[4] Jiang,C-X.,A Unified Theory of the Gravitational and Strong Interactions, Hadronic
J.,Vol.24(2001)629-638.
[5] Misner,C.W.et al(eds). Gravitation,Preeman,1050.1973.
[6] Einstein,A.The Meaning of Relativity(6-th ed., Chapman and Hall,London),56.1967.
[7] Perlmutter,S. Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe, Physics
Today,(2003)53-59.April.
[8] Jiang,C-X).A Simple Approach to the Computation of the Total Number of Hadronic
Constituents in Santilli Model, Hadronic J,Vol.3,(1979)256-292.
[9]Jiang,C-X.,A Mathematical Model for Particle Classification,Acta
Math.,Scientia,Vol.8,(1988)133-144.
[10] Jiang,C-X.,Determination of Proton and Neutron Radii,APEIRON,Vol.3 Nr.3-4July-
Oct.(1996)126
[11] Pohl,R.et al,The Size of the Proton, Nature 466,(2010)213-216.
[12] Beiser,A,Concepts of Modern Physics,Mcgraw-Hill Book Company,371.1973.
[13] Horodecki,R,et al(eds). Quantum Entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol.81, No. 2.(2009)
865-942.
[14] Einstein,A.Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegter Korper,Ann.Phys.,17,(1905)891-921.

140
An Unsettled Issue of Time in Relativity Theory andNew Comprehension on Time

Liu Taixiang

Abstract:Einstein regarded time as an item independent of space, and called three-

dimensional space and one-dimensional time jointly as four-dimensional space-time, i.e.,
Einstein did not acknowledge the inseparability between time and space. On the basis of the
system relativity, the author firstly proves the absoluteness of movement, and then deduces
the conclusion that time derives from movement, then subsequently obtains such properties of
time as one dimension, irreversibility, infiniteness, non-uniformity and relativity, etc., by
illustrating the relationship between time and space and the concept of universe state, and
ultimately deduces a steady cosmological model and a prospect of total universe.

Keywords: Relativity theory,time,time density,time-dependent space, Time Island,time-

dependent reference frame.

Foreword

Einstein regarded time as an item independent of space, and called three-dimensional

space and one-dimensional time jointly as four-dimensional space-time, i.e., Einstein did not
acknowledge the inseparability between time and space. Therefore the author believes that the
physical revolution launched by Einstein is not thoroughgoing, which is why he failed to
establish the “unified field theory” regardless of his consumption of lifelong energy.

American physicist L. Smolin asserts that the dilemmas confronted by string theory,
loop quantum gravity and other means trying to unify physics all originate from some wrong
assumptions, among which the key issue lies in the nature of time. In deep meaning in both
quantum theory and general relativity, the nature of time has been wrongly understood [1]. The
author has deduced the properties of time that are different in some aspects in accordance
with system relativity[2] .

1 Time and Movement

We know that there are two kinds of object motion, linear motion and angular motion.
The velocity v in linear motion is indicated by the ratio of movement distance a to the

required time t ，i.e., v=a/t；the angular velocity ω in angular motion is indicated by the
ratio of rotation angle θ to the required time t, i.e., ω=θ/t. Thus it can be perceived that time
and movement are inseparable.

1.1 Absoluteness of Substance Movement

It is acknowledged in both philosophy and physics that movement is the basic pattern of

141
substance existence, substance and movement are inseparable. However, why substance
movement is inevitable. The integrated explanation on the issue was not given in either
philosophy or physics.

According to system relativity, the vast and boundless space is made up of fluid state
(continuous state) substance, space is the expression of the static property of the fluid state
substance, and field is the embodiment of the dynamic property of the fluid state substance,
therefore space and field are unified, and their entities are all fluid state substances, thus it can
be perceived that the space in system relativity corresponds to the ground state (i.e., vacuum)
of quantum field.

According to system relativity, S is the elementary unit in constituting space, the S in

space are arranged together seamlessly and tightly, just like the combination of pulmonary
alveolus. Due to the evenness and elasticity S, space is an ideal continuous medium. Each S

，the space energy density

has an energy portion e0. If S volume V tends to be infinitely great

ρ=e /V=0，and the S is in static state, i.e., the movement velocity v of S equals 0；If the S
0

volume is limited，the space energy density ρ＞0，and the velocity v of S is ＞0. Obviously

the change of S volume will lead to the change of its motion state, and vice versa, i.e., the
form of S and its motion state interact as both cause and effect. It can be deduced from this
that space movement is a spontaneous mechanism of fluid state substance that can undergo
without external motivation.

Space movement is vortex movement. At the effect of self-induced movement, an S is

continuously deformed and ultimately an isolated round line vortex ----vortex ring, takes
shape, which is the solitary wave solution nonlinear Schrodinger equation on the space made
up of the S. In accordance with Biot-Savart formula, this vortex ring formed by a single S
[3]
moves along its axis in a constant velocity of vc without getting its appearance changed .

142
The rigid body form vortex ring formed through S saltus is called fundamental particle cn, as
shown in figure 1.

The constant velocity vc of a fundamental particle cn is called cn’s inherent velocity. It

（
can be known from the author’s “Generality of Motion and Velocity of Light” Published on

P16-19 of periodical s2 of science edition of Journal of Shandong University, year 2011 ）

that cn’s inherent velocity vc multiplied by the cube root of its surface space density ρc is a

constant kv, i.e. ：

vcρc1/3 = kv （1）
Due to the difference of the space densities of various objects (including various kinds of
particles), their respective inherent speeds v are different from each other. Suppose the space

density on object surface isρ0 ，then vρ 0

1/3
= vcρc1/3= kv ， i.e.：
v= kv/ρ01/3 （2）
This is the general formula on the inherent speed of objects, kv= vcρc1/3 is absolute
constant of motion. It is easy to perceive that the inherent velocity of an object is inversely
proportional to the cube root of its surface space density.

Obviously, the inherent speed v of an object is permanently greater than zero,

therefore object movement has absoluteness. Surely the inherent velocity refers to the
relative velocity between rigid state substance (i.e., object) and fluid state substance (i.e.,
space or field), the relative velocity between various objects is ≥0 (please refer to Generality
of Motion and Velocity of Light for detail). The movement generally mentioned by us refers to
the relative movement between the various objects.

1.2 Time is the Concept Deriving from Movement

In system relativity, it is considered that the nature of an object is energy. It has the
properties of volume (i.e., three-dimensional property) and movement (i.e., the relative
movement between objects). The properties of energy and volume of an object exist
independently without relying on the outside world, however, the movement property of an
object is a form of existence shown with the external environment as background, therefore,
the movement property of an object relies on the external environment, in other words, the
movement property of an object derives from the external environment.

The movability of an object is shown by the endless movement and evolution process of

143
cosmic things, the process can be quantified into a series of “events”. During the observation
on an event, the external periodical event (like sunrise or sunset) becomes a background for
observation, the period of the background event naturally becomes a kind of gauge for us to
measure the event being observed. The physical significance of the value acquired through the
measurement on the event via the gauge is called time by us, the value magnitude indicates
time span, the gauge is time gauge.

Just like what Wheeler says, physics should be rebuilt on a new basis, and in the new
physical system, the formation of time will be through derivation[4]. If there is no movement,
there is no event, and therefore the periodicity of the “event” course does not exist, there is no
certain background for our observation on the outside movement course, and naturally there is
no the generation of the concept of time. Therefore, time is the concept deriving from
movement, surely time relies on the external environment for existence.

2 Time and Universe State

It can be deduced from universe state that time has such properties as one dimension,
irreversibility and infiniteness, etc.

2.1 One Dimension of Time

During the endless course of movement and evolution of cosmic things, each moment
corresponds to a cosmic state called as universe state ΨU(t) for short. The assembly of the
universe states in various moments constitutes a universe state sequence:

……, ΨU(tn-1), ΨU(tn), ΨU(tn+1), ……

The one-dimension property of universe state sequence results in the one-dimension

property of time. As shown in figure 2, if tn is regarded as current moment, then tn-1 is the
moment that has passed, and tn+1 is the moment that is to come. Therefore, time is
directional, the directional time is called “time arrow” by Hawking.

2.2 Irreversibility of Time

The assembly of universe state

sequences is called universe U, hence
universe U can be expressed as:

U=∑ΨU(tn) （the value of n ranges from

-∞ to +∞）（3）

Each universe state ΨU(t) is the

assembly of all the object states Ψ(t) at moment t ， i.e.：

144
 ﹛ ， ， ， ﹜（4）
ΨU(t) = Ψ1(t) Ψ2(t) Ψ3(t) ……

Substitute for ΨU(t) from formula （4） into formula （3），then the following matrix
expression on the universe U is acquired：

（5）

We can acquire the definition on the universe from the above formula: The universe is a
general term meaning the past, present and future states of all the substances (objects).

Actually, each object stateΨ(t) is composed of its state of matter, state of motion, its
relationship with the surrounding objects in terms of position, etc. Just like the ancient Greek
philosopher Heracleitus said:“No one ever steps into the same river twice”, it is more
impossible for us to perceive the two universe states that are the same, this is determined by
the movement character and infiniteness of objects. Therefore, although periodicity exists on
partial object movement, any two universe states are different in the universe state
sequence,i.e.:

ΨU(t1) ≠ ΨU(t2) （6）

This is the non-repeatability of universe state ΨU(t). The non-repeatability of universe
state results in the irreversibility of time. Obviously, the “time tunnel” leading to the past or
future in Hawking’s imagination does not exist.

2.3 Infiniteness of Time

The absoluteness of object movement and the infiniteness of substance indicate that
universe state ΨU(t) has the property of infiniteness, i.e., there is neither starting point nor
finishing point in the universe, therefore time has the property of infiniteness, i.e., time has
no beginning and end.

In accordance with Big Bang theory, the generation of our universe, accompanied
by the simultaneous generation of time, originates from the big bang of a “singularity”
with infinite great density and high temperature. Obviously, in accordance with Big

145
Bang theory, time has a starting point, which some scientists are suspicious of—what is
outside the “singularity”? What had happened before the big bang of the “singularity”?
And what mechanism had triggered off the big bang? In facing these queries, the theory
supporters believe that all physical laws do not exist on the “singularity”. In the author’s
opinion, requiring all the physical laws to exist at the designated time and place just for
the purpose of catering for a theory seems to bring the God into the palace of science,
which is unacceptable to the whole science community. Therefore the Big Bang Theory
is questionable.

3 Time and Space

It can be known from system relativity that a fundamental particle cn has the constant
vorticity Фc, please refer to figure 1. This means that the S number nc passing through cn ring
is constant. Therefore, the time ts for each S to pass through cn ring can be expressed as:

ts=1/nc = constant （7）

ts is a time portion owned by S, i.e., space has time property.

3.1 Non-uniformity of Time

In accordance with system relativity, space has density distribution （ρ=ρ r

0 0
3 3
/r , in whichρ0

stands for space density on the surface of a celestial body, r0 stands for the radius of the
celestial body, r stands for the distance to the celestial body, ρ stands for the space density at a

place, the distance between the place and the celestial body is r ）, therefore time also has
density distribution. Suppose space density is ρ, then time density ρt can be expressed as:

ρt = tsρ1/3 = tsρ01/3r0/r （8）

It can be perceived from the above formula that time density changes with the change of
space density, and is inversely proportional to r — the distance to the celestial body.
Therefore, time is uneven.

Suppose that a time scale is set up between the earth and the sun, then the mark gap at
the earth side is about three times that of the sun side(deduced from gravity acceleration), and
the maximum mark gap is located on the boundary of the earth field, as thrown in figure 3.
That is the essence of “time expansion” effect.

Obviously, a
length scale with
even marks is

146
different from a time scale. If the marks on the length scale are determined on the basis of
space density, its mark gaps will also be uneven, which is the essence of “shortening of
moving length scale” effect.

Obviously, in earth surface environment, the space density is relatively constant,

therefore, we feel that time passes by evenly.

3.2 Relativity of Time

As mentioned above, suppose an event A happens in the environment with space density ρ
during the time span of t, then:

t=ρt×A= tsρ1/3A (9)

The time span for event A is t⊙ during our general observation in the environment of
earth surface (the space density is ρ⊙), then such formula can be deduced: t⊙=ρt×A= tsρ⊙1/3A.

Get the formula divided by formula (9) and make arrangement, then ：
t⊙=(ρ⊙/ρ)1/3t (10)

In the above formula, we refer to t as the inherent time of an event, and t⊙as the event
observation time on earth surface, and the above formula can be referred to as time change
equation.

As to the events in micro environment, as the microenvironment space density ρ>>ρ⊙,

the observation time in earth surface environment is extremely short; as to the events in space
environment, as the space environment space density ρ<<ρ⊙, the observation time in earth
surface environment is relatively pretty long, generating the illusion of space “time
expansion”. Obviously, the so called Twin Paradox lodged by Einstein is impossible.

3.3 Inseparability between Time and Space

On the one hand, space has time property. On the other hand, the space made up of fluid-
state substance is invisible. The movement we can see is that of objects. Furthermore, the
movement of objects is the movement in space, and there is no movement and consequently
no time without space. So time and space are inseparable.
[5]
According to special relativity, space and time are intertwined . This view has greatly
pushed forward Newton’s absolute time and space outlook. Einstein regarded time as an item
independent of space, and called three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time jointly as
four-dimensional space-time, i.e., Einstein did not acknowledge the inseparability between
time and space. Therefore the author believes that the physical revolution launched by
Einstein is not thoroughgoing, which is why he failed to establish the “unified field theory”
regardless of his consumption of lifelong energy.
147
4 Time and Universe

A constant and stable universe model can derive from the infiniteness of time, and it can be
deduced from the quantum property of substance that the so called universe “singularity” does
not exist. Therefore the author believes that the Big Bang with the starting point of time has
never occurred, however, there are continuous black hole big bangs in the galaxies or galaxy
clusters spread over the universe. Therefore, the “standard universe model” accepted by most
of the scientists is questionable.

4.1 Constant Cosmological Model in System Relativity

In the author’s view, the universe in which

we live is a gigantic and extremely complicated
system and can be regarded as a single body, i.e.,
a universe body. Just like an object having
three-layer-field structure, a universe also has a
three-layer-field structure, as shown in figure 4.
The core of the universe is a universe body
made up of countless galaxies and galaxy
clusters, it is a spherical, colorful visible world
seen by us; The middle layer of the universe is an
atomic vacuum filled with various kinds of
photons and micro particles, it is the critical field
of the universe body; The outer layer of the
universe is the photon vacuum that cannot be
reached even by fundamental particles, it is the external field of the universe body. It is in
nihility state relative to objects but is filled with S.
In accordance with the principle of light’s convex lens effect (for detail, please refer to
section 3 of A Survey of Photons by the author, published on natural science edition of Journal
of Shandong Normal University, the 6th phase, 2012), at the critical field of an universe body,
the photons sent out by the universe body turn back to the universe body due to total
reflection. Therefore, the critical field of the universe body is also called light reflection layer.
This is similar to the visual field of
black holes. This is the reason for the
isotropy of cosmic background
radiation.
If a spaceship takes us to fly
outward along the direction of the
radial line of the universe body, we
can observe the galaxies of our
148
universe from any visual angle; after we have entered into the atomic vacuum, we can see that
the visual angle θ of the universe begins to reduce from 180° if we observe along the direction
perpendicular to the motion path, the ubiquitous universe is changing into a ring belt
surrounding us, the further we fly outward, the smaller the visual angle θ. During the process,
we feel the circular universe is retreating and we are in static state, as shown in figure 5; when
we have reached the outer edge of the atomic vacuum, the ring-belt shaped universe changes
into a remote loop line far from reaching. Once we have entered into the photon vacuum, that
faintly visible universe loop line disappears, and we enter into the boundless and indistinct
deep space, which is referred to as black space in system relativity.
In the black space, we are surrounded by darkness and can see nothing, we’ve lost all
backgrounds. Although the roaring of spaceship motor still lingers around our ears, we are
unable to tell whether the spaceship is moving. The disappearance of movement is
accompanied by the disappearance of time, therefore it is not difficult to draw such a
conclusion that time does not exist without light, which is the relationship between time and
light and completely different from the light-time relationship described by Einstein.
Although inseparability exists between time and space, not all the spaces have time.
Suppose the space density at the outer boundary of an atomic vacuum is ργ, then the range of
the density ρ of the time-existing space is:

（ ）
ρ≥ργ 11

The space area with the space density ρ ＜ρ （i.e., black space） is the space where time
γ

does not exist and the pure space excluding objects that include various particles such as
fundamental particle cn. From this it can be deduced that time does not exist without objects,
the existence of time depends on the existence of objects. The space of the object-existing
also called time-dependent space.

4.2 Multiple Universes and Time Islands

It can be known from section 1.1 that the vortex movement of space generates
fundamental particles, which form photons, electrons, protons, atoms, common objects and
celestial bodies, and then form a universe. However, it is impossible that the vast and
boundless space happens to exist only in the sole universe space vortex we stay in, in other
words, there should be many universe space vortex in space. Each universe space vortex is
called a subsidiary universe, which is called universe for short; all the subsidiary universes
jointly constitute an ultimate universe, also called total universe.
The total universe is the universal set of substances, it is the biggest and most
complicated system and can be regarded as a single body, i.e., the total universe body. The
total universe has no outer boundary, i.e., the outer field strength b of the total universe body
equals 0, then in accordance with the formula on the field radius rb, i.e., rb =(B0/b)1/2r0 (B0 and
149
r0 are the surface field strength and radius of the total universe body respectively), it can be
known that the field radius of the total universe body is infinite, therefore the volume of the
total universe is infinite. As the field strength b at the field boundary of a subsidiary universe

is ＞0, the values of the volume and energy of a subsidiary universe should be finite.
As the photons (i.e., information) of a subsidiary universe is unable to run out, on the
one hand, there is no information exchange between the subsidiary universes, i.e., each
subsidiary universe is an information isolation island, which is referred to as information
island; on the other hand, the dark space between the subsidiary universes is the world where
time does not exist, and each subsidiary universe becomes a time isolation island referred to
as time island floating in the black space, as shown in figure 6. While staying in the
subsidiary universe where we live in, we are unable to observe the existence of other
subsidiary universes, which is different from the content in M theory that a subsidiary
universe cannot be observed just
because it is located in different
dimensionality.
It is worth mentioning that
although invisibility exists among the
subsidiary universes, interaction and
relative motion exist among them.
However, different from the syncretic
property existing among the galaxies,
the relationship among the subsidiary
universes is more like the relationship
among the particles in fluid, they are
independent and keep a distance from
each other and never keep in touch.

5 Dimensionality of Space and Time

In accordance with classical physics, space is three dimensional. Ever since the
establishment of Einstein’s special relativity, in view of the understanding that time and space
are intertwined, time and space are jointly referred to as space-time, which has four
dimensionalities, among which three dimensionalities correspond to empirical space, one
dimensionality corresponds to time. In various editions of string theory in which various types
of space dimensions, including 7 dimension theory, 10 dimension theory, 11 dimension
theory, apart from the dimensionality of three-dimensional empirical space and the
dimensionality of one-dimensional time, the remaining dimensionalities all curl up in inner
space [6].

150
 We all know that substance has the property of volume, a substance without volume
does not exist, the volume property, if expressed in the form of space, means that space
is three dimensional. In the frame of three-dimension space, we can see that a subsidiary
universe is dynamic, there are movements and evolutionary processes of various objects
and celestial bodies. Surely, the whole subsidiary universe serves as the observation
background for the observation on any celestial body in it. If we try to make the whole
subsidiary universe as the object for observation, we can only observe by standing in the
dark space. As described in 4.1, the subsidiary universe at this time has disappeared.

In the early 17th century, both Descartes and Galileo made the most fantastic
discovery: In a coordinate diagram in which horizontal axis represents space and vertical
axis represents time, the movement passing through space becomes a curve on the
diagram (as shown in figure 7). In this mode, time seems to have become the space of
another dimension. Movement is frozen, the seemingly static course of movement and
[7]
change is presented before us . In terms of this discovery, L. Smolin thinks that it is
wrong to express time in the form of space acquired through conversion.

The author thinks that two

prerequisites, i.e., reference object and
time scale, must be possessed in the
observation of an object. A reference
object is the specific object in
observation background, on the basis of
this specific object we can establish a
three-dimensional location reference
frame, also called three-dimensional
space frame; a time scale derives from
the whole background, on the basis of which we can establish a one-dimensional time
reference frame, also called one-dimensional time frame. We refer to the combination
of the two reference frame as background reference frame, also called time-dependent
reference frame, this is the so called four-dimensional space-time frame.

Obviously, time dimensionality is not another dimensionality of space. Relative to

the observed object, the observer and observation instrument are also part of the
background. As the observer isolates them from the background, he is unable to observe
the movement of an object in a four-dimensional space-time frame, but can only make
observation in three-dimensional space frame. In other words, observer and time exist in
three-dimensional space frame, and there are no observer and time in four-dimensional
space-time frame. Therefore, for an observer, four-dimensional space-time frame does
not exist.

151
 In four-dimensional space-time frame, time does not exist, and consequently
movement is frozen, therefore movement and evolution process does not exist in the
whole universe in four-dimensional space-time frame, this is the static universe----an
eternal existence mentioned by Einstein. In accordance with the illustration in section 4,
the absence of time means that the observer is in black space. This eternal existence
becomes nonexistence due to invisibility.

In the various editions of M theory inclusive string theory, inner space is set up
specifically for the purpose of resolving the problems we are confronted with. The number of
space dimensions lies in our choice. If four-dimensional space-time does not exist, the
existence of higher dimensional space will be more unlikely. Therefore, the author thinks that
space has and has only three dimensions.

6 Ending Remarks

In conclusion, the author thinks that time is a kind of background, a kind of space. Time
derives from movement, light and its existence relies on objects and observers. Time is the
high degree of abstraction on nature, time is our universe. This is the outlook on time in
system relativity.

References

[1]L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, translated by Li Yong, Hunan Science and
Technology Press, Changsha, 2008, PP. 252-253.

[2] Liu Taixiang, The System Relativity , Beijing, Scientific and Technical Documentation
Press, 2012.

[3] Tong Binggang, Yin Xieyuan, Zhu Keqin, Theory on Vortex Movement, the second
edition, Press of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 2009, PP. 149-
160.

[4] Fang Lizhi, Wheeler’s Speeches Physics and Austerity, Anhui Science and Technology
Press, Hefei, 1982.

[5] Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, translated by Li Hao, Science Press, Beijing, 1979.

[6] Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design,translated by Wu Zhongchao,

Hunan Science and Technology Press, Changsha, 2011, PP. 121-123.

[7] L· Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, translated by Li Yong, Hunan Science and
Technology Press, Changsha, 2008, PP. 252.

152
 ～
About the author: Liu Taixiang(1969 ), male; hometown: Laiwu, Shandong province;

Senior engineer; Research area: Theoretical physics.

Address: Room 702, No. 13 building, Zhongrun Century Square, No. 13777, Jingshi Road,
Jinan City, Shandong Province.

E-mail: [email protected]

153
Theory of Relativity does not solve the problem of experimental verification
Tu Runsheng
(Agency of Quality Products Supervision and Inspection of Huangshi City,
Huanshi435000, Hubei Province, P. R. China. E-mail: [email protected])

Abstract: In a limited number of experiments that support Theory of Relativity, there also
exist some points that are not supportive of the theory. Therefore, Theory of relativity does
notsolvetheproblemofexperimental verification. Although the results of many experiments
quantitatively conform to the predictions of Theory of Relativity, many of them are not
supportive of the theory in one place or another. For example, Jones experiment confirms
that: Observing in thesystem of the movementglass, the law of refractionis not established;
from the observation with a moving frame of reference, the moving direction of a photon is
actually related to the state of motion of the light source. According to this, the observer in the
frame of reference can determine the speed of motion of himself. The principles of relativity
are identical with Doppler shift, both requiring an identical emission frequency of the same
type of light source in different state of motion. The atomic clock's bi-directional
circumnavigation experiment proves that the same light source in different state of motion has
different emission frequencies; the velocity sequence of atomic clocks in different systems is
unique, and is independent of the state of motion of the observer. This proves the
inequivalence of different inertial systems. The asymmetry in time for microwave transmitted
back and forth to geostationary satellite and the results of Michelson's experiments conducted
at different altitudes and Sagnac experiments proved that the resultant velocity of light
velocity and velocity of earth's surface is not light velocity. This indicates that as for Theory
of Relativity, we should be neither supportive nor non-supportive unconditionally. Instead, we
should go back to its true features.

Keywords:Jones experiment, Sagnac experiment,the atomic clock's bi-directional

circumnavigation experiment, Law of refraction, Relativity principle.

The experiments that are believed to be supportive of Theory of Relativity contain some
parts that conform to Theory of Relativity. If the focus of attention is changed, one can find
many places that are not in accordance with Theory of Relativity. In other words, except for
one local experiment, almost all the experiments can be found consistent with Theory of
Relativity in some places; however, if we change to another focus of attention, some parts of
these experiments can be found inconsistent with Theory of Relativity. If an experiment is
believed to have proven the Theory of Relativity, it is because the experiment is simply
explained in a way that supports Theory of Relativity. For example, the results of Jones

154
 [1-3]
experiment conform quantitatively with the predictions of Theory of Relativity only in
some parts, while qualitatively the results are not in accordance with the theory; the atomic
clock's bi-directional circumnavigation experiment is consistent with the predictions of
Theory of Relativity only quantitatively, while qualitatively it is not in accordance with
Theory of Relativity. The results of Sagnac experiment are contrary to those of Michelson's
experiment, and do not support Theory of Relativity. There are even more examples that
support this point.
The fact that the experiment conducted by Miller et al. is not supportive of Theory of
Relativity has long been reported. People tolerate these experiments because such
experiments are few. That is to say, people do not feel pressured when “the blue sky is
scattered with few clouds”. Only when the sky is full of rainy clouds can people feel the
pressure. Now it has been found that a large quantity of experiments are a “double-edged
sword” to Theory of Relativity, showing that the theory is reasonable in some places and have
serious faults in other places. But the physicists can no longer stay indifferent.

1 With changed focus of attention, it is not hard to find that “the Jones experiment
believed to support Theory of Relativity” actually goes contrary to it

To illustrate this point, let's take a look at two theoretical experiments in imagination.
Then the situation proved by Jones experiment and the requirements of Theory of Relativity
are demonstrated. The results of these two experiments can be used as the guidance, premise
or basis for later discussion.

1.1 Photon shooting experiment and high-speed train searchlight experiment

Imaging that system B has a moving light source S S
which is connected to system A. An arch-shaped steel rod
connects S and a target marked with point C and D (See 4
1 2
α
3
Figure 1). The observer in system A emits a photon targeting
at point D using line-of-sight geometry. If the absolutely
r
stationary reference system does not exist and all inertial C D υ
systems are equivalent, S will be a stationary light source if
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of photon shooting
observed from system A. The emission direction of the experiment. If all systems are equivalent, the
same photon will hit both point C and D.
photon defined by a paraboloid is the real emission direction
(i.e. the point D that the photon should hit). Since the moving light source S cannot give a
transverse initial velocity in a lateral direction, and a vacuum separates the light source and
the target, the photon cannot be pulled transversely. If observed in system B, during the time
that the photon moves from S to the target, the target has already moved vertically for a
distance of DC relative to the photon path Therefore, the observer in system B will see the
photon hitting point C. Since a photon cannot hit both point C and point D at the same time,
this theoretical experiment in imagination reveals a paradox. In Figure 1, Line 1 is the real
155
transmission path of the photon observed by the observer in system B; Line 2 is the apparent
path of the photon observed by B; Line 3 is the transmission path determined (predicted) by A
geometrically; Line 4 is the steel rod connecting light source and the target. α is the angle of
aberration.
The paradox above is caused by not distinguishing the space in different reference
system. The principles of relativity require that when changing the observer, the vacuum
space outside the objects should be changed correspondingly; as the reference system
changes, the vacuum space should change with it. If there is a superior system, the space
cannot be changed with the change of observer. Thus, the conclusion inferred according to
space division in Theory of Relativity is paradoxical. R. V. Jones conducted the lateral pulling
experiment in 1971 (hereafter referred to as Jones experiment). When the photon reaches the
photon receiver after it passes through the glass, the photon shooting experiment is realized.
In other words, the photon shooting experiment is realized in one part of Jones experiment.
And Jones experiment proved that the photon hits point C instead of point D, and the system
B is superior to system A.
Now we will analyze an example closely related to
(a ) (b)
our daily life (high-speed train searchlight experiment).
Imagine a high-speed train is travelling in a dark tunnel.
A torch is mounted laterally to the train (considered as a
ψ
searchlight). The extension direction of the torch δ
(representing the emission direction of the photon) is r r
υ υ
vertical to the train and the internal wall of the tunnel.
Figure 2. The pulling effect on the photon of hollow
Quickly press the switch to emit a beam of light and then rotating disk and solid rotating disk in the experiment.
(a) is a solid disk and (b) is a hollow disk. If observed
raise your hand. When observed in the reference system inside the disk, a part of Figure 1(a) can be

of the roadbed, the beam can only be vertical to the train demonstrated in Figure 3.

and the internal wall of the tunnel. This is because the space between the light source and the
internal wall belongs to the roadbed reference system, and the train body is parallel with the
internal wall of the tunnel. It would be contradictory to the mathmatical principles if a beam
of light is vertical to the train body but not vertical to the internal wall. In a general sense,
when the space between the light source and the moving planar object is changed to vacuum,
the conclusion still holds within the framework of Theory of Relativity. It has to be admitted
according to the principles of relativity that the vacuum outside the objects belongs to the
system where the observation is conducted (when observed in the moving planar object, the
space between light source and the moving planar object belongs to the system in which the
moving planar object is in, This is similar to the situation where “the space above the roadbed
belongs to the roadbed reference system if observed in the roadbed reference system”). The
high-speed train searchlight experiment shows that for the principles of relativity to hold,
when the photon is emitted vertically to a moving planar object in a stationary reference
system (the space between the light source and the moving planar object is vacuum) and is
156
observed in a system connected to the moving planar object, then the photon path is still
vertical to this plane. If observed from the moving planar object, the photon emitted by the
moving source travels in an oblique path towards the planar object, then the velocity of the

photon is c 2 + υ 2 , which is higher than the light velocity and the light velocity is relevant
to the state of motion of the observer. Then the principle of constancy of light velocity cannot
hold.

1.2 The transmission path of the photon proved by Jones experiment

Jones experiment proves the Theory of Relativity in quantitatively. However, a careful
analysis shows that the experiment seems to prove that “ground laboratory reference system is
superior to the moving glass reference system”.
The principle of Jones experiment is shown in Figure 2(a). According to the
electrodynamics dominated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and Lorentz
transformation, the direction of the light passing through the medium is given by:

，
tanψ = nfiγ (1)

Where Lorentz coefficient is : Lateral movement δ is given by:

δ = nlfiγ. (2)

1 ν 0 dn
Where n is refractive index, fi = 1 − + and l is the thickness of the
n 2 n dν 0

disk, γ = 1 − υ 2 / c 2 . The experimental value was δ = 6.175nm (standard deviation was

±0.016nm). According to the theoretical prediction by equation (2), the value was 6.174nm.
From the equation (2) proven by Jones experiment it can be noted that the experiment
demonstrated the “association between lateral movement and thickness of disk”. What does
this represent? First of all, it shows that the pulling ends when the photon has passed through
the glass and the light basically resumes the emission direction before entering the glass disk.
Secondly, it shows that the pulling exerted by the glass medium cannot give a permanent
lateral velocity component to the photon (apart from the refraction, when the photon passes
through the interface, its lateral motion is inconsistent with inertial motion principle).
If observed in
the glass reference β S β
system, the
×
α
transmission path of
the photon
Figure 3(a). Jones experiment proves that when Figure 3(b). The light source buried in the moving
determined by Jones observed in a moving reference system, the law of glass emits photons at an incident angle of zero,

experiment is shown
refraction is not necessarily true. β is a deflection while the deflection angle is not zero. β can only
angle free from the restriction of the law of refraction, be the inner angle of aberration.

in Figure 3(a) (it can which is called aberration angle.

157
be obtained from Figure 2 by changing of the reference system of the observer; for detailed
demonstration, see section 1.4). The lateral pulling efficiency of the glass on the photon is not
100%, which causes a very small angle of deflection upwards for the light inside the glass.
As long as oobserved inthelaboratorysystem, the situationisshown in Figure 10.6, As
long as oobserved inthe system of moving glass, the situation certainty isshown in Figure
10.7. It can be seen clearly from Fig. 10.7 (b),the law of refractionis not established in

－
thesystem of the movingglass The incident angle α is not equal to the exit angle β, the

refraction of n=(sinα)/(sinβ) does not established.

1.3 Quantitative analysis on the law of refraction in Jones experiment

In Jones experiment, the thickness of the disk l=0.02465m, refractive index n=1.524, the
distance between light spot to the rotating shaft is 0.1375m, the perimeter of the disk at the
light spot is 0.8635m,. and the number of rotation is
25.03sec-1. Thus, the linear velocity of the disk at the β2
light spot is υ= 21.61 m/sec. In Jones experiment, α1
when observed in the glass reference system, the β1 = α 2
measured possible transmission path of the photon is
shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Schematic diagram for Section 1.3. If the
pulling efficiency of the glass on the photon is not 100%,

α1 represents the incident angle of light in the then when observed in the rotating disk system, the
results of Jones experiment can be shown in the figure
disk reference system; β1 represents the angle of below.

refraction. According to the Special Relativity, sinα1 = υ/c = 7.203×10-8. If the law of
refraction holds, then n=sinα1/sinβ1, sinβ1=sinα1/n=4.727×10-8. Since β1 is very small, we can
obtain the relationship as below: sinβ1≈tanβ1≈β1=4.727×10-8. This is the theoretical value of
the angle of refraction β1 corresponding to the incident angle α1 when observed in the glass
reference system. As for the measured value of β1 in Jones experiment, there are two different
ways of understanding. (1)Some believe that β1≈tanβ1=δ/2l=(6.175γ/l)/2=1.252×10-7. (2) In
the laboratory reference system, since the angle ψ in Figure 2 is caused entirely by the lateral
pulling exerted by the glass, the photon is moving in a stationary medium and the lateral
pulling does not exist. β1 should equal 0 (the experiment proves equation (2), and thus proves
understanding (2). The theoretical value that is in line with the law of refraction is not
identical to the measured values by the two ways of understanding.
Conclusion: In the rotating disk reference system, the measured angle of refraction was
not consistent with the theoretical value. The law of refraction is not true in the rotating disk
reference system.
Inference: The laboratory reference system is the superior reference system.
From Figure 3 it can be observed directly that in Jones experiment, if observed in the
glass reference system, the photon passing through the two interfaces does not conform to the
law of refraction (because the light inside of the glass is travelling horizontally while the light
158
outside is travelling in an oblique line).
Some people may be doubtful of the quantitative analysis above, for the light source is
moving when observed in the glass reference system. If the light transmits as shown in Figure
4, then the velocity and direction of the moving photon is relevant to the state of motion of the
observer. Thus, the principle of the consistency of light velocity is violated. If we admit that
the light velocity and its direction are relevant to the state of motion of the observer, then the
transmission path of the photon can be shown by Line 3 in Figure 5. The law of refraction still
applies in the glass reference system. However, to believe that “the transmission path of the
photon can be exactly shown by Line 3 in Figure 5” is to admit that in Figure 2 the
relationship between angle ψ and light velocity is tanψ=nυ/c, and equals to nfiγ on the right
side of Equation (1). nυ/c≠nfiγ indicates that the lateral pulling efficiency of the glass on the
photon is not 100%. So long as the lateral pulling efficiency of the glass on the photon is not
100%, the transmission path of the photon in the glass is not horizontal if observed in the
glass reference system (the target photon has a retrograde motion in the longitudinal
direction); instead, the light is deflected upward (the lower the efficiency of the pulling, the
larger the angle of deflection is). The law of refraction still does not hold in the glass
reference system.

1.4 Comparison between the results of Jones experiment and the requirement of Theory
of Relativity
If the pulling effects of a solid disk and a hollow disk are not the same, then the pulling
is relevant only to the total thickness of the glass disk. Then, the transmission path of the
photon in Jones experiment can be shown by Line 2 in Figure 5.
According to electromagnetic theory, for the transmission path of an electromagnetic
wave, any point is always the source of electromagnetic wave of the preceding point. Thus, if
a light source S is buried in the disk at the distance equaling to the disk radius and the incident
angle is also 0, then the deflection angle will certainly be β (See Figure 3(b)). If the light
source buried in the glass emits a photon towards the right and parallel with the normal, then
the deflection angle of the emerging light does not necessarily contain the contribution of
refraction but completely the angle of aberration β (See Figure 3(b)).
The equivalence of different inertial systems (the space belongs to the inertial system
where the observer is) and the principle that “light velocity and its direction are irrelevant to
the state of motion of the light source” require that “the transmission path of a horizontal
incident and vertically emerging light is still horizontal in a stationary space and a stationary
object” (for more details, see “high-speed train searchlight” experiment), When observed in
the laboratory reference system, the normally incident light falls on a glass disk. This avoids
the non-zero refraction of the light. The deflection of the light in the glass is caused entirely
by the pulling of the medium. When observed in the glass reference system, the non-zero
refraction does not happen. The light is still vertical to the glass disk (See “high-speed train
159
searchlight” experiment).
Within the framework of Theory of Relativity, when observed in the moving glass disk,
the vacuum at both sides of the interface is stationary to the observer (if the vacuum outside
the glass is believed to be moving and belongs to the laboratory reference system, the
laboratory reference system is superior to the glass reference system. If the glass and the
observer himself are believed to be moving, then the principles of relativity are violated).
Only when the observation is made in the laboratory reference system, the medium on both
sides of the glass-vacuum interface is “moving at one side and stationary at the other side”.
The law of refraction does not apply
“Observe the light emitted by the torch on the high-speed train in the roadbed reference
system” is entirely identical to “observe the light emitted by the light source in the glass
reference system in Jones experiment”. Therefore, Theory of Relativity requires that the
transmission path of the photon emitted from the light source in the laboratory reference
system must be vertical to the glass disk before entering the glass when observed in the glass
reference system (transmission path 3 of photon in
Figure 5 is required by Theory of Relativity). That is to
S
say, when observed in the glass reference system, the × 1
2
vacuum outside the glass in Jones experiment belongs to
the glass reference system, not the laboratory reference 3
system. A photon that enters horizontally but vertically
Figure5. When observed in the glass system, path 1 and
passes through the interface should have the same path 3 are required by principles of relativity and the

transmission direction in the stationary space out of the principle of consistency of light velocity. Path 2 is
observed in Jones experiment. Therefore, the results of
glass and inside the stationary glass (taking into account Jones experiment deny Theory of Relativity (the results
show the superiority of the laboratory system over
that the results of the high-speed train searchlight moving glass system).

experiment and the fact that the error caused by 100% pulling efficiency is very small and can
be neglected). )
As shown above, when observed in the glass reference system, path 1 and path 3 in
Figure 5 are required by the Theory of Relativity (for specific reasons, see the results of
“high-speed train searchlight” experiment and take into consideration of the requirement of
“space division” in Theory of Relativity). Path 2 is the measured path in Jones experiment.
Admitting the legitimacy of path 2 and path 3 at the same time is to admit that a photon can
hit both point B and point C in the “photon shooting” experiment. This is a very serious
mistake, but people refuse to correct this mistake.

1.5 Jones experiment proves that the observer in the glass reference system can feel his
own motion, based on which optical speedometer can be developed

160
 The angle β in Figure 3(b) is entirely an angle
of aberration, rather than an angle of refraction. The system

The so-called aberration is a visual effect caused of the

× ϕ δ
by the relative movement of the source and the observer

observer. Which movement actually results in the

angle of aberration β in Figure 3(b)? It can only be
the the motion of the observer relative to the
Figure 6. Principle of optical speedometer. From the comparison of
the actual path and the path determined with geometrical

laboratory reference system (because only one methods of a photon, the inner aberration can be obtained. W ith
the inner aberration angle φ, the velocity of the system itself can
system exists in the scope of discussion of Figure be calculated.

3(b) and the light source is stationary to the

observer). In other words, angle β in Figure 3(b) is caused by the fact that the vacuum outside
the glass still belongs to the laboratory reference system (i.e. the laboratory reference system
is superior to the glass reference system). The transmission path of the photon in Figure 3(a)
is proven by Jones experiment. Figure 6is the schematic illustration of a
geometricopticalspeedometer.
The analysis above indicates that to prove the that lateral movement is relevant to the
thickness l is to prove that when observed in the glass reference system, the angle of
incidence is 0, but the angle of refraction is not (considering only that the photon passes
through the second interface). This denies that the law of refraction is covariant. Even though
some readers believe that the law of refraction does not hold in a moving reference system,
the angle β in Figure 5 is only relevant to the moving velocity of the observer, Jones
experiment reveals another question-- the absolute moving velocity can be measured by the
observer. The latter is also the question that “in an inertial system, one's movement can be
perceived with optical experiment” (the admission of a superior reference system). Now the
remaining question is how the observer measures the angle of aberration angle of the
emerging light.
The light source in Figure 3(b) is moved to the surface of the disk and the target and the
light source are connected by a steel rod (Figure 6). The point that the light hit is determined
geometrically based on a paraboloid. Jones experiment shows that “lateral movement is
relevant to the thickness l of the disk and the pulling ends when the photon emerges out of the
glass”, resulting in the upward deflection of the light passing through the glass (a photon
receiver and a counter are connected to the target). In this way, the target point determined by
the geometrical method differs from the actual target point.
Theory of Relativity requires the equivalence of different inertial systems. The light
emitted by the light source shown in Figure 3(b) is parallel with the normal to the interface
after it passes through the glass; while the finding of Jones experiment that “the lateral
movement is relevant to the thickness of the disk and the pulling ends when the light emerges
out of the glass” seems to admit that the light passing through has a non-zero deflection (see
Fig.6). The principle shown in Figure 6 is identical with “photon shooting experiment” of
161
Figure 1 (in Figure 6 it is not a box system without cover; at the bottom there is an extremely
thin steel rod).
In the course of the transmission of electromagnetic wave, any point is the
electromagnetic wave source of the preceding point. Therefore, when observed in the
laboratory reference system, the situation (the transmission path of the photon) can be
illustrated by Figure 2. When observed in the glass reference system, the situation will be
exactly what is shown in Figure 3, which in turn, leads to the situation shown in Figure 6.
Figure 3 and Figure 6 indicate: In a reference system moving at the velocity of υ, the actual
transmission path of the photon will deviate from the emission path of the photon determined
by geometrical method (i.e. deviation from the geometrical direction). The angle of deviation
can be called “inner angle of aberration”, an angle of aberration that can be observed inside
the system without any exterior reference system. An electron gun and a photon gun
simultaneously emit an electron and a photon in the same geometrical direction so as to find
the “inner angle of aberration” more easily. The relationship between the “inner angle of
aberration” and the velocity of the system is δ/l = tanφ' =υ/c. If only the “inner angle of
aberration”φ in one direction can be observed, the inner angles of aberration α, β and φ in the
other three directions can also be observed. In this situation, the relationship of the velocity V
of the system and the inner angle of aberration is:

V = c tan 2 α + tan 2 β + tan 2 ϕ , (3)

Where V is the absolute velocity of the system. Three pairs of mutually vertical electron gun
and photon gun form a speedometer of inner aberration. The velocity calculated based on
inner angle of aberration is not a velocity relative to any laboratory reference system, but the
absolute velocity of the moving system. This is because the inner angle of aberration is
measured by the observer inside the moving system, which requires no exterior reference
system. In fact, the inner aberration has nothing to do with the state of motion of the observer
outside the system; it is related only to the absolute state of motion of the investigated system.

1.6 The part that does not support the principle of consistency of light velocity in Jones
experiment.
By assuming that the Theory of Relativity is true, the incident angle α on the left side of
Figure 3(a) cannot be larger than 0. When observed in the laboratory reference system, the
light at both sides of the glass disk is horizontal; when observed inside the glass reference
system, the deflection angles of the light at both sides of the glass disk are symmetrical. When
observed in the laboratory reference system, the incident light is vertical to the glass disk (the
transmission path of the photon before it enters the glass is vertical to the glass disk). If we
admit that different inertial systems are equivalent, when observed in the glass reference
system, the space belongs to the glass reference system instead of the laboratory reference
system. “The transmission path of the photon before it enters the glass” is stationary and
162
maintains its posture of being vertical to the glass disk (for specific reasons, see “high-speed
train searchlight” experiment). In other words, the photon emitted from the moving light
source has a stationary transmission path, and the space that contains the transmission path is
also stationary. The direction is the original emission direction of the photon (vertical to the
glass disk). It is simply that the light source is moving away from the photon's transmission
path. We cannot assume that the stationary medium has a non-zero pulling effect on the
photon passing through.
From the perspective of the principle of consistency of light velocity, when observed in
the glass reference system, the idea that “the incident angle α at the left side of Figure 3(a) is
larger than 0” is questionable: The design of Jones experiment is that the light enters
vertically the first interface (observed in the laboratory reference system) and the incident
angle is 0. If it is believed that “when observed in the laboratory reference system, the
incidence is horizontal; when observed in the glass reference system, the incidence is
oblique”, then in the glass reference system, the principle of consistency of light velocity
implies that the velocity of the photon in the horizontal direction is c, and the velocity of

obliquely incident light 1 − υ 2 / c 2 is >c. The direction of light velocity is no longer

irrelevant to the state of motion of the light source (or it has to be admitted that even when
observed inside the glass reference system, the vacuum outside the glass still belongs to the
laboratory system). Therefore, within the framework of Theory of Relativity, the transmission
path of the horizontal incident photon in a stationary medium has to be horizontal. Jones
experiment proves that (observed in the glass reference system) the transmission path of the
photon is not always horizontal (see Line 2 in Figure 5). This is to prove that the principle of
consistency of light velocity does not hold if the photon travels in an oblique path (especially
at the beginning of Line 2 in Figure 5).
Like Jones experiment, many other experiments also have some places which are not
supportive of Theory of Relativity, but these places are quite hard to identify. The most
important obstacle is the disbelief that “Theory of Relativity may have a problem”. Many
people, not believing that Theory of Relativity is questionable, replace the concepts, to make
the studied object conform to Theory of Relativity (especially the space division: They do not
change the space when it is necessary; while they change the space when it is not supposed to
do so). This phenomenon needs to be noted.

2 Atomic clock circumnavigation experiment which is believed to support the Theory of

Relativity is qualitatively not supportive

Different inertial systems to be equivalent require that the emission frequencies of the
same light-source in different inertial systems are the same (If the emission frequencies of the
same light-source at different movement state do not the same, different inertial system are
not equivalent), theeffectof the slowdown of themovementatomic clockcannot beaccumulated.
163
If we admit that thetransmitting frequencyofthemovementlight-sourceisalso changeable, the
observed spectroscopic redshift of galaxies is the jointly contributed by the variation of the
emissionfrequencyofthelight-source and theDoppler Effect. The calculated velocities by
submitting the all redshift into Doppler formula don’t always the velocity of galaxies away
from the observer.
The requirement of the principles of relativity on the emission frequency of the same
light source in different states of motion is view A. the emission frequencies of the same light
source in different states of motion are completely the same. Theory of Relativity admits that
Doppler shift is derived from Lorentz transformations, while the latter is the mathematical
foundation of the special theory of relativity. Doppler shift refers to that the emission
frequency of the light source does not change with the motion and only the receiving
frequency changes. Therefore, the requirement of the principles of relativity on the
inequivalence of different inertial systems is the same with that of Doppler shift: The
emission frequency of the light source does not change with its motion; only the receiving
frequency changes as the relative state of motion changes. The observation of the frequency
shift of galaxies in astronomy and cosmology adopts view A. However, people sometimes
also adopt view B: The emission frequencies of the same light source in different states of
motion are different. The reason is that the principles of relativity allow of different opinions
concerning time and emission frequency for observers in different states of motion. There are
two situations relevant to view B. B1: When observed in different reference systems, the
clocks in different systems have the same velocity sequence and are slower than the clock in
the system where the observer is; B2: When observed in different systems, the clocks in
different reference systems (including the clocks in the observer's system) have the same
velocity sequence(in other words, the velocity sequence of clocks in all reference systems is
irrelevant to the state of motion of the observer).
The speed of an atomic clock reflects the emission frequency of the light source in the
clock. The velocity sequence of the clocks directly corresponds to the emission frequency
sequence of the light source of the same type (because the inherent time of an inertial system
corresponds to the inherent frequency of the stationary light source in the system; a standard
clock records its inherent time, which reflects the inherent frequency of the light source).
View B1 is paradoxical: If the velocity sequence of the clocks in all the systems is irrelevant
to the state of motion of the observer, then it cannot be guaranteed that the clock in the system
where an observer is located is always faster than the clocks in other systems; if the clock in
the observer's system must be excluded, then the “subject structure” is also changed for the
observer. So we cannot say that “the velocity sequence of the clocks in all the systems is
irrelevant to the state of motion of the observer”. Therefore, view B1 can only admit that the
speed of clocks is only a visual effect instead of an accumulative effect that is real. It
corresponds always to the change of the receiving frequency. For example, there are six
systems in different states of motion, a, b, c, d, e, f. When observed in system a, the velocity
164
of f relative to a is the largest; according to view B1, the speed sequence of these clocks is

a＞b＞c＞d＞e＞f. Now, when observed in system f, according to view B , the speed 1

sequence of these clocks is only f＞b＞c＞d＞e＞a. Logically, for the clock in the observer's

system to be the fastest, the change of system will definitely result in a new velocity sequence
of the clocks. Therefore, view B1 is paradoxical. If view B2 is adopted, it will be easy to find
the system with the fastest clock, which is the superior system. View B1 is usually adopted by
the supporters of Theory of Relativity. View A and B are contradictory. For someone who
adheres to rigorous scientific spirit, either A or B is right. One cannot consider view A correct
at one time and consider that view B is also correct at another time. It is impossible that both
view A and B conform to the Theory of Relativity.
Many people are familiar with the structure and working principle of Cesium clock—the
emission frequency of the cesium atom determines the speed of the clock and there is no
relative motion between the cesium light source and the frequency receiver. If the clock
becomes slower, it means the emission frequency of the cesium light source has become
lower. The reading on a moving atomic clock represents the inherent emission frequency of
the light source in the clock (and not the received frequency in a stationary reference system).
In the atomic clock's bi-directional circumnavigation experiment, the moving clock is
compared with a stationary clock on the ground and the change of the emission frequency of
the light source in the clocks is measured. It should be noted that it is not the change of
frequency of light emitted by the moving light source and received by a stationary observer.
Two pilots that fly the plane eastwards and westwards and the observer on the ground reach a
consensus on the speed of the three clocks (i.e. the velocity sequence of the three clocks is
irrelevant to the state of motion of the observer. Whatever the reference system, the clock
flying westwards is the fastest while the clock flying eastwards is the slowest). Only by direct
observation on the ground of the frequency of the photon in the clocks carried by the plane
can we measure the received frequency. Therefore, the bi-directional circumnavigation
experiment proves that the emission frequency of the light source in a moving system
becomes lower (i.e. view B2 is not right while view A is right). It is not the received frequency
that becomes lower (if it is the received frequency that becomes lower and the same light
source has the same emission frequency in different systems, then the moving atomic clock
will not be substantially slower.
To put it simply, in the atomic clock's bi-directional circumnavigation experiment, the
three clocks are calibrated at the same place and then placed in different moving systems.
After a certain period, the three clocks are again compared at the same place (after the
deduction of the acceleration effect). This method of clock calibration implies that the result
is absolute (that can be admitted by the observers in all states of motion). For relative uniform
motion, the result of the experiment is: The clock in the plane that flies westwards is faster

165
than the stationary clock on the ground, which is faster than the clock in the plane that flies
eastwards The result is absolute (i.e. the two pilots in the planes, the observer in the ground
laboratory and the observers in other states of motion have to admit the velocity sequence of
the three clocks measured this time. The velocity sequence of the clocks in different systems
does not change with the state of motion of the observer). Thus, this measurement method can
be extended to many other clocks, until the fastest clock is found and everybody can reach a
consensus on this. The reference system of this clock is the superior reference system. Now
we are certain that the result of the atomic clock's bi-directional circumnavigation experiment
denies the Theory of Relativity For a more intuitive expression, see Table 1.
Table 1. Analysis on whether the emission frequency
of the light source reduces with the decrease in movement speed
Current knowledge, application
View A View B The branches of View B status and status proven by
experiments
The same The same B1: When observed in B1 is the view held by
light source light source different reference systems, supporters of Theory of
in different in different the clocks in different Relativity. However, in
state of state of systems have the same astronomy, cosmology and other
motion has motion has velocity sequence and are Doppler shift observations,
exactly the different slower than the clock in the people usually acknowledge
same emission system where the observer view A.
emission frequencies. is
frequencies. B2: When observed in If view A is right, then moving
different systems, the clocks will not have actual
clocks in different reference changes in their speed due to
systems (including the movement. Therefore, the
clocks in the observer's atomic clock’s bi-directional
system) have the same circumnavigation experiment
velocity sequence (in other that put the three clocks in one
words, the velocity place for comparison proves
sequence of clocks in all view B2.
reference systems is
irrelevant to the state of
motion of the observer).
Note: The light source inside the atomic clock has no movement relative to the receiver.
Therefore, the time indicated by the atomic clock reflects the emission frequency of the light
source. The velocity sequence of clocks in different systems corresponds to the emission
frequency sequence of the light sources of the same type.
In addition, for the phenomenon that the clock flying westwards is faster than the
stationary clock on the ground, it can be explained more thoroughly by the idea that “an
absolutely stationary system exists and that the clock in absolute motion becomes lower”.
Even Professor Zhang Zhongyuan, who supports Theory of Relativity, admits that the
experiment proves that the slowing down of the clock is not relative. The atomic clock's bi-
directional circumnavigation experiment quantitatively proves that “the moving clock slows
166
down”, but not qualitatively.

3 Sagnac experiment does not fully support the principle of consistency of light velocity.

Sagnacexperiment confirms that the earth's gravitational field has a pulling effect on
photons [4]. Thus, Michelson-Morley experiment fails to prove the principle of consistency of
light velocity. In this situation, the results of Fizeau experiment can be explained by the fact
that water's pulling effect on photons is not 100%. However, it does not confirm the
relativistic velocity composition formula. The principle of consistency of light velocity, like
principles of relativity, has not been proven directly by any experiment. Many people believe
that Sagnac experiment directly proves that the composition of light velocity with the
system's velocity does not conform to the principle of consistency of light velocity. Some
people avoid the interpretation of pulling in order to show that Michelson-Morley experiment
has proven the principle of consistency of light velocity. However, in Sagnac experiment,
there is no relative motion between the light source and the receiver, so it has nothing to do
with Doppler shift. Some people want to explain the experimental results by the general
theory of relativity. However, the gravitational potential difference in the experimental device
can be neglected without compromising the precision. Therefore, the general theory of
relativity cannot be applied here.
Li Huanxin etal. finished an experiment in 2000 on the microwave transmission between
the synchronous satellites over Xi'an, China and Tokyo, showing that the earth's rotation has
an impact on the transmission of light. The time that the light takes to transmit from Xi'an to
Tokyo and to transmit from Tokyo to Xi'an had a difference of 95ns[5]. The environment in
which the photon transmits between Xi'an and Tokyo remains constant and the gravitational
effect can be ruled out. And there is no pulling frequency shift involved here either. Thus, the
results can hardly support the Theory of Relativity: The resultant velocity of light velocity and
the earth surface system is not constant. The result of this experiment is the same with that of
Sagnac experiment, which can be explained by denying the consistency of light velocity.

4 Dayton C. Miller reproduced Michelson experiment and observed non-zero fringe

movement.

Some people reproduced Michelson-Morley experiment and obtained two non-zero

fringe movements: 0.33 and 1. The result of 0.33 was obtained by American physicist Miller
in 1921-1925, which equals to ether wind of 10km/s[6-10]. The result of 1 was obtained by
American Berkeley laboratory.
Dayton Miller reproduced the famous Michelson-Morley experiment in 1921 and
obtained a result which did not support Theory of Relativity: The amount of the fringe
movement was 0.33. He believed that this was a counterexample for Einstein's Theory of
Relativity. He repeated this experiment for many times with the same results. He published
dozens of papers in scientific journals and was convinced of the correctness of his experiment
167
until his death in 1941. Miller was a physicist of high qualifications. He was once an
academician of National Academy of Sciences and chairman of American Physical Society.
The results of his experiment made Einstein lose confidence in his Theory of Relativity. Yue
Aiguo from Xiamen University who strongly supports Theory of Relativity admits that “this
is a scientific problem that should be solved”.
In 1976-1977, Berkeley laboratory observed a fringe movement of 1[11]. They observed
not only the movement of the earth at 30km/s, but also the extraordinary movement of the
solar system in the galaxy at the speed of 300km/s and the movement of the galaxy in the
space at the speed of 600km/s. This experiment was repeated for 10 times, all with the same
results. The experiment also measured the speed of ether wind, which was contradictory to the
results of Michelson's experiment. It denied the principle of consistency of light velocity and
was supportive to Theory of Relativity.
Wang Lijun's experiment proved that light velocity c was not the fastest speed[12].

5 Other experiments do not support Theory of Relativity in some places.

In Theory of Relativity, the transformation of velocity component by Lorentz

transformation is:

u′x u ′y 1 − υ 2 / c 2 u′z 1 − υ 2 / c 2
ux = , u = , u = (4)
1 − u′xυ / c 2 1 − u′xυ / c 2 1 − u′xυ / c 2
y z

(note: Sometimes V is used instead of u). The resultant velocity in x and y direction is:
1/ 2
2
 (u′ + υ ) 2 + (u′y ) 2 (1 − υ 2 / c 2 ) 
2
u′ + u′ =  x  . (5)
(1 − u ′xυ / c 2 ) 2
x y
 

When u′y = c and u′x = υ , the direct resultant velocity u′x2 + u′y2 = υ 2 + c 2 and the

2 2 4υ 2 c2
resultant velocity transformation u + u = + =
(1 − υ 2 / c 2 ) 2 1 − υ 2 / c 2
x y

2υ 2 c2
2
1 + (1 − υ / c ) 2 , not equalingc (if the lateral velocity is υ, the longitudinal
1 − υ 2 / c2 4υ
velocity is c and the resultant velocity in the oblique direction is still c, it is unimaginable).
One of the explanations for aberration is the visual disparity caused by relative motion
between the stationary light source and the moving observer. The second explanation is that
the visual disparity caused by a moving light source and the stationary observer. The former
admits the movement of the observer himself and denies the equivalence of different inertial
systems. If we admit the phenomenon of aberration, the latter will cause the fact that the
resultant velocity of the photon moving in an oblique path is the vector sum of the velocities
in two different directions, and that the resultant velocity will exceed light velocity c (note:
The composition of velocities that does not conform to vector movement principle means the
168
composition of velocities under Lorentz transformation. This is the principle of composition
of two parallel and anti-parallel velocities. It is not the principle of composition of velocities
in two random directions). Therefore, aberration phenomenon does not support Theory of
Relativity quantitatively or qualitatively. In aberration phenomenon, Theory of Relativity and
principle of consistency of light velocity cannot be reconciled.
The light emitted from a star is bended when passing near the surface of the sun. This
experiment is believed to be one of the three major verifications of the general theory of
relativity. If observed from a straight space, the light is attracted by the sun and a longitudinal
movement is composited to its horizontal movement. The measured angle of deflection of

light is φ1 in Figure 7. If the observer moves in the direction vertical to the light, u′y = c

and u′x = υ can be satisfied and the ultra-light velocity composition formula (5) can be

applied.
Zhu Yongqiang from Fudan University invented “positive and negative speedometer of
broken electromagnetic waves”. The measurement of the movement velocity of the system
inside the system is realized based on the
principle that the movement of the light φ 2

source has no pulling effect on φ1

electromagnetic waves and the induction is Sun
generated when the device moves relative
to electromagnetic waves[13, 14]
. Broken Figure 7. If the photon dragged by the sun has no inertia, then the deflection
angle is φ2 and it is relevant to the distance between the star and the

electromagnetic waves exist as “isotropic observer; on the contrary, φ1 is the angle observed and irrelevant to the
distance between the star and the observer.
eletromagnetic waves” and its speedometer
is also a real object. Ji Hao repeated Bettozzi's experiment, and found the result conformed to
the relativistic mass-energy relationship in low velocity; while in high velocity, the result did
not conform to the relationship[15-17].
The places of other experiments that do not conform to Theory of Relativity are shown
in Table 2.
Table 2 Experiments which support Theory of Relativity in some places but not in other
places
Parts and/or
explanation in favor Parts and/or explanation against Theory
No Experiment
of Theory of of Relativity
Relativity
Lateral movement is Lateral movement is relevant to the
consistent with the thickness of the disk, which proves the
1 JonesExperiment
predictions of non-equivalence of different inertial
Theory of Relativity systems.
Sagnac The experiment It proves that the observer obtains different
2
experiment seems to be light velocity when he moves towards or
169
 explained by the away from the photon.
general theory of
Theory of Relativity
It proves the existence of absolute
Miller’s Ether-
3 --- stationary reference system or the
drift experiment
inconsistency of light velocity
It proves that the slowing-down of clocks
is not relative. The atomic clock has no
movement relative to the light source and
the frequency receiver. The comparison
between the moving clock with the
The atomic When observed in a
stationary clock shows that it is the
clock's bi- system not rotating,
emission frequency of the light source
4 directional the results confirm
used for recording time that is measured,
circumnavigation that the clock is
and the emission frequency decreases. If
experiment slowed down.
the emission frequency of the light source
is not the same in different systems, then
different inertial systems are not
equivalent. Therefore, this experiment
denies the Theory of Relativity.
When observed on
Muon life-span It proves that the slowing down of the
5 earth, the clock
experiment moving clock is not relative.
slows down.
Ultra-light
velocity It proves the existence of objects of ultra-
6 ---
experiment by light velocity.
Wang Lijun
It proves that when the energy reaches a
Within a certain
Ji Hao’s thermal certain order of magnitude, the relationship
scope, the results
7 measurement between energy and velocity does not
conform to Theory of
experiment conform to the prediction of Theory of
Relativity.
Relativity.
It proves that when the energy reaches a
Within a certain
Ji Hao’s electron certain order of magnitude, the relationship
scope, the results
8 beam deflection between energy and velocity does not
conform to Theory of
experiment conform to the prediction of Theory of
Relativity.
Relativity.
It can be explained by the fact that the
Quantitatively it
Fizeau pulling efficiency on the photon of the
9 conforms to Theory
experiment water is not 100%. It can also be explained
of Relativity
by the Fresnel drag effect.
It is believed to have
It can be explained by the fact that the
proven the
Michelson- earth’s strong gravitational field on has a
consistency of light
10 Morley 100% pulling efficiency on the photon; it
velocity and the non-
experiment can also be explained by Stokes Ether drag
existence of
theory.
absolutely stationary

170
 system and ether.
When observed in a straight space, the
It is believed to have velocity of photon that reaches the observer’s
Light deflection
11 proven the theory of retina is the resultant velocity of the
experiment
general relativity. horizontal and longitudinal velocities, which
exceeds light velocity c.
Gravitational It is believed to have Red shift can also be explained by the
12 red-shift proven the theory of mutual transformation of kinetic energy
experiment general relativity. and potential energy in Newton’s theory.
When the observer and the light source
have relative movement, if the light
source’s movement is denied while the
It is believed to have existence of aberration is admitted, then
Aberration
13 proven Lorentz the resultant velocity of photon moving in
phenomenon
transformation oblique path is certainly higher than light
velocity. If the movement of the observer
itself is admitted, then the equivalence of
different inertial systems is denied.

It can be seen that people have been so careless when analyzing the results of an experiment.

6 Discussion and outlook

Many experiments partially conform to Theory of Relativity. This is a truth that no one
can deny. However, the existing experiments provide neither qualitative proof for the
principles of relativity nor for the second level micro-scale (i.e. high-order effect) and the
length contraction effect. In fact, many experiments believed to have confirmed Theory of
Relativity only support the theory in some places. If the focus of attention is changed, the
places that do not support Theory of Relativity can be found. In other words, except for a
local experiment, from nearly all the experiments can be found some places that conform to
Theory of Relativity; however, with a changed focus of attention, places that do not support
Theory of Relativity can also be found. When people believe a certain experiment has proven
the Theory of Relativity, this is because they have explained in favor of the Theory of
Relativity when analyzing the experimental results. For quite a long period in the past, people
were careless when analyzing an experiment. It is irresponsible to say that “all the
experiments have proven the Theory of Relativity without exception”. The present paper aims
to change the deeply rooted idea that “all the experiments have proven the Theory of
Relativity without exception”.
Many experiments have some places that support Theory of Relativity and also the
places that do not (many experiments are a double-edged sword for the Theory of Relativity).
This indicates that Theory of Relativity has its right sides and wrong sides. It is time to set to
solve the significant doubts related to Theory of Relativity. Looking into the future, we can
see that renewed and more correct theories will certainly contain the positive research results
of Theory of Relativity.
171
 One hundred years has passed since the birth of Theory of Relativity, but the arguments
around it have never stopped and are becoming fiercer. The opposition sides insist on
completely denying Theory of Relativity based on a few experiments, while the supporters
believe that “all the experiments have proven the Theory of Relativity without exception”.
The two sides demand the opposite side to provide new evidences (i.e. new and more
experiments to approve or disapprove the Theory of Relativity). To satisfy these demands is a
waste of research resources.
To search for points that support the Theory of Relativity and points that do not from the
existing experiments is a new and low-cost research method. The conclusion that “except for
a local experiment, all experiments are a double-edged sword to Theory of Relativity, which
indicates that Theory of Relativity has reasonable parts and also problems to be solved” is
more objective and more persuasive. It conforms to the law of development of scientific
theories and can be easily accepted by the two sides. It can put an end to the long lasting
argumentation about the Theory of Relativity, so that scientists can be devoted to solving the
scientific problems related to the Theory of Relativity and the waste of research resources can
be avoided.
The author has found the parts that support and do not support the Theory of Relativity
in atomic clock's bi-directional circumnavigation experiment and the experiment conducted
by Jones et al. The key to the method presented by the author is to change the focus of
attention. The publication of the present paper is the turning point of “dialectical analysis of
experimental results” and “new trend in fundamental research”.
Acknowledgement:In writing the present paper, I was challenged by Prof. Guo
Chongwu, who also gave me many valuable suggestions. I would like to thank him for
making the paper richer and more precise. After the finalization of the script, he examined the
paper carefully. Again I'd like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Guo Chongwu.

References

1. R. V. Jones (1971) Aberration of light in a moving medium. J. Phys. A, 4: L1.

2. R. V. Jones (1972) Proc. R. Soc., Lond, A328: 337
3. R. V. Jones (1975) Proc. R. Soc., Lond, A345: 351
4. G. Sagnac (1913) Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences (Paris) 157: 708-710, 1410-
1413.
5. Li Huanxin, Song Jin'an, Li Zhigang, Liang Shuangyou (2000) Two-Way Satellite Time
Transfer via Geostationary Communication Satellite between China and Japan[J].
Publications of Purple Mountain Observatory.19(2): 121-126.
6. Dayton C. Miller (1933) The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the
Absolute Motion of the Earth. Reviews of Modern Physics. 5(3): 203-242.

172
7. Dayton C. Miller (1926) Significance of Ether-drift Experiments of 1925 at Mount Wilson,
Address of the President, American Physical Society, Science. 63: 433-443.
8. Dayton C. Miller (1922) Ether-drift Experiments at Mount Wilson Solar Observatory,
Physical Review , S2. 19(4): 407-408.
9. Dayton C. Miller (1926) Ether-drift Experiments at Mount Wilson in February, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington {Physical Review. S2, 27(6): 812}. Dayton C.
Miller(1926)Ether-drift experiments at Mount Wilson in February 1926, Physical
Review, xxvii: 812.
10. George Joos & Dayton C. Miller (1934) Note on the Repetition of the Michelson-Morley
Experiment, Physical Review. S2, 45(2): 114.
11. Richard A. Muller (1978) The Cosmic Background Radiation and the new ether drift,
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. 238(5): 64-74.
12.Wang, L. J., Kuzmich A. & Dogariu A (2000) Gain-assisted superluminal light
propagation. Nature. 406(6784): 277- 279.
13. Zhu Yongqiang (1994) Chinese Patent, ZL94-1-14042.3. 1994-12-15.
14. Yongqiang Zhu, Wang Yu, etc. (2001) The character and application of the smashed the

electromagnetic wave. ACTA PHYSICS SINICA, , 50(5): 832 ～836.

15. Ji Hao (2006) On Experiment that Measures the Momentum-Energy Relation of Moving
Electrons. China Engineering Science. 8(10): 60-65.
16. Fan Liangzao, Hua Di (2010) Two Experiments Challenging Traditional Electromagnetic
Acceleration Theory and Einsteinian Mechanics. Frontier Science. 4(1): 56-64.
17. Fan Liangzao (2009) Can the Mass of Microparticles in High-speed velocity Increase
Indefinitely with the Increase of its Velocity? -- Comments on the Four Experiment
Reports of Mr. Ji Hao which challenges relativistic Mass-velocity Relationship. Frontier
Science. 3(4): 84-87.

173
Analysis of “singular point theorems”—Further Understanding of Relativistic Time
View
Wu Fengming

China Aviation Industry Shanxi aero engine repair Co Ltd

Abstract :According to the “paradox of singularity theorem” proof of concept of time, the
mathematical logic and the prerequisite conditions, based on successive analytical, logical
argumentation about time singularity theorem proving the beginning and the end of the
conclusions cannot be established: Since there is no from the material time, is not start from
the material existence time and the end, so the “singularity” also cannot be regarded as the
time of beginning and ending, “began the singularity theorem” cannot prove the and the end
of time. Therefore, only a matter of existence and nonexistence can begin as time and the end,
only the material existence and non-existence to express (or proof) began its time and end.
This is the expression of the view of time.
Keywords:Singular point, singular point theorem, substances, concept of time

“Singularity theorem” is the Penrose and Hawking proved a mathematical theorem time.
The theorem can be roughly expressed as: As long as the establishment of general relativity,
the causal nature of good material there, on at least one physical process, the existence of its
time to start or end there, or both the beginning and end. The substance of the theorem is: The
establishment of causality, the general theory of relativity is correct, but also the existence of
space-time material, the at least one of the physical processes can be achieved, which in a
limited time before or after the end of the limited time available. In other words, at least one
physical process, it’s time to start, or end, or both the beginning and end. In other words, the
process of at least one time, it's one or two is limited.
Proof of the theorem can be summarized by the process: If there is a type of class-ray or
geodesic in the direction of the future or the past, in the limited distance affine broken, cannot
continue to extend, then, that the root geodesic line was considered to be a time when “The
Hole”. If you do not fill this hole, it is the singular point. Penrose and Hawking proved: As
174
long as the general theory of relativity is correct, and the establishment of causality, then, any
material time and space, at least there is a singular point.
Singular point of time and space are called space-time singularity. Singular time and
space, even to undermine the singular point, it will not change the nature of space-time
singularity. However, undermine the singular point will stay empty, so that a line any time and
space through this often in this empty broken. Thus, Penrose and Hawking suggested that
simply from the singular point in time and space “removed”, that it does not belong to time
and space, or simply as a singular point of time and space to the “empty” (the hole is not
patched). Accordingly, the Penrose and Hawking proved that the existence of space-time at
least have the following properties of a category or type of light-time curve: Its limited
distance will cut off, and place cut off any means of repair cannot be used to make the curve
can be an extension of the past.
In accordance with the general theory of relativity, because the time curve of Central
Asia, the speed of light (that is, when the geodesic-type) in length can be seen as a movement
along the lines experienced by the material intrinsic time, this curve when empty (that is, the
singular point) cut off, on can be seen as a process of broken this time. Accordingly, the
Penrose and Hawking that the “singularity” is a place cut off time for the process, and thus to
prove that their singularity theorems.
They prove that: In the strong cause and effect in time and space do not necessarily have
the most long-term and, if so, then certainly there is no point conjugate geodesic;
Hyperbolic space and time in the overall, we have the most long-term, and must be non-
conjugate geodesic points;
In general relativity is correct, the establishment of strong energy condition, and at least
one space-time existence of the material point of time and space, the geodesic affine in a
limited distance from the existence of conjugate points must.
Proved in accordance with their conclusions, that is, the causal conditions (including the
hyperbolic space-time) are asking for the longest geodesic, and certainly there is no point
conjugate geodesic; and energy conditions of general relativity and the existence of material
requested in this geodesic line must be conjugate points, and in a limited distance on the
emergence of affine conjugate points.
Clearly, this geodesic cannot be both at the same time satisfy the conjugate points, have
no conjugate points, this condition, which is a contradiction of terms. To resolve this conflict
the only way the conditions are: Do not let this geodesic unlimited extension of conjugation in
the event of it before, in the limited distance affine singular point on the face (i.e.,
syringomyelia) and cut off. In other words, the geodesic will encounter singular point (i.e.,
syringomyelia) and the cut off time will be cut off the course, a certain limited time (the
beginning and the end of time), there must be space-time singularity. In this way, they proved
that the singular point theorem.
Only singular point of the above theorem to prove a brief overview of the process,
175
readers learn more about, if necessary, see “21th 100 cross-scientific problems • the beginning
and the end of time” (Science Press • 2005 years 1 was published).
Now, we time the concept of mathematical logic and prerequisite conditions to resolve
the singular point theorem.

1 Singular point of time the concept of analysis of theorem

From “On the time and the end of the beginning of what is” (see “cutting-edge science” •
2008 No. 1) a text, we know that time is the definition of the concept of the existence of
expression and movement of material from beginning to end, as well as the process of
continuous physical quantities. This means that time is only a physical, the physical
expression of a material is used (such as a physical field or in kind) from the beginning only
the end of the existence and movement and the movement has always been there, as well as
the length of the continuous process of measuring. This measure does not have any sub-curve
of the speed of light that it can, and there is no physical movement of the inherent time
experienced that it can be. Therefore, it does not exist in any sub-light curve, there is no
inherent time, there is no question of the so-called start and end time. That being the case,
then the singular point is how to prove theorems of the time of the beginning and the end of
it?
Singular point from the previous theorem, we prove that the process can be seen on:
Singular point theorem is based on general relativity, the space-time in a sub-curve of the
length of the speed of light along this line as a movement experienced by a substance inherent
in time, thus, also to cut off a sub-curve is equivalent to the speed of light inherent in the
process cut off time, and accordingly concluded that the time on the course of the broken, and
the end of the beginning of time, time is so limited.
However, according to the definition of the concept of analysis of time we will be able to
understand: Because time is the existence of expression and movement of material from
beginning to end, as well as a continuous physical quantity, so the number of substances,
expressed in this material there is a measure of the number of physical quantities, that is,
material expression of this measure the number of time there. Therefore, any material and the
existence of a specific process and campaign statements of the substance itself can only be
experienced by the individual time course, the concept of the definition of time cannot be
expressed at this time of the physical process. That is to say, cannot be any substance to a
specific time course of individual experience, the concept of time as a physical definition of
the process this time; the time nor the definition of the concept of the physical process of this
time, as any experienced by a specific substance the time course of the individual.
However, in accordance with the theorem of singular point analysis of the concept of time,
but a singular point theorem substances the time course of individual experience - for
example, a particle along its sub-movement experienced by the speed of light curves of the
time course of the inherent concept of time as defined physical process of this time, and the
176
speed of light curves of the sub-cut off time as a process inherent cut off, and then, again
broken the course of this inherent time equivalent for the physical process of the time cut off.
Then, you say that it is time this process has been broken, and the end of the beginning of
time, time is limited. Clearly, this is not only inconsistent with the definition of the concept of
time, nor the existence of every material and movement expressed by the significance of
individual time, this argument is untenable. This is the theorem of singular point analysis of
the time the conclusions of the concept.

2 The singular point theorem of mathematical logic

In accordance with the general theory of relativity, to any substances, because every other
substances in the material quality of the bending of space along the short line (i.e. geodesic)
movement, so the length of the short line as a movement along this line of a substance (such
as a particle) experienced by the inherent definition of time is in line with the time and energy
to meet the conditions for the existence of general relativity and material requirements for this
short line is also set up broken. However, this raised a question: From the mathematical point
of view because of this short-line and cut off when a singular point, but from the physical
point of view along the line of movement of substances (such as a particle) do? Along new
lines to continue to campaign so short? Or by the so-called singular point annihilation by the
case?
We first considered that the material continues to campaign: In accordance with the logic
of reasoning, this short line is because the movement of material existence, so as long as the
material continues to campaign, this short-range line on the continued existence; and as long
as the continued existence of this short-range line, the time process continued out on the
inevitable. Thus, while the front line because when the short-range and cut off the singular
point, but behind the short line because of the continued movement of the material and
continue to exist. Here, we do not need to salvage the broken line to the short-range
extension, we need to do is to let the substance to continue to campaign, this short-line will be
able to continue to extend its inherent time rather than continuing the process will be able to
cut off; and that the material continuous process to continue to campaign for how long, the
short lines have continued to extend the length, the time is how long a continuous process.
How to prove that this short broken lines, and its time course has been broken it? Clearly, the
singularity theorems are not in line with the conclusions of the above logic, and therefore
cannot be established.
We continue to think that the singular point the material was so-called annihilation: In
accordance with the logic of reasoning, the short-broken line, and the annihilation of the
material also, but this is because the annihilation of the substance which has been cut off
short-range line only, and only a physical movement of the broken line of short-range - that is
only broken by the time course of the individual, rather than the physical definition of the
concept of time this time cut off the process. Because they cannot put a specific substance in
177
any of the individual time course of experience, the concept of time as a physical definition of
the process this time, we cannot say that the time course of which has been broken, and the
end of the beginning of time, time is so limited.
In accordance with the above logic, mathematics, regardless of whether the substance
was annihilation, but also regardless of whether or not this short broken lines, we cannot
prove that the definition of the concept of physical time to the time course of the broken, we
cannot prove that the physical and the end of the beginning of time, and it cannot physical
proof that time is limited. Singular point so that the conclusions of theorem proving in
mathematical logic is not established.

3 The singular point theorem absurd precondition for

Singular point from the previous theorem, we prove that the process can be seen briefly
in the singular point theorem to prove the process, in order to resolve this geodesic (that is,
short-line) on both conjugate points (the energy conditions of general relativity and material
the existence of requirements), have no conjugate points (causality requirements) the
contradiction between the conclusions so that this geodesic conjugate points in the event
before the cut off to meet the requirements of causality conditions. As a result, although this
part is not broken geodesic which meets the requirements of causality, but can also satisfy the
energy conditions for the existence of general relativity and material conditions required by
it? Theorem quoted from the singular point of view a prerequisite, it is clear that the singular
point theorem is considered to meet the conditions. Well, not broken geodesic of this part
whether or not to meet the energy conditions of general relativity and the existence of the
required material conditions? Next, we singularity theorem based on evidence of the process
to answer the question.
Theorem from the singular point of view of the certification process because of this
singular point theorem quoted a prerequisite geodesic is a geodesic a whole, that is, to meet
the requirements of causality, and energy conditions for the existence of general relativity and
material requirements of an overall test ground, so although the cutoff point conjugate
containing part of the geodesic, but this does not affect this part is not broken geodesic as a
whole continues to exist in the nature of geodesic. Therefore, this part is not cut off can still
be seen as a geodesic is a geodesic a whole, that can still be seen as meeting the requirements
of causality, and energy conditions for the existence of general relativity and material
requirements of a whole geodesic. In practice, however, because there must be geodesic line
is the energy conjugate conditions, general relativity and material required by the existence of
a necessary condition, it contains the conjugate point to that part of the broken geodesic, it
could mean the loss of the a necessary condition; and the loss of the necessary conditions, it
could mean the loss of a geodesic as a whole the nature and preconditions. Therefore, not cut
off this part of the nature of geodesic it is no longer seen as a prerequisite for a geodesic
overall, of course, it can no longer satisfy the energy conditions for the existence of general
178
relativity and material conditions required, and causality is only required to meet the
conditions of the.
However, the singularity theorems are considered to satisfy the energy conditions for the
existence of general relativity and material conditions required. It is clear that the singular
point theorem to satisfy the energy conditions for the existence of general relativity and
material as a prerequisite for the existence of paradox. .
Further analysis can also be proven that the singularity theorems also cited the existence
of the precondition paradox, because there was no singular point theorem of the assumption
that the premise of whether the conditions to meet the energy conditions for the existence of
general relativity and material conditions required, the conclusions are contradictory.
To sum up, we can have a base that the singular point theorem quoted as a prerequisite
for the existence of paradox, the paradox which the singular point theorem to prove there is
paradox, and paradox is a contradictory and untenable. This is the answer to the question of
the singularity conditions of Theorem absurd premise.

4 The singular point of the re-interpretation of theorem

In accordance with the previous analysis, although the singularity theorems in the
physical sense, this time cannot be established, but the time when we are seen as statements
of material existence and movement as well as the process is always the physical continuity of
the time, the singularity theorems of ( singular point is expressed by) the beginning and the
end of time as a substance that the individual start and end time, the singularity theorems of a
particular material is expressed by the meaning of physical time it is obvious that the of. For
example: The beginning of a physical presence and movement, we say that a substance that
the individual time course began; the end of a physical presence and movement, we say that a
material expressed by the end of the individual time course; a physical presence and
movement from the beginning and the end of the existence and movement of the continuing
process of how long, we say that a material expressed by the process of how long individual
time. For example: View of building materials - we use several billion years to express their
individual time continuous process; of macro-and micro-material substances - and we were
year, month, day, hour, minute, second to express their continued individual time process and
so on. .
In the above expression, since the only material that has the time of the physical, so we
used this time to express their individual physical processes and the start time and end; also
because there is no material from the specific time, therefore, cannot be used (not used)
singular point of the so-called theorem proving and the end of the beginning of time to
express their individual process and the beginning of time and the end. Here, the fundamental
difference between the two is: Penrose and Hawking the “singularity” as the beginning and
the end of time; and author of the existence of the material (the beginning of movement) and
non-existence of (the end of movement) as the beginning of the individual time and the end.
179
According to this fundamental difference between, we can say that the singularity theorems
and the end of the beginning of time, only for specific substances and movement and the
process has always been expressed in continuing - individual time for the beginning and the
end will only be meaningful ; and the definition of the concept of physical time this time is
does not make sense, is simply not tenable. This is the singular point theorem for a particular
material is expressed by the meaning of physical time.
Originally, the existence of any substance and the process for the movement - there is the
end of the beginning, it started with the end of it there is a continuous process (i.e., duration),
this is all material in their presence and movement shown by the process of natural law is not
self-evident truth of nature. Problem only: How can we understand it correctly and accurately
describe it? This is the title of the singular point of the re-interpretation theorem.
To sum up, because the proof of singularity theorems such as the time during the
existence of the concept of mathematical logic and the premise of the absurd conditions, the
singular point of the conclusions of theorem proving, in accordance with the definition of the
concept of time is untenable. Although the singularity theorems on time for the beginning and
end, but also that the existence of a specific material and process of the individual and the end
of the beginning of time, but it is expressed as a physical, rather than as a singular point
theorem the so-called start and end time expressed. In that case, the singular point theorem
and its time and the end of the beginning of what they said, or what do they prove? To answer

this question, please answer, what time is it ！

References ：
1 Edited by Li Xixian in twenty-first Century 100 cross scientific problems, Science Press,
Beijing, 2005 January.
2 Einstein, the principle of relativity, Zhao Zhitian ( Translated ) Meng Zhaoying ( school ),
Beijing, Science Press, 1980 February.

180
The Own Unresolved Issues of Einstein's Original Workon the Electrodynamics of
Moving Body
Yang Shijia
Gansu Jinchang Secondary Specialized School of Science and Technology, 737100, China,

[email protected] Mobile telephone ：13359306033

Abstract:I have studied Einstein's original “on the Electrodynamics of Moving Body” for
many years, found its own 30 unsolved problems at least, Einstein's theory of relativity is a
mistake from beginning to end. It can be said that the work is based on wrong assumptions,
according some wrong derivation, and end up with some wrong conclusions. We argue that
his paper is patterns of fabrication. Einstein tells a lot of lies, regard his image as science, you

，
cannot believe him, Einstein's theory of relativity is a paper tiger actually can be punctured

easily. It is impossible for anyone in his right sense to understand his lies.

Keyword: 30 unsolved problems, a paper tiger

1 Introduction
Hua Di (retired), academician of Russian Academy of Astronautics, researcher of

，
Stanford University raised a lot of questions about the derivation of many major equation in

[1 ]

Einstein's original Workon the Electrodynamics of Moving Body in his “Mechanics with

[2]
Variable Speed of Light” , I studied Hua Di's work patiently and carefully, I realized that

the Hua Di's mathematical derivation is correct.

Dr. Ma Qing ping, researcher at London University, proposed a lot of question on

《
Einstein's derivation, in his work Self-Consistency about the Theory of Relativity , he 》
says: Einstein do not respect the basic rules of mathematics and logic, assign the moving
coordinate system and rest coordinate system arbitrarily, casually set atransformation
equations belongs to moving coordinate system on a rest coordinate system and a rest
coordinate system equation on a moving coordinate system. Often play a trick of substituting
concept and perpetrating a fraud.

《 》
I wrote a paper The theory of relativity is a self-contradictory sophistries in 1980, We

argue that his paper is patterns of fabrication. Einstein tells a lot of lies, regard his imagine as
science, you cannot believe him.

181
 I have been studying Einstein's original Work 《On the Electrodynamics of Moving
》
Body for many years, and have find out 30 unsolved problems of its own theory at least,

Due to space limitation, in this can only give a few examples as follows:
2Six issues among thirty own unresolved issues of Einstein's original workon the
Electrodynamics of Moving Body

2.1 Trying to cheat

In paragraph 10 of Einstein's original Work 《On the Electrodynamics of Moving

Body 》，Einstein wrote:
1  x` x `   x` 
τ (0， 0， 0， t ) + τ  0， 0， 0， t + +  = τ  x`, 0, 0, t + 
2  c − v c + v   c−v

(1)
It x ` is assumed to be infinitely small, then

1 1 1  ∂τ ∂τ 1 ∂τ
 +  = + (2)
2  c − v c + v  ∂t ∂x` c −ν ∂t
It should be noted that we don't have to choose the origin of coordinates as the starting
point of light; we can choose something else, thus the equations above is valid for all the
values of x ` , y, z .
Unresolved Issues: Professor Hua Di says in his book: Then, Einstein substituted his

wrong expressions of moment of τ 0 , τ 1 , τ 2 into the formula (1) which they cannot meet:

1  x` x`   x` 
τ (0,0,0, t ) + τ  0,0,0, t + +  = τ  x ′,0,0, t + 
2  V − v V + v   V −v

And sets x ` to be infinitely small, he gets:

1 1 1  ∂τ ∂τ 1 ∂τ ∂τ v ∂τ
 +  = + or + 2 2
=0
2  V − v V + v  ∂t ∂x` V − v ∂t ∂x` V − v ∂t
According this wrong derivation, he got:

v
τ =t− x`
V − v2
2

In addition, I don’t understand how did Einstein conclude (2) from (1)? I think that only
if (1) is construed as

182
1  x` x `   x` 
τ (0， 0， 0， t0 ) + τ  0， 0， 0， t0 + +  = τ  x`, 0, 0, t0 + 
2  c − v c + v   c−v

（3）
Assumes x ` to be infinitely small ，for (3)，In addition to seeking partial derivative of
x` ，also seems to seeking partial derivative of t by the linkage rule to seek composite
function derivation? , and we know that x ` and t are not independent variables by x `= x − vt ,
as well as x ` is constant or variable for the derivation process? In a word, it’s not correct to
get (2) from (1). Please pay attention here, in order to make his theory appears to be
reasonable , Einstein mix up two concepts here, he replaced the distance x ` by the x` set as
the position of reflect mirror in the Coordinate system intentionally.
According to Einstein’s theory: The equations are valid for all the values of x ` , y, z .

Which means, when x `< 0,τ 0 = 0 ,

x` x`
< 0, < 0,τ 2 < τ 1 < 0
c−v c+v
May I ask Einstein, What it means when the time turned out to be negative? Is that the
so-called back in time?

2.2 Inappropriate use of letters

，
In paragraph 21 of Einstein's original Work Einstein says: Light (required by

Constancy principle and the principle of relativity jointly) is spreading at speed c in the
dynamic system. When time τ = 0, Shoot out a light along the direction of ξ-increasing, its
equation is

 
ξ = Vτ or ξ = aV  t −
 2
v
2
x`

（4）
 c −ν 
But, in static system, this light travels at speed V − v relative to the origin k, so

x`
=t
c −ν
If we substitute this value t into the equation about ξ, we get
2

ξ =a 2
c 2
x` (5)
c −ν
183
 ，
Unresolved Issues: Based on context, V = c in (4) then both (4) and (5) will lose their

meaning. Otherwise, if we substitute this value t into the equation about ξ, we get

 x` v   1 v   c+v v  Vc
ξ = aV  − 2 2
x` = aV  − 2 2 
x`= aV  2 2
− 2 2 
x`= a 2 x`
c−v c −v  c−v c −v  c −v c −v  c − v2
That is

Vc
ξ =a x` (6)
c − v2
2

EQ (6) shows that, if Einstein’s (5) is workable, V = c is a must, this will cause a
contradictory and lose their meaning.
First of all, I recommend that Einstein tries not to mess with the letters in the derivation
process; Secondly, according to Einstein’s theory: Light travels at speed c in dynamic system,
but in the static system, light travels at speed c − v relative to origin k, what is this constancy
principle? So, Einstein changed the values on his will in order to get the result he wants
during his derivation.

2.3 Playing magic

In Einstein's original Work 《On the Electrodynamics of Moving Body》，chapter 4, the

physical meaning of the equation resulting from moving rigid body and moving clock. He

，
says: When we observe a rigid sphere of radius R it is stationary relative to moving system

K, its center locate at the origin of the coordinate K. This ball is moving at velocity v relative
to the K, his spherical equation is
2 2 2 2
ξ +η + ζ = R
Represented with x, y, z, at the time t = 0 , this spherical equation turns out to be
2
x
2
+
2
y +z =R
2 2
（7）
 v 
2

 1−  
 c 
 
Therefore

2
v  
2
 v  
τ = t 1 −   = t −  1 − 1 −   t (8)
c  c 

184
 2

So this clock, in the static system, indicate 1 −

v
1−  second slow every second.
c
Unresolved Issues: EQ(7)is workable exactly when t = 0 ， once it starts move ,
t ≠ 0 , it’s not workable anymore , So it cannot be generalized to any other time; Furthermore,

there is no movement since t=0 , β loses its meaning , EQ （7）loses its meaning ,too. In
addition, In order to get EQ （7）from the transformation ξ = ϕ (v)β ( x − vt) in chapter3,
Einstein says t = 0; but In order to get EQ（8）from the transformation

 v
τ = ϕ (v) β  t −  x in chapter 3, Einstein says t≠0, Just as Dr. Ma Qing ping said, Einstein
 c2 
fails to comply with the logic of law of identity.
According to the requirements of logic same law, since, Einstein used t = 0 in the
discussion of moving rigid body, and then t = 0 should be used in the discussion of motion

clock, so EQ (8) turn out to be τ = 0 . Therefore, Einstein said ：“This clock (in static system)
2

indicated 1 −
v
1−  seconds slow every second”is totally nonsense. Till now, people
c
can realize how Einstein played Magic.

0
2.4Absurd deduction of U =
0

《 》
In Einstein's original Work On the Electrodynamics of Moving Body ,chapter 5, he

says: K-system is moving along the X-axis of itself at velocity v, features a point in motion in
accordance with the following equation:
ξ = wξ τ
，η = w τ ， ς = 0
η

Here both wξ and wη represents a constant.

When studying the relative motion of this point to the K- system. By means of the
conversion equation derived in chapter 3, introduce the value x, y, and z into the motion
equations of this point, we get:

185
 2
v
1−  
wξ + v t c t z =0
v wξ wη
x= y=
v wξ
1+ 2
1+ 2
c c
Thus, according to our theory, the parallelogram law of speed is workable only within
the range of first stage. If we set:
2 2

 dx  +  dv  2 = 2 + 2 α = arctg wη
2
U     w wξ wη
=
 dt   dt  wξ
Angle α is the angle between two velocity ν and w . After a simple calculation, we get:
2

(ν + w + 2νw cosα ) − νw sin α 

2 2

U=
 c 
νw cos α
1+ 2
c
Unresolved Issues: First of all, we have to derive the formula ourselves, according to
Einstein’s equation, we get

 
2   v 
2


2 2   1−   
2  dx   dy   wξ + v    
c 
U =   +  = + wη 
 dt   dt   vwξ  vw
1+ 2   1 + 2ξ



 c  
c

2 2
2  v  2 v 2 + w 2 + 2 w v −  vwη 
2
wξ + 2 wξ v + v 2 + wη −   wη ξ

=  c
=  c 
2 2
 vwξ   vwξ 
1 + 2  1 + 2 
 c   c 
Angle α is the angle between velocity ν and w, that is the angle between velocity ν and axis
w, so

wξ = w cos α , wη = w sin α

Substituted them into the formula above, we get

186
 2
ν w sin α 
(ν + w + 2ν w cos α ) − 
2 2

U2 =  c 
2
 ν w cos α 
1 + 
 2

 c 
2

2 2
+ w + 2ν w cos α
 ν w sin α 
(ν ) − 
U=
 c 
ν w cos α
1+ 2
c
According to the Einstein, the formula can be launched, but U and v are value defined
in K- system, but w defined in k- system. Using the velocity defined in different coordinate
systems in velocity composition. That’s funny. Secondly, when v = w = c, α = π , substituted

0
them into the equation above, we get U = , the equation itself is meaningless, but it means
0
some practical considerations, how to resolve this contradiction?
2
2.5 Self-contradiction between the derivation of A ` = 0 and “infinite strong”

《
In Einstein's original Work On the Electrodynamics of Moving Body , chapter7, 》
he says: You can know from the equation about w` : If an observer is moving at speed v
relative to a light source at frequency v at infinity, and referring to a still system relate to the
light source,
The connect line between the light source and the observer and the velocity direction
of the observer intersection into angle ϕ , we should also find the amplitude of these waves in
dynamic system. If the amplitude of electric power (or magnetic power) measured in static
system and dynamic system are defined as A and A`, then we get:
2

1− v cos ϕ ( )
c
A` = A
2 2
2

1− v ( )
c
If ϕ = 0 , this equation reduces to:

1− v
A` A 1 + v
2 2 c
=
c （9）
From these obtained equations, we can know that for a viewer moving towards the light

187
source at velocity, the light source must appear to be infinite strong.
Unresolved Issues: First, “infinity” is not a determined place, there is no specific
location, which means, and the position of the light source is not identified. Strictly speaking,
there is no practical meaning for this kind of discussion; secondly, it is not clear enough
that ϕ is constant or variable. However, they can be regarded as approximation. Thirdly,

substituted v = c into EQ （9）we get

1− v 1− c
A` A 1 + v
2 2 c = 2 c =0
= A 1+ c
c c
According to the equation above, it is ridiculous for Einstein to claim that for an
observer moving towards the light source at velocity c, the light source must appear to infinite

，
strong is purely nonsense.

1
2.6 The derivation of εX = εX is ridiculous
µβ 3

In chapter 10 (slowly accelerated) of Einstein's original Work On the Electrodynamics 《

》
of Moving Body , he wrote: If an electron is stationary in a certain period, after this period,

as long as the electron motion is slow, its movement will follow the following equation
2 2 2

µd (10) µ d µd
x y z
2
= εX 2
= εY 2
= εZ
dt dt dt
According to the assumptions above and the principle of relativity, it is clear that right
after that period (for a really small value t), the electron movement (in k-system) following
the equation below:
2 2 2

µd = εX ` µ d = εY ` µ d
ξ η ς
2 2 2
= εZ ` (11)
dτ dτ dτ
According to these equations, we transfer the aforementioned motion from k-system into
the K-series, you get:
2
d x ε 1 d
2
ε 1 z ε 1
2

Y −v N d 2 =
X (12) y
2
=
µ β3 2
= ( Z+v M ) ( )
dt dt µβ c dt µβ c
2 2

Unresolved Issues: In equations µ d

dt
y
2
= εY and µ d
dt
z
2
= εZ ，If Y = 0, Z = 0 then
2 2
d y = 0, d z = 0 , both of them turn out to be
2 2
0=0 ，there is no practical research
dt dt

188
 2 2

value; If Y ≠ 0, or Z ≠ 0 , then
d y ≠ 0, or d z ≠ 0 . Then the electron will not move
2 2
dt dt
at along the x-axis in K-system at a constant velocity v, at this time, all Einstein's assumptions
and derivation will become nonsense.
Substituted the inverse transform of corresponding transformation equations of § 3 and §
2

6 into the first formula of (10), we obtained µ d [β (vτ + ξ )] 2 ，

= εX ` What is “
  v 
d  β τ + 2 ξ  
  c 
2
d [β (vτ + ξ )] 2 ” in this formula? Has anyone seen it? How solve it?
  v 
d  β τ + 2 ξ 
  c 
According to Einstein, it's an assumption base on the principle of relativity, not a
deduced one; Substituted the corresponding transformation equations of § 3 and § 6 into the
2

first formula of (11), we obtained µ d [β (x − vt )] 2

= εX ，what is
  v 
d  β  t − 2 x 
  c 
2

“µ d [β (x − vt )] 2 ” ? Has anyone seen it? How solve it? Could

  v 
d  β  t − 2 x 
  c 
2 2
d [β (x − vt )] x ε 1
µ 2
= εX be transformed into d 2 = X ? If we can, then there is
  v  dt µ β3
d  β  t − 2 x 
  c 
2 2 2 2
d [β ( x − vt )] = εX = β dx 3
namely d [β ( x − vt )] = β dx 3
2 2
  v  u dt 2   v  dt 2
d  β  t − 2 x  d  β  t − 2 x 
  c    c 
What is it? A monster?
I really appreciate Dr. Ma Qingping's queries against Einstein, changed from the K-
system to the k-system, then back to the k, each value should be the same, and the equation
should be the same, too. But according to Einstein, it changes from
2
d x = εX x ε 1
2
1
2
(10) to d 2 = 3 X (12) .from εX to 3
εX .
dt dt µβ µβ
If we change on our will like Einstein, like a magician, any theory can be proven. This
shows that, Einstein is certainly wrong.
3 Conclusion
189
 Einstein's theory of relativity is a mistake from the start to the end, wrong assumptions,

wrong derivation, wrong conclusions ，Einstein's theory of relativity is a paper tiger

，
actually can be punctured easily. It is said that only two-and-a-half man can understand the

theory of relativity back to his time, in fact, it’s not surprising, because a wise man cannot
understand fallacy. It now appears that the two-and-a-half men were certainly pretend.
Einstein's theory of relativity has no scientific value, and it is messing up people's thinking,
hindering the development of science, like scholars say, the theory of relativity is a bunch of
garbage, should be early eradicated

References
[1]. Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Einstein's Collected Works,
Commercial Press, Volume 2, 83 (1977).

[2]. Hua De ，Einstein Is Wrong，Mechanics with Variable Speed of Light (Electronic

Books).
[3]. Ma Qingping, Self-Consistency about the Theory of Relativity, Shanghai Science and
Technology Press, 2004.
About the Author: A male senior instructor, who was born in February 1963, has been
studying the theory of relativity since 1980, and find out some problems of the experimental
basis and mathematical logic of the theory of relativity, More than 10 papers are published in

《
USA Matter Regularity. Are: The Formula ∆m =
c∆t − c∆t ′
λ
is Untenable to Michelson's

Experiment: Restore the Hypothesis “Ether” to Explain the Two Different Types of Dual
Property of Wave and Particle from Different Sources,Restore the Hypothesis “Ether” to
Establish a Model of the Magnetic Field, Query Einstein's Explanation of the Two
Experimental Results, Query for Einstein's Original Work“on the Electrodynamics of Moving
Body”,Etc. Two papers, The Key Formula Used in the Michelson-Morley Experiment is
UntenableandQuery on Einstein's Explanation of Two Experimental Resultshas been finalized
by USA Galilean Electrodynamics, forthcoming. I won the Meng Qingtan's Challenge
Prize of Relativity by Beijing Relativity Theory Research Federation, Hoff Lu Research
Institute of Matter Regularity, Editorial Committee of Matter Regularity in December in
2008; I won the Zheng Quan's Excellent Paper Award by Beijing Relativity Theory Research
Federation, Hoff Lu Research Institute of Matter Regularity, Editorial Committee of Matter
Regularity in December in 2012.

190
The Theory of Relativity and Cosmology on the Finsler Space-time
CAO SHENGLIN
Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875,P.R.China. Email
[email protected]

Abstract: Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality imply that the
speed of any moving object cannot exceed that of light in a vacuum (c). Nevertheless, there
exist various proposals for observing faster-than-c propagation of light pulses, using
anomalous dispersion near an absorption line, nonlinear and linear gain lines, or tunneling
barriers. However, in all previous experimental demonstrations, the light pulses experienced
either very large absorption or severe reshaping, resulting in controversies over the
interpretation. Recently, L.J. Wang, A. Kuzmich and A. Dogariu use gain-assisted linear
anomalous dispersion to demonstrate superluminal light propagation in atomic caesium gas.
The group velocity of a laser pulse in this region exceeds c and can even become negative,
while the shape of the pulse is preserved. The textbooks say nothing can travel faster than
light, not even light itself. New experiments show that this is no longer true, raising questions
about the maximum speed at which we can send information. On the other hand, the light
speed reduction to 17 meters per second in an ultra cold atomic gas.
This paper shows that if ones think of the possibility of the existence of the
superluminal-speeds (the speeds faster than that of light) and re-describe the special theory of
relativity following Einstein's way, it could be supposed that the physical space-time is a
Finsler space-time, characterized by the metric

ds 4 = g ijkl dx i dx j dx k dx l .

If so, a new space-time transformation could be found by invariant ds4 and the theory of
relativity is discussed on this transformation. It is possible that the Finsler space-timeF(x,y)
may be endowed with a catastrophic nature. Based on the different properties between the ds2
and ds4, it is discussed that the flat space-time will also have the catastrophe nature on the
Finsler metric ds4. The space-time transformations and the physical quantities will suddenly
change at the catastrophe set of the space-time, the light cone. It will be supposed that only
the dual velocities of the superluminal-speeds could be observed. If so, a particle with the
superluminal-speeds v>c could be regarded as its anti-particle with the dual velocity
v1=c2/v<c. On the other hand, it could be assumed that the horizon of the field of the general
relativity is also a catastrophic set. If so, a particle with the superluminal-speeds could be
projected near the horizon of these fields, and the particle will move on the space-like curves.
It is very interesting that, in the Schwarzschild fields, the theoretical calculation for the space-
like curves should be in agreement with the data of the superluminal expansion of
191
extragalactic radio sources observed year after year. (see Cao,1992b)
The catastrophe of space-time has some deep cosmological means. According to the
some interested subjects in the process of evolution of the universe the catastrophe nature of
the Finsler space-time and its cosmological implications are discussed. It is shown that the
nature of the universal evolution could be attributed to the geometric features of the Finsler
space-time. (see Cao,1993)
Key words: Theory of Relativity, Cosmology, Finsler space-time

Introduction
It is known that in his first paper on the special theory of relativity: “On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Einstein clearly states (cf. Einstein, 1923) that
‘Velocities greater than that of light have …, no possibility of existence.’ But he neglected to
point out the applicable range of Lorentz transformation. In fact, his whole description must
be based on velocities smaller than that of light which we call subluminal-speed. So, the
special theory of relativity cannot negate that real motion at a speed greater than the speed of
light in vacuum which we call superluminal-speed could exist. In this paper, it is shown that if
we think of the possibility of existence of the superluminal-speed and re-describe the special
theory of relativity following Einstein's way, a new theory would be founded on the Finsler
space-time. The new theory would retain all meaning of the special theory of relativity when
matters move with subluminal-speed and would give new content when matters move with
superluminal-speed. If we assume that the superluminal-speed will accord with the space-like
curves in the general theory of relativity, calculations indicate that the superluminal expansion
of extragalactic radio sources exactly corresponds with the space-like curves of the
Schwarzschild geometry.
Our discussion is still based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of
constancy of the velocity of light which have been defined by Einstein as follows:
1.The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected,
whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of
coordinates in uniform translatory motion (see Einstein, 1923;p.41).
2.Any ray of light moves in the `stationary' system of coordinates with the determined
velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by stationary or by a moving body.
Note that these two postulates do not impose any constraint on the relative speed v of the
two inertial observers.

1 The General Theory of the Transformation of Space-time

1-1 Definition of Simultaneity and Temporal Order
In his description about definition of simultaneity, Einstein stated: “Let us take a system
of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good”...“Let a ray of
light start at the ‘A time’ tA from A towards B, let it at the B time' tB be reflected at B in the
192
direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ‘A time’ tA’”. In accordance with definition, the two
clocks synchronize if (see Einstein, 1923; p.40)

t B − t A = t ′A − t B . (1.1)

“In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2 AB
= c, (1.2)
tB − t A

to be a universal constant -- the velocity of light in empty space”.

“It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary
system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ‘the
time of the stationary system’”. In this way, Einstein finished his definition of simultaneity.
But he did not consider the applicable condition of this definition, still less the temporal order
and as it appears to me these discussions are essential too. Let us continue these discussions
following Einstein's way.
First and foremost, let us assume if the point B is moving with velocity v relative to the
point A, in agreement with experience we must use the following equations instead of
Equation (1.2):

2 AB c − v, when B is leaving A (a )
= (1.3)
t A − t B c + v, when B is approaching A (b)
Obviously, Equation (1.3a) is not always applicable, it must require v<c, but Equation (1.3b)
is always applicable-i.e., for v<c and v>c Einstein's whole discussion is based on the
following formula:

rAB r
tB − t A = and t ′A − t B = AB . (1.4)
c−v c+v

It must require v<c, because tB －t A must be larger than zero. Particularly, in order to get

the Lorentz transformation, Einstein was based on the following formula (see Einstein, 1923;
p.44)

1
[τ (0,0,0, t ) + τ (0,0,0, t + cx−'v + cx+'v )] = τ ( x' ,0,0, t + cx−'v ) (1.5)
2

where x'
c −v －t , so must require v<c, i.e., B must be the motion with the subluminal-
is just tB A

speed. Then the Lorentz transformation only could be applied to the motion with subluminal-
speed. It could not presage anything about the motion with the superluminal-speed, i.e., the
special theory of relativity could not negate that the superluminal-speed would exist.
In order for our discussion to be applied to the motion with the superluminal-speed, we
will only use Equation (1.3b), i.e., let the point B approach A. Now, let another ray of light (it
193
must be distinguished from the first) start at the `A time' tA1 from A towards B (when B will be
at a new place B1) let it at the `B time' tB1 be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive
again at A at the ‘A time’ tA1.
According to the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light, we obtain the following formulas:

1 AB
(t ' A −t A ) = t B − t A = , (1.6)
2 c+v

1 AB1
(t ' A1 −t A1 ) = t A1 − t B1 = , (1.7)
2 c+v

AB − AB1 = v (t A1 − t A ) . (1.8)

Let

∆t A = t A1 − t A , ∆t B = t B1 − t B and ∆t ' A = t ' A1 −t ' A , (1.9)

where ∆t A , ∆t B , and ∆t ′A represent the temporal intervals of the emission from A, the

reflection from B, and arrival at A for two rays of light, respectively. The symbols of the
temporal intervals describe the temporal orders. When ∆t>0 it will be called the forward order
and when ∆t<0, the backward order.

～
From Equations (1.6) (1.9) we can get

c
∆t B = ∆t A , (1.10)
c+v
and

c−v
∆t ' A = ∆t A . (1.11)
c+v
Then we assume that, if ∆tA>0 i.e., two rays of light were emitted from A, successively we
must have ∆tB>0 i.e., for the observer at system A these two rays of light were reflected by the
forward order from B. But
∆t’A≥0, if and only if v≤c;
and

＜
∆t’A 0,if and only if v c. ＞
It means that for the observer at system A these two rays of light arrived at A by the forward
order only when the point B moves with subluminal-speed, and by the backward order only
when with superluminal-speed. In other words, the temporal order is not always constant. It is
constant only when v<c, and it is not constant when v>c.

194
 Usually, one thinks that this is a backward flow of time. In fact, it is only a procedure of
time in the system B with the superluminal-speed which gives the observer in the ‘stationary
system’ A an inverse appearance of the procedure of the time. It is an inevitable outcome
when the velocity of the moving body is faster than the transmission velocity of the signal.
This outcome will be called the relativity of the temporal order. It is a new nature of the time
when the moving body attains the supeluminal-speed. It is known that it is not space-time that
impresses its form on things, but the things and their physical laws that determine space-time.
So, the superluminal-speed need not be negated by the character of the space-time of the
special theory of relativity, but will represent the new nature of the space-time, the relativity
of the temporal order.

1-2 The Temporal Order and the Chain of Causation

In order to explain the disparity between the backward flow of time and the relativity of
the temporal order, we will use space-time figure (as Figure 1-1) and take following
definition:
1.The chain of the event,tA0,tA1,…,tAi,…. The ith ray of light will be started at tAi and ∆tAi

－t >0 It may or may not be chain of causality.

=tA(i+1) Ai

2.The chains of the transference of the light tA0, tB0, t’A0; tA1, tB1, t’A1;…. Every chain tAi,
tBi, t’Aimust be a chain of causality -i.e.

1
(t ' Ai −t Ai ) = t Bi − t Ai = t ' Ai −t Bi > 0 . (1.12)
2
If they take a negative sign it will be the backward flow of time and will violate the principle
of causality.
3.The chains of the motion are the rays of the light, which will be reflected at B, but it
will have different features when B moves with different velocity. Let us assume that:
(a) v>0 when B is approaching A;
(b) v<0 when B is leaving A;
(c) c>0 when the ray of light from A backwards B;
(d) c<0 when the ray of light from A towards B.

195
 Figure 1-1 The space-time figure
So, if v=0, must have c<0 then

t A(i +1) − t Ai = t B (i +1) − t Bi = t ' A(i +1) −t ' Ai . (1.13)

If v<c, must have c<0; and when v>0,

t A( i +1) − t Ai > t B (i +1) − t Bi > t ' A(i +1) −t ' Ai > 0 . (1.14)

But when v<0,

0 < t A( i +1) − t Ai < t B (i +1) − t Bi < t ' A( i +1) −t ' Ai . (1.15)

Last of all, if v>c, must have v>0; and when c<0,

t A( i +1) − t Ai > t B ( i +1) − t Bi >| t ' A(i +1) t ' Ai |> 0 . (1.16)

but

t ' A(i +1) −t ' Ai < 0 . (1.17)

When c>0

0 < t A(i +1) − t Ai <| t B (i +1) − t Bi |<| t ' A(i +1) −t ' Ai | (1.18)

and

t B (i +1) − t Bi < 0 and t ' A( i +1) −t Ai < 0 . (1.19)

These are rigid relations of causality.

4.The chains of the observation t’A0,t’A1,…,t’Ai,…and tB0,tB1,…,tBi,… are not chains of
causality. The relativity of temporal order is just that they could be a positive when v<c or a
negative when v>c and the vector v and c have the same direction.

196
 In (1.4) when v>c, tB－t <0 it does not mean that velocities greater than that of light have
A

no possibility of existence but only that the ray of light cannot catch up with the body with
superluminal-speed.

1-3. Theory of the Transformation of Coordinates

From equations (1.10) and (1.11) we can get

c
∆t B = ∆t A (1.20)
c+v
and

c
∆t B = ∆t ′A . (1.21)
c−v
It has been pointed out that ∆tA and ∆t’A are measurable by observer of the system A, but ∆tB
is immeasurable. Accordingly, the observer must conjecture ∆tB from ∆tA or ∆t’A. In form, ∆tB
in Equation (1.20) and ∆tB in (1.21) are different. If we can find a transformation of
coordinates it will satisfy following equation:

∆τ 2 = ∆t A ⋅ ∆t ' A (1.22)

and, according to Equations (1.10) and (1.11), could get

> 0, iff v < c,


2
∆τ = = 0, iff v = c, (1.23)
< 0, iff v > c.

Then, we get

c2
∆t B2 = ∆τ 2
c2 − v2
or

c2
dt 2 = dτ 2 . (1.24)
c2 − v2
Let ds2=c2dτ2; we get

ds2=c2dτ2=(c2 －v )dt ,
2 2
(1.25)

So

> 0, v < c timelike,


2
ds = = 0, v = c lightlike, (1.26)
< 0, v > c spacelike.


197
 －
what merits special attention is that ds2=(c2 v2)dt2 and ds2=c2dt2 －dx －dy －dz
2 2 2
are not

identical. Usually, the special theory of relativity does not recognize their difference because
motion with subluminal-speed does not involve the relative change of temporal orders, so the
symbol of ds2 remains unchanged when the inertial system changes.
Now let

ds 2 = dsv2 + ds02 (1.27)

where

dsv2 = (c 2 − v 2 )dt 2 , (1.28)

ds02 = dx 2 + dy 2 + dz 2 (1.29)

then

+ ds v2 + ds 02 , v < c,
ds 2 =  2 2
(1.30)
− ds v + ds 0 , v > c.
Between any two inertial systems

+ ds v2 + ds 02 , v < c,
ds v2 + ds 02 =  2 2
(1.31)
− ds v + ds 0 , v > c.
According to classical mechanics, we can determine the state of a system with
n degrees of freedom at time t by measuring the 2n position and momentum coordinates qi(t),
pi(t), i=1,2,…,n. These quantities are commutative each other, i.e., qi(t)pj(t)=pj(t)qi(t). But, in
quantum mechanics the situation is entirely different. The operators Qop and Pop corresponding
to the classical observable position vector q and momentum vector p. These operators are
non-commutative each other, i.e.,
QP≠PQ.
So, ones doubt whether the quantum mechanics is not a good theory at first. But, ones
discover that the non-commutability of operators is closely related to the uncertainty
principle, it is just an essential distinction between the classical and quantum mechanics.
So, I doubt that whether the non-positive definite metrics ds2 is just the best essential
nature in the relativity theory? But, it was cast aside in Einstein's theory. Now, we could
assume that

ds 4 = dsv4 + ds04 . (1.32)

In general, we could let

ds 4 = g ijkl dx i dx j dx k dx l , i , j , k , l = 0,1,2,3. (1.33)

Equations (1.32) and (1.33) which are defined as a Finsler metric are the base of the space-
time transformations. From the physical point of view this means that a new symmetry
198
between the time-like and the space-like could exist.
In his memoir of 1854, Riemann discusses various possibilities by means of which an n-
dimensional manifold may be endowed with a metric, and pays particular attention to a metric
defined by the positive square root of positive definite quadratic differential form. Thus the
foundations of Riemannian geometry are laid; nevertheless, it is also suggested that the
positive fourth root of a fourth-order differential form might serve as metric function (see
Rund, 1959; Introduction X).
In his book of 1977, Wolfgang Rindler stated: “Whenever the squared differential
distance dσ2 is given by a homogeneous quadratic differential form in the surface coordinates,
as in (7.10), we say that dσ2 is a Riemannian metric, and that the corresponding surface is
Riemannian. It is, of course, not a foregone conclusion that all metrics must be of this form:
2
One could define, for example, a non-Riemannian metric dσ = dx 4 + dy 4 for some two-
dimensional space, and investigate the resulting geometry. (Such more general metrics give
rise to ‘Finsler’ geometry.)" (see W. Rindler,1997).

2 The Special Theory of Relativity on the Finsler Space-timeds4

2-1 Space-time Transformation Group on the Finsler Metric ds4

If v=vx, then, between any two inertial systems we have

－
c4dt4+dx4 2c2dt2dx2+dy4+dz4+2dy2dz2=c4dt’4+dx’4 －2c dt’ +dy’ +dz’ +2dy’ dz’
2 2 4 4 2 2
(2.1)

From (2.1) we could get transformations

t ′ + cv2 x ′ x ′ + vt ′
t= , x= , y = y ′, z = z ′. (2.2)
4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4 4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4
These transformations are called space-time transformations. All space-time transformations
form into a group, called the space-time transformation group (The Lorentz transformations
group is only subgroup of the space-time transformation group). The inverse transformations
are of the form
x
t−β x − vt
± t′ = c
, ± x′ = , y ′ = y, z ′ = z. (2.3)
2 4
4
1 − 2β + β 4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4

c2
where β = v
c . We could also use dual velocity v1 = v
to represent the space-time

transformations. In fact, the transformations (2.2) can be rewritten as

x′
β 1t ′ + β 1 x ′ + ct ′
t= c
, x= , y = y ′, z = z ′. (2.4)
4 1 − 2 β 12 + β 14 1 − 2 β 12 + β 14
Their inverse transformations are of the form
199
 β 1t − cx β 1 x − ct
± t′ = , ± x′ = , y ′ = y, z ′ = z. (2.5)
4 1 − 2 β 12 + β 14 1 − 2 β 12 + β 14

1
where β 1 = .
v1
c = cv = β

It is very interesting that all space-time transformations are applicable to both the
subluminal-speed (i.e.,β<1 or β1>1) and the superluminal-speed (i.e.,β>1 or β1<1). Whether
the velocity is superluminal- or subluminal-speed, it is characterized by minus or plus sign of
their inverse transformations, respectively.
Lastly, all space-time transformations have the same singularity as the Lorentz
transformation when the β=β1=1.

2-2. Kinematics on the ds4 Invariant

We shall now consider the question of the measurement of length and time increment. In
order to find out the length of a moving body, we must simultaneously plot the coordinates of
its ends in a fixed system. From Equation (2.2) and (2.4), an expression for the length of a
moving scale ∆x’ measured by a fixed observer follows as

± ∆x' = ∆x 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4 , (2.6)

and
2 4
± ∆ x ' = c ∆t 4 1 − 2 β 1 + β 1 , (2.7)

Einstein stated: “For v=c all moving objects - viewed from the ‘stationary’ system -
shrivel up into plain figures. For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless”. However, formula (2.6) can applied to the case for velocities greater than that
of light. Figure 2.1 give the relation between the length of a moving scale L and the velocity.

Figure 2.1. L-β curve

Let ∆t be the time increment when the clock is at rest with respect to the stationary
system, and ∆τ be the time increment when the clock is at rest with respect to the moving
system. Then

200
 ± ∆τ = ∆t 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4 , (2.8)

and

∆x 4
± ∆τ = 1 − 2 β 12 + β 14 , (2.9)
c
Differentiating (2.3) or (2.5) and dividing dx’ by dt’ we obtain

dx' dx − v vx − v
= v' x = dt
= , (2.10)
dt ' 1 − v c 2 dx dt 1 − vv x / c 2

Noting that dy’=dy, dz’=dz, we have a transformation of the velocity components

perpendicular to v:

dy ' v y 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4 dz ' v z 4 1 − 2β 2 + β 4
= v' y = , = v' z = , (2.11)
dt ' 1 − vv x / c 2 dt ' 1 − vv x / c 2
where

v 2 = v x2 + v y2 + v z2 . (2.12)

From Equation (2.8), we could see that the composition of velocities have four physical
implications: i.e.,
1.A subluminal-speed and another subluminal-speed will be a subluminal-speed.
2.A superluminal-speed and a subluminal-speed will be a superluminal-speed.
3.The composition of two superluminal-speeds is a subluminal-speed.
4.The composition of light-speed with any other speed (subluminal-,light-,
or superluminal-speed) still is the light-speed.
There are the essential natures of the space-time transformation group. The usual Lorentz
transformation is only a subgroup of the space-time transformation group.
It is necessary to point out that if 1-vvx/c2=0, i.e.,

vx = v / c 2 , (2.13)

then v x → ∞ . It implies that if two velocities are dual to each other and in opposite

directions, then their composition velocity is an infinitely great velocity. We guess that it may
well become an effective way to make an appraisal of a particle with the superluminal-speed.
2-3. Dynamics on the ds4 Invariant
The Lagrangian for a free particle with mass m is

L = −mc 2 4 1 − 2β 2 + β 4 , (2.14)

The momentum energy, and mass of motion of the particle are of the forms:

201
 mv mc 2 m
p= ,E = ,M = . (2.15)
2 4 2 4
4
1 − 2β + β 4
1 − 2β + β 4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4
Those could also be represented by dual velocity v1:
mv mc 1
p (v ) = = = E (v1 ), (2.16)
2 4 2 4
4
1 − 2β + β 4
1 − 2β + β
1 1
c

mc 2 mv1c
E (v ) = = = cp(v1 ), (2.17)
2 4 2 4
4
1 − 2β + β 4
1 − 2β + β
1 1

m β1m
M (v ) = = = β 1 M (v1 ); (2.18)
4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4 4 1 − 2 β 12 + β 14

Figure 2.2. E-β diagram Figure 2.3. p-β diagram

Einstein stated: “Thus, when v=c, E becomes infinite, velocities greater than that of light
have —as in our previous results—no possibility of existence”. But, formula (2.7) can also
applied to the case for velocities greater than that of light. Figure 2.2 give the relation
between the energy of a moving particle and its velocity, and Figure 2.3 give the relation
between the momentum of a moving particle and its velocity.
It is very interesting that the momentum (or energy) in the v's representation will change
into the energy (or momentum) in the v1's representation. From (2.15) (or (2.16) and (2.17)),
we could get the following relation between the momentum and energy of a free material
particle:

v v1
p (v ) = E (v ) or p (v1 ) = E (v1 ), (2.19)
c2 c2
where the relation (2.19) keeps up the same form as the special theory of relativity. But a new
invariant will be obtained as

E 4 + c 4 p 4 − 2c 2 p 2 E 2 = m 4 c 8 . (2.20)

202
The relation (2.20) is correct for both of the v's and the v1's representations. It is a new relation
on the ds4 invariant.

2.4. A Charged Particle in an Electromagnetic Field on the Finsler Space-timeds4

Let us now turn to the equations of motion for a charged particle in an electromagnetic
field, A,Φ, Ee and He. Their Lagrangian is

e
L = −mc 2 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4 + Av − eΦ . (2.21)
c
The derivative ∂L / ∂v is the generalized momentum of the particle; we denote it by Pe

e e
pe = mv 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4 + A = p + A. (2.22)
c c
where P denotes momentum in the absence of a field.
From the Lagrangian we could find the Hamiltonian function for a particle in a field
from the general formula

H = mc 2 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4 + eΦ . (2.23)

However, the Hamiltonian must be expressed not in terms of the velocity, but rather in terms
of the generalized momentum of the particle. From equations (2.2) and (2.3), we can get the
relation

H − eΦ 2 e
[( ) − ( p − A) 2 ] 2 = m 4 c 4 . (2.24)
c c
Now we write the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a particle in an electromagnetic field in
the Finsler space-time. It is obtained by replacing, in the equation for the Hamiltonian, P by
∂S / ∂r , and H by − ∂S / ∂t . Thus we get from (2.24)

e 2 1 ∂S
[(∇S − A) − 2 ( + eΦ) 2 ] 2 − m 4 c 4 = 0 . (2.25)
c c ∂t
Now we consider the equation of motion of a charge in an electromagnetic field. It could be
written by Lagrangian (2.21) as
d mv e
= eEe + v × H e . (2.26)
dt 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4 c

where

1 ∂A
Ee = − − gradΦ, H e = curlA . (2.27)
c ∂t
It is easy to check the dEe=vdP -i.e..

203
 d mv d 1
v = mc 2 . (2.28)
2
dt 4 1 − 2 β + β 4 dt 4 1 − 2 β 2 + β 4

Then from (2.26) we have

dE
= eEe v . (2.29)
dt
Integrate (2.29) and get
mc 2 mc 2
− = eU . (2.30)
4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4 4
1 − 2 β 02 + β 04
where
r
v0
β0 = , U = ∫ E e dr . (2.31)
c r0

From (2-26) and (2-29), if we write it in terms of components, it is easy to obtain the space-
time transformation equations for the field components, and we could obtain the field
transformation equation



 H ′x = H x , E x′ = E x ,

 H y + βE z E y − βH z
 H ′y = , E ′y = , (2.32)
 4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4 4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4

 H ′ = H z − βE y , E z′ =
E z + βH y
.
 z 4 1 − 2β 2 + β 4 4
1 − 2β 2 + β 4


We could also use dual velocity v1 to represent the field transformation equation



 H ′x = H x , E x′ = E x ,

 β1 H y + E z β1 E y − H z
 H ′y = , E ′y = , (2.33)
 4
1 − 2 β 12 + β 14 4
1 − 2 β 12 + β 14

H ′ = β1 H z − E y , E z′ =
β1 E z + H y
.
 z 4 1 − 2β 2 + β 4 4
1 − 2 β 12 + β 14
 1 1

An invariant will be obtained as

H e4 + Ee4 − 2H e2 Ee2 = constant,

of new nature for the electromagnetic field in Finsler space-time.

3 The Catastrophe of the Space-time and Its Physical Meaning

204
 3.1. Catastrophe of the Space-time on the Finsler Metric ds4
The functions y=x2 and y=x4 are topologically equivalent in the theory of the singularities
of differentiable maps (see Arnold et al.,1985). But the germ y=x2 is topologically (and even
differentially) stable at zero. the germ y=x4 is differentially (and even topologically) unstable
at zero. So, there is a great difference between the theories of relativity on the ds2 and the ds4.
On the other hand, a great many of the most interesting macroscopic phenomena in
nature involve discontinuities. The Newtonian theory and Einstein’s relativity theory only
consider smooth, continuous processes. The catastrophe theory, however, provides a universal
method for the study of all jump transitions, discontinuities and sudden qualitative changes.
The catastrophe theory is a program. The object of this program is to determine the change in
the solutions to families of equations when the parameters that appear in these equations
change.
In general, a small change in parameter values only has a small quantitative effect on the
solutions of these equations. However, under certain conditions a small change in the value of
some parameters has a very large quantitative effect on the solutions of these equations. Large
quantitative changes in solutions describe qualitative changes in the behavior of the system
modeled.
Catastrophe theory is, therefore, concerned with determining the parameter values at
which there occur qualitative changes in solutions of families of equations described by
parameters.
The double-cusp is the simplest non-simple in the sense of Arnold (see
Arnold et al.,1985), but the double-cusp is unimodal.
The double-cusp is compact, in the sense that the sets f≤constant are compact. In
Arnold's notation, the double-cusp belongs to the family X9 and in that family there are three
real types of germ, according as to whether the germ has 0,2, or 4 real roots. For example

representatives of the three types are: Type 1 x4+ y4, type 2x4 －y ,
4
type

3x 4 + y 4 －2δx y ,respectively, and only the type 1 is compact.

2 2

Compact germs play an important role in application (see Zeeman, 1977), because any
perturbation of a compact germ has a minimum; therefore if minima represent the stable
equilibria of some system, then for each point of the unfolding space there exists a stable state
of the system.

3.2. Catastrophe of the space-time on the Finsler Metric ds4

In accordance with the Finsler metric ds4 of the space-time, we could

f (T , X , Y , Z ) = T 4 + X 4 + Y 4 + Z 4 − 2T 2 X 2 + 2Y 2 Z 2 , (3.1)

here T=ct. Equation (3.1) that describes the behavior of the space-time is a smooth function.

205
 As the catastrophe theory, first we must find the critical points of this

function. Let f=0, and f’=0, here f ′ = ∂f / ∂s ,s=T,X,Y,Z. i.e.,

f = T 4 + X 4 + Y 4 + Z 4 − 2T 2 X 2 + 2Y 2 Z 2 = 0,
f T′ = ∂f / ∂T = 4T (T 2 − X 2 ) = 0,
f X′ = ∂f / ∂X = 4 X ( X 2 − T 2 ) = 0,
f Y′ = ∂f / ∂Y = 4Y (Y 2 + Z 2 ) = 0,
f Z′ = ∂f / ∂Z = 4Z ( Z 2 + Y 2 ) = 0.

So, the critical point are

X = ±T , T = X = Y = Z = 0.

Then, we form the stability matrix (∂ 2 f / ∂x i ∂x j ) . It is of the form

12T 2 − 4 x 2 − 8Tx 0 0 
 2 2 
 − 8Tx 12 x − 4T 0 0 .
H (T , X , Y , Z ) =
 0 0 12 y 2 + 4 z 2 8 yz 
 2 2
 0 0 8 yz 12 z + 4 y 
Obviously, for the sub matrix

12 y 2 + 4 z 2 8 yz 
H (Y , Z ) =  2
,
2
 8 yz 12 z + 4 y 
its determinant does not vanish, unless Y=Z=0.
With the Thom theorem (splitting lemma), we could get

f M (Y , Z ) = Y 4 + Z 4 + 2Y 2 Z 2 , (3.2)

f NM (T , X ) = T 4 + X 4 − 2T 2 X 2 ; (3.3)

where fM Morse function, can be reduced to the Morse canonical form

M 02 = Y 2 + Z 2 ,

and fNM, non-Morse function, is a degenerate form of the double-cusp catastrophe (see
Zeeman, 1977). For another sub matrix of H(T,X,Y,Z)

12T 2 − 4 X 2 − 8TX
H (T , X ) = 2 2
= −48(T 4 + X 4 − 2T 2 X 2 ) .
− 8 XT 12 X − 4T
So, the space-time sub manifold M(T,X) will be divided into four parts by the different values
of the H(T,X):

206
 H (T , X ) ≠ 0 T2 − X2 <0 spacelike state
(material states ) T 2 − X 2 > 0 timelike state
(3.4)
H (T , X ) = 0 T = ±X lightlike state
(sin gularities ) T = X =0 the origin (in det er min ate).
It means that the light cone is just a catastrophe set on the space-time manifold, and both
thetime-like state and space-like state are possible states of moving particles.
So, from the point of view of the catastrophe theory, the light cone is just a set of
degenerate critical points on the space-time manifold. The space-time is structurally unstable
at the light cone. It means that a light like state could change suddenly into a time-like state
and a space-like state. Also, a time-like state and a space-like state could change suddenly into
a light like state. It very much resembles the fact that two photons with sufficient energy
could change suddenly into a pair of a particle and an anti-particle and contrarily, a pair of a
particle and an antiparticle could annihilate and change into two photons.
According to the nature of catastrophe of the space-time, the space-time transformations
(2.2) could be resolved into two parts at the light cone:
t '+ βc x' x'+vt ' v
t= ,x = , y = y' , z = z' ; β = < 1. (3.5)
2 2
1− β 1− β c

and

t '+ βc x' x'+vt ' v

t= ,x = , y = y' , z = z' ; β = > 1. (3.6)
β 2 −1 β 2 −1 c

In the same way, the transformation (2.4) could also be resolved into two parts at the
light cone:
β1t '+ 1c x' β 1 x'+ ct ' v1
t= ,x = , y = y' , z = z '; β1 = > 1. (3.7)
β 12 − 1 β 12 − 1 c

and
β1t '+ 1c x' β 1 x'+ ct ' v1
t= ,x = , y = y' , z = z '; β1 = < 1. (3.8)
1 − β 12 1 − β 12 c

It is very interesting that transformations (3.5) and (3.7) have two major features: Firstly, they
keep the same sign between the ds2 and the ds’2;i.e.:

dsv2 = dsv′ 2 . (3.9)

Secondly, their inverse transformations are of the form

t − βc x x − vt
t' = , x' = , y' = y, z ' = z; β < 1. (3.10)
2
1− β 1− β 2
and

207
 β 1t − 1c x β 1 x − ct
t' = , x' = , y ' = y , z ' = z ; β 1 > 1. (3.11)
2
β1 − 1 β12 − 1
These transformations keep the same sign between x,t and x’,t’. So, they will be called the
time-like transformations and (3.5) will be called the time-like representation of the time-like
transformation (TRTT), and (3-7) the space-like representation of time-like transformation
(SRTT).
In the same manner, transformations (3.6) and (3.8) have two common major features,
too. Firstly, they will change the sign between ds2 and ds’2,i.e.:

− dsv2 = dsv′ 2 . (3.12)

Secondly, their inverse transformations are of the form

t − βc x x − vt
− t' = ,− x ' = , y ' = y, z ' = z; β > 1. (3.13)
2
β =1 β 2 −1
and
β 1t − 1c x β 1 x − ct
− t' = ,− x ' = , y ' = y , z ' = z ; β 1 < 1. (3.14)
2
1− β 1 1 − β 12
These transformations will change the sign between x,t and x’,t’. They will be called the
space-like transformations and (3.6) will be called the space-like representation of space-like
transformation (SRST); and (3.8) the time-like representation of space-like transformation
(TRST).
Now, we have had four types of form of the space-time transformation under ds2:
Type I. TRTT, (3.5), it is just the Lorentz transformation;
Type II. SRTT, (3.7), it is the space-like representation of the Lorentz transformation
with the dual velocity v1=c2/v, it is larger than the velocity of light;
Type III. SRST, (3.6), it is just the superluminal Lorentz transformation (see Recami,
1986 and Sen Gupta, 1973);
Type IV. TRST, (3.8), it is the time-like representation of the
superluminal Lorentz transformation with the dual velocity v1=c2/v, but it is less than the
velocity of light.

3.3.The Catastrophe of Physical Quantities on the Finsler Metric ds4

Firstly, we shall consider the question of the catastrophe of the measurement of length
and time increment. According to the nature of catastrophe of space-time, the expression for

the length of a moving scale ∆x’ measured by a fixed observer (2.6) (2.9) could be resolved～
into two parts:

208
 ∆x' = ∆x 1 − β 2 , β < 1. (3.15)

− ∆x' = ∆x β 2 − 1, β > 1. (3.16)

− ∆x' = c∆t 1 − β12 , β 1 < 1. (3.17)

∆x' = c∆t β 12 − 1, β 1 > 1. (3.18)

The expression for the time increment ∆τ of the clock at rest with respect to the moving
system could be resolved into two parts at the light cone:

∆τ = ∆t 1 − β 2 , β < 1; (3.19)

− ∆τ = ∆t β 2 − 1, β > 1. (3.20)

∆x
− ∆τ = 1 − β 12 , β 1 < 1; (3.21)
c

∆x
∆τ = β 12 − 1, β1 > 1; (3.22)
c
It is very interesting that the ∆x’ (or ∆x) will exchange with ∆t (or ∆τ) in the expressions
(3.17),(3.18),(3.21), and (3.22).
If we let (see the formula (3.20))

f ( E , P ) = E 4 + c 4 P 4 − 2c 2 E 2 P 2 (3.23)

as the catastrophe theory, we could find a catastrophe set

E = ±P (3.24)
and we could have four types of the representation for the momentum, the energy, and the
mass of a moving particle with the rest mass m:
Type I. TRTT

mv mc 2 m
p T (v ) = , E T (v ) = , M T (v ) = ; β < 1. (3.25)
1− β 2 1− β 2 1− β 2
Type II. SRTT
mv1 mc 2 m
p S {v1} = , E S (v1 ) = , M S (v1 ) = ; β 1 > 1. (3.26)
β12 − 1 β12 − 1 β 12 − 1
209
 Type III. SRST

− mv − mc 2 −m
p S {v} = , E S (v ) = , M S (v ) = ; β > 1. (3.27)
β 2 −1 β 2 −1 β 2 −1
Type IV. TRST
− mv1 − mc 2 −m
p S {v1} = , E S (v1 ) = , M S (v1 ) = ; β 1 < 1. (3.28)
1 − β 12 1 − β 12 1 − β 12
The transformations between type I (or type II) and type III (or type IV) have the forms
mv mc 1 T
p T (v ) = = = E (v1 ). (3.29)
1− β 2 β 12 − 1 c

mc 2 mv1c
E T (v ) = = = cp T (v1 ). (3.30)
2 2
1− β β −1 1

m β 1m
M T (v ) = = = β 1 M T (v1 ). (3.31)
2 2
1− β β −1
1

and
− mv − mc 1 S
p S (v ) = = = E (v1 ). (3.32)
2 2
β −1 1− β 1
c

− mc 2 − mv1c
E (v ) =
S
= = cp S (v1 ). (3.33)
2 2
β −1 1− β 1

−m − β1m
M S (v ) = = = β 1 M S (v1 ). (3.34)
2 2
β −1 1− β 1

With these forms above, we could get that when β=β1=1,

cP(c) = E (c) = mc 2 and M (c) = m. (3.35)

Note that although all through Einstein's relativistic physics there occur indications that mass
and energy are equivalent according to the formula

E = mc 2 .
But it is only an Einstein's hypothesis.
It is very interesting that from type I and type IV we could get

E 2 − c 2 p 2 = m2c 4 , v<c and v1 < c (i.e., v > c) (3.36)

and from type II and type III

E 2 − c 2 p 2 = −m 2 c 4 , v>c and v1 > c (i.e., v < c) (3.37)

Here, we have forgotten the indices for the types in Equations (3.35) to (3.37). If we let the
210
H2(E,P)=E2 －c P , then we could get
2 2

f ( H , mc) = H 4 − (mc 2 ) 4 .

It is a type II of the double-cusp catastrophe, we could also get (3.36) and (3.37) from it.

3.4.The Catastrophe a Charged Particle in an Electromagnetic Field on

The Finsler Space-timeds4

The Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a particle in an electromagnetic field in the Finsler

space-time, formula (2.25) is a type II of the double-cusp catastrophe. We could get that

e ∂S
c 2 (∇S − A) 2 − ( + cΦ) 2 + m 2 c 4 = 0 , (3.39)
c ∂t
for type I and type IV of the space-time transformation.

e ∂S
c 2 (∇S − A) 2 − ( + cΦ) 2 − m 2 c 4 = 0 , (3.40)
c ∂t
for type II and type III of the space-time transformation.
Now, we consider the catastrophe change of the equation of a charge in an
electromagnetic field. By equation (2.26), we could get
d mv e
= eEe + v × H e , v<c (3.41)
dt 1 − β 2 c

and
d mv e
− = eEe + v × H e , v > c. (3.42)
dt β 2 −1 c

If we integrate (3.41) and (3.42), then

mc 2 mc 2
− = eU , v0 < c (3.43)
1− β 2 1 − β 02
and
mc 2 mc 2
− = eU , v0 > c . (3.44)
2 2
β −1
0 β −1
So, the velocity v has
−2
 eU 
v = c 1−  + 1 / 1 − β 02  < c, iff v0 < c, (3.45)
 mc 
and

211
 −2
 eU 
v = c 1+  − 1 / β 02 − 1  > c, iff v0 > c . (3.46)
 mc 
The expressions (3.45) and (3.46) mean that if v0<c, then for the charged particle always v<c;
and if v0>c, then v>c. The velocity of light will be a bilateral limit: I.e., it is both of the
maximum for the subluminal-speeds and the minimum for the superluminal-speeds.
If we let

f ( H e , Ee ) = H e4 + Ee4 − 2H e2 Ee2 , (3.47)

we will get that the catastrophe set is

H e = ± Ee (3.48)

and we could obtain the space-time transformation equations for the electromagnetic field
components: (by (2.31) and (2.32))
Type I. TRTT



 H x′ = H x , E ′x = E x ,

 H y + βE z E y − βH z
 H ′y = , E ′y = , (3.49)
 1− β 2 1− β 2

 H ′ = H z − βE y , E ′z =
E z + βH y
.
 z 1− β 2 1− β 2


Type II. SRTT



 H x′ = H x , E ′x = E x ,

 β1 H y + E z β1 E y − H z
 H ′y = , E ′y = , (3.50)
 β 12 − 1 β 12 − 1

H ′ = β1 H z − E y , E ′z =
β1 E z + H y
.
 z β 12 − 1 β 12 − 1

Type III. SRST

212
 

 H x′ = H x , E ′x = E x ,

 H y + βE z E y − βH z
− H ′y = , − E ′y = , (3.51)
 β 2 −1 β 2 −1

 − H ′ = H z − βE y , − E ′z =
E z + βH y
.
 z
β 2 −1 β 2 −1


Type IV. TRST



 H x′ = H x , E x′ = E x ,

 β1 H y + E z β1 E y − H z
− H ′y = , − E ′y = , (3.52)
2
 1 − β 1 1 − β 12

− H ′ = β 1 H z − E y , − E z′ =
β1 E z + H y
.
 z
1 − β 12 1 − β 12


3.5 The Interchange of the Forces Between the Attraction and the Rejection
Usually, because of the equivalence of energy and mass in the relativity theory, ones
believe that an object has due to its motion will add to its mass. In other words, it will make it
harder to increase its speed. This effect is only really significant for objects moving at speeds
close to the speed of light. So, only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can
move at the speed of light.
The mass is the measure of the gravitational and inertial properties of matter. Once
thought to be conceivably different, gravitational mass and inertial mass have recently been
shown to be the same to one part in 1011.
Inertial mass is defined through Newton's second law, F=ma, in which m is mass of
body. F is the force action upon it, and a is the acceleration of the body induced by the force.
If two bodies are acted upon by the same force (as in the idealized case of connection with a
massless spring), their instantaneous accelerations will be in inverse ratio to their masses.
Now, we need discuss the problem of defining mass m in terms of the force and
acceleration. This, however, implies that force has already been independently defined, which
is by no means the case.

3.5.1. Electromagnetic Mass and Electromagnetic Force

It is well known that the mass of the electron is about 2000 times smaller than that of the
hydrogen atom. Hence the idea occurs that the electron has, perhaps, no “ordinary” mass at
all, but is nothing other than an “atom of electricity”, and that its mass is entirely
213
electromagnetic in origin. Then, the theory found strong support in refined observations of
cathode rays and of the β-rays of radioactive substances, which are also ejected electrons. If

e
magnetic action on these rays allows us to determine the ratio of the charge to the mass, ,
mel

e
and also their velocity v, and that at first a definite value for was obtained, which was
mel

e
independent of v if v<<c. But, on proceeding to higher velocities, a decrease of was
mel

found. This effect was particularly clear and could be measured quantitatively in the case of
the β-rays of radium, which are only slightly slower than light. The assumption that an
electric charge should depend on the velocity is incompatible with the ideas of the electron
theory. But, that the mass should depend on the velocity was certainly to be expected if the
mass was to be electromagnetic in origin. To arrive at a quantitative theory, it is true, definite
assumptions had to be made about the form of the electron and the distribution of the charge
on it. M. Abraham (1903) regarded the electron as a rigid sphere, with a charge distributed on
the one hand, uniformly over the interior, or, on the other, over the surface, and he showed
that both assumptions lead to the same dependence of the electromagnetic mass on the
velocity, namely, to an increase of mass with increasing velocity. The faster the electron
travels, the more the electromagnetic field resists a further increase of velocity. The increase

e
of mel explains the observed decrease of , and Abraham's theory agrees quantitatively
mel

very well with the results of measurement of Kaufmann (1901) if it is assumed that there is no

“ordinary” mass present. But, the electromagnetic force F = e[ E + 1c (v × H )] was believed

to be a constant and be independent of the velocity v.

Note that if we support that the mass m is independent of the velocity v, but the

electromagnetic force F = e[ E + 1c (v × H )] is dependent of the velocity v, it will be

incompatible with neither the ideas of the electron theory nor the results of measurement of
Kaufmann. One further matter needs attention: The E and H occurring in the formula for the
force F are supposed to refer to that system in which the electron is momentarily at rest.

3.5.2. The Mass and the Force in the Einstein's Special Relativity
In the Einstein's special relativity, Lorentz's formula for the dependency of mass on
velocity has a much more general significance than is the electromagnetic mass apparent. It
must hold for every kind of mass, no matter whether it is of electrodynamics origin or not.
Experiments by Kaufmann (1901) and others who have deflected cathode rays by
214
electric and magnetic fields have shown very accurately that the mass of electrons grows with
velocity according to Lorentz's formula (3.25). On the other hand, these measurements can no
longer be regarded as a confirmation of the assumption that all mass is of electromagnetic
origin. For Einstein's theory of relativity shows that mass as such, regardless of its origin,
must depend on velocity in the way described by Lorentz's formula.
Up to now, if we support that all kinds of the mass, m, are independent of the velocity v,
but all forces are dependent of the velocity v, it will be incompatible with neither the ideas of
the physical theory nor the results of measurement of physics. Could make some mew
measurements of physics (or some observations of astrophysics) to support this viewed from
another standpoint.

3.5.3.The Interchange of the Forces Between the Attraction and the Rejection
Let us return to the Newton's second law, F=ma, we can see that the product of mass and
acceleration is a quantity anti-symmetric with respect to the two interaction particles B and C.
We shall now make the hypothesis that the value of this quantity in any given case depends on
the relative position of the particles and sometimes on their relative velocities as well as the

time. We express this functional dependence by introducing a vector function F BC ( r , r& , t ) ,

where r is the position vector of B with respect to C and r& is the relative velocity. We then
write

m B a BC = FBC . (3.53)

and define the function FBC as the force acting on the particle B due to the particle C. It is
worthwhile to stress the significance of the definition of force presented here. It will be noted
that no merely anthropomorphic notion of push of pull is involved. Eq.(3.53) states that the
product of mass and acceleration, usually known as the kinetic reaction, is equal to the force.
Now, if we explain the experiments by Kaufmann (1901) with here point of view, then,

we could say that the electromagnetic force F = e[ E + 1c (v × H )] is a function dependent of

the velocity v, F=F(v).

From the above mentioned, the relativity theory provides for an increase of apparent
inertial mass with increasing velocity according to the formula
m0
m=
1− β 2
could be understood equivalently as a decrease of the effective force of the fields with
increasing relativistic velocity between the source of the field and the moving body according
to the formula

Feff = F 1 − β 2 .

215
Further, the negative apparent inertial mass could be understood equivalently as the effective
forces of the fields have occurred the interchange between the attraction and the rejection
according to the formula.

Feff = − F β 2 − 1 .

3.5.4. The Character Velocity and Effective Forces for a Force

Up to now, one common essential feature for forces is neglected— the character
velocities for forces. Ones commonly believe that if the resistance on the wagon with
precisely the same force with which the horse pulls forward on the wagon then the wagon will
keep the right line moving with a constant velocity. However, we could ask that if the
resistance on the wagon is zero force then will the wagon be continue accelerated by the
horse? How high velocity could be got by the wagon? It is very easy understood that the
maximum velocity of the wagon, vmax, will be the fastest running velocity of the horse, vfst.
The velocity vfst is just the character velocity, vc, for the pulling force of the horse. When the
velocity of the wagon is zero velocity, the pulling force of the horse to the wagon has the
largest effective value Feff=F. We assume that a decrease of the effective force with increasing

velocity of the wagon, and Feff=0 if and only if β =

vw
vc = 1 . If β = vw
vc > 1 then Feff=-F. It

means that when the velocity of the wagon vw is larger the character velocity vc, not that the
horse pulls the wagon, but that the wagon pushes the horse.
If the interactions of the fields traverse empty space with the velocity of light, c, then the
velocity of light is just the character velocity for all kinds of the interactions of the fields. We
guess that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is just a superficial
phenomenon of the character of the interactions of the fields.

3.5.5. One Possible Experiment for Distinguish Between Moving Mass

and Effective Force
The Newtonian law of universal gravitation assumes that, two bodies attract each other
with a force that is proportional to the mass of each body and is inversely proportional to the
square of their distance apart:

m1 m 2
F =G . (3-54)
r2
According as Einstein's special relativity, if the body1 is moving with constant speed v with
respect to the body2, then the mass of the body1 will become with respect to the body2 that
m1
M1 = 2
. (3.55)
1 − vc 2

According to the principle of equivalence the body's gravitational mass equal to its
inertia mass. So, the force of gravitational interaction between the two bodies will be
216
 m1 m 2
FM .M . = G . (3.56)
r 2 1 − vc 3
2

But, according as the theory of the effective force, the force of gravitational interaction
between the two bodies will be

m1m 2 v2
FE . F . = G 1 − . (3.57)
r2 c2
We hope that could design some new experiments to discover this deviation.

3.6.Decay of particles
On the Einstein’s special relativity theory, consider the spontaneous decay of a body of
mass M into two parts with masses m1 and m2. The law of conservation of energy in the decay,
applied in the system of reference in which the body is at rest, gives,

M = E10 + E 20 . (3.58)

where E10 and E20 are the energies of the emerging particles. Since E10>m1 and E20>m2, the
equality (11.1) can be satisfied only if M>m1+m2, i.e. a body can disintegrate spontaneously
into parts the sum of whose masses is less than the mass of the body. On the other hand, if
M<m1+m2, the body is stable (with respect to the particular decay) and does not decay
spontaneously. To cause the decay in this case, we would have to supply to the body from

outside an amount of energy at least equal to its “binding energy” (m1+m2 －M).
Usually, ones believe that momentum as well as energy must be conserved in the decay
process. Since the initial momentum of the body was zero, the sum of the momenta of the
emerging particles must be zero: p10+p20=0 in the special relativity theory. Consequently
p210=p220, or

E102 − m12 = E202 − m22 . (3.59)

The two equations (3.58) and (3.59) uniquely determine the energies of the emerging
particles:

M 2 + m12 − m 22 M 2 − m12 + m 22
E10 = , E 20 = . (3.60)
2M 2M
In a certain sense the inverse of this problem is the calculation of the total energy M of two
colliding particles in the system of reference in which their total momentum is zero. (This is
abbreviated as the “system of the center of inertia” or the “C-system”.) The computation of
this quantity gives a criterion for the possible occurrence of various inelastic collision
processes, accompanied by a change in state of the colliding particles, or the “creation” of
new particles. A process of this type can occur only if the sum of the masses of the “reaction
products” does not exceed M.
217
 Suppose that in the initial reference system (the “laboratory” system) a particle with mass
m1 and energy E1 collides with a particle of mass m2 which is at rest. The total energy of the
two particles is

E = E1 + E 2 = E1 + m 2 ,

and their total momentum is p=p1+p2=p1. Considering the two particles together as a single
composite system, we find the velocity of its motion as a whole from (2.19):

p p1
V = = . (3.61)
E E1 + m 2

This quantity is the velocity of the C-system with respect to the laboratory system (the L-
system).
However, in determining the mass M, there is no need to transform from one reference
frame to the other. Instead we can make direct use of formula (3.36), which is applicable to
the composite system just as it is to each particle individually. We thus have

M 2 = E 2 − p 2 = ( E1 + m 2 ) 2 − ( E12 − m12 ),

from which

M 2 = m12 + m 22 + 2m 2 E1 . (3.62)

4 Quantum Theory of a Particle on the Finsler Space-timeds4

4.1. The Klein-Gordon Equation and The Dirac Equation on the Finsler Space-timeds4

In the formula (2.20) let E = ih ∂∂t , P = ih∇, m = h , we could get

k0
c

2
 1 ∂2  
2
 ∇ − 2 2  − k 04 ψ = 0 (4.1)
 c ∂t  
2 2 ∂2
let p4 = ∇ − c12 ∂t 2
then

( p44 − k 04 )ψ = 0 . (4.2)

The formula (4.2) has the catastrophe nature, it could be resolved two parts at the super-
surfacep4–k0=0:

( p42 − k 02 )ψ = 0 , (4.3)

and

( p42 + k 02 )ψ = 0 . (4.4)

The formula (4.3) is just the Klein-Gordon equation for a free particle. Usually, it is believed

218
that the formula (4.3) describes a pair of a particle and an antiparticle for a meson field. But,
we know from the formula (3.36) that it describes these cases for type Ⅰ and type.Ⅳ of the
space-time transformation; i.e., it describes the time-like representation of a subluminal-speed
particle and the time-like representation of a superluminal-speed particle. However, equation
(4.4) is applicable to these cases for type Ⅱ and typeⅢ of the space-time transformation; i.e.,
it describes the space-like representation of a subluminal-speed particle and the space-like
representation of a superluminal-speed particle.
In formulas (3.39) and (3.40)

∂S
c 2 (∇S − ec A) 2 − ( + eΦ) 2 ± m 2 c 4 = 0 . ( 4.5)
∂t

h ∂
i ∂t was substituted in place of ∂S
∂t , as is usual in quantum mechanics, and in place of ▽S,
the operator h
i ∇ . In this way a Klein-Gordon equation was obtained in relativistically

invariant form in an electromagnetic field

h e h ∂
c 2 ( ∇ − A) 2ψ − ( + eΦ) 2ψ + m 2 c 4ψ = 0 (4.6)
i c i ∂t
and

h e h ∂
c 2 ( ∇ − A) 2ψ − ( + eΦ) 2ψ − m 2 c 4ψ = 0 , (4.7)
i c i ∂t
which equation (4.6) is applicable to these cases for type Ⅰ and typeⅣ of the space-time
transformation; i.e., it describes the time-like representation of a subluminal-speed particle
and the time-like representation of a superluminal-speed particle. However, equation (4.7) is
applicable to these cases for type Ⅱ and type Ⅲ of the space-time transformation; i.e., it
describes the space-like representation of a subluminal-speed particle and the space-like
representation of a superluminal-speed particle.
In the line of Dirac's argument, he began with the equation for a free electron. The
starting relationship is (3.36). Now, we rewrite:

E = c 2 ( p x2 + p 2y + p z2 ) + m 2 c 4 , (4.8)

worthy of note is that it describes these cases for type Ⅰ and typeⅣ of the space-time
transformation: i.e., it describes a time-like representation of subluminal-speed particle and a
time-like representation of superluminal-speed particle in our theoretical system.
Modern quantum electrodynamics is based upon the quantum theory of the
electromagnetic field and the Dirac electron theory, with account taken of direct and reverse
transitions from negative energy to positive energy. The attitude towards the Dirac equation
was somewhat suspicious before the discovery of the positron, while the idea of background
was considered far-fetched and intended only to hide the defects of the theory. But ones forgot
219
those suspicions after the positron was discovered by Anderson. The Dirac's theory describes
an electron and a positron in a completely symmetrical way, but positrons are observed very
littler than the electrons there seem to be no this symmetry in nature. Whether the positron is
just the time-like representation of a superluminal-speed electron?
We hope that theoretical physicists will be interested in the new possible explanation for
antiparticles.

5 The Theory of Relativity on the Finsler Space-time F(x,y)

5.1.The Theory of Relativity and Catastrophe Theory

5.1.1. Three Theorems of Catastrophe Theory
Elementary catastrophe theory exists at the intersection of two lines of mathematical
development. One is the program of catastrophe theory, which attempts to study the
qualitative properties of solutions of equations. The other is a series of results in elementary
calculus dealing with the canonical forms for functions. The first two landmarks in this
sequence of results are the implicit function theorem and the Morse lemma. The implicit
functions theorem deals with functions that have a good linear approximation. The Morse
lemma deals with functions that can adequately be approximated by a quadratic form. The
third in this sequence of developments is the Thom theorem. This theorem provides canonical
forms of functions in neighborhoods where neither the linear approximation nor the quadratic
approximation are adequate.
1.The implicit function theorem
Let f(x)=f(x1,…,xn) be a function with nonzero gradient at a point x0:

∇f | x0 ≠ 0 . (5.1)

Then the implicit function theorem tells that it is possible to find a new coordinate system
y=y(x) such that

f = y1 . (5.2)

That is, f is equal, after a smooth change of coordinates, to y1.

2.The Morse lemma
▽f=0 at a point, then physicists are likely to say ‘the implicit function theorem fails’.
If
However, the Morse lemma states that if ▽f=0 but the determinant of the matrix of mixed
second partial derivatives is nonzero
 ∂2 f 
det ≠0 (5.3)
 ∂x ∂x 
 i j 
at the point. Then f(x) has a canonical quadratic form, i.e., there is a
smooth change of variables x’=x’(x) such that

220
 n
f = ∑ (λi xi′ ) 2 (5.4)
i =1

 ∂2 f 
where λi are the eigenvalues of the stability matrix  .
 ∂x ∂x 
 i j 
By absorbing the nonzero eigenvalues into the length scale according to

y i = λi xi′ ,

the quadratic form (5.4) is reduced to the Morse canonical form

f = M in ,
(5.5)
M in = − y12 − y 22 − L − y i2 + y i2+1 + L + y n2 .

The forms (5.5) are called Morse saddles. The Morse saddle M 0 has a minimum at y=0. The
n

only stable Morse saddle is M 0 .

n

3. The Thom theorem

Let f(x) be a function with the properties
∇f = 0,
 ∂2 f  (5.6)
det  = 0,
 ∂x ∂x 
 i j 
at a point. If the stability matrix ∂ 2 f ∂xi ∂x j
( ) has k zero eigenvalues and i negative

eigenvalues, then the Thom theorem (splitting lemma) tells that

f ( x) = f NM ( x1′ ,L, xk′ ) + M in −k ( xk′ +1 ,L, x′n ), (5.7)

where fNM(x’,c) is a non-Morse function, derived from the splitting lemma, depending on s
control parameters and k state variables. Then the Thom theorem (classification theorem) tells
that

f NM ( x ′, c ) = Cat (k , s ),
(5.8)
Cat ( k , s ) = CG ( k ) + Pert (k , s ),
where Cat(k,s), the catastrophe function, is a function of k canonical state varkaablesy1,…,yk
and s canonical control parameters a1,…,as. The catastrophe function Cat(k,s) has a further
decomposition (another splitting) into two parts CG(k) and Pert(k,s). The catastrophe germ
CG(k) depends on only the k state variables. All of its mixed second partial derivatives vanish
at the critical point. The perturbation Pert(k,s), depends on the k state variables and on the s
canonical control parameters.
5.1.2. The Signature and Catastrophe

221
 It is known that the number of + and － signs occurring is called the signature of the
metric in the theory of relativity . But, in ordinary differential geometry, one usually deals
with positive definite metrics, i.e., metrics with signature ++…+. On the other hand, the

metric of space-time has a signature －+++ in the theory of relativity. So, the space-time
metric is a Morse saddle M 14 , and it is must unstable by the Morse lemma. Therefore, we

could say that the metrics of the space-time involved with the structural instability of the
space-time in the Einstein’s relativistic theory.
In general, ones hope that a small change in parameter values of some equations has only
a small quantitative effect on the solutions of these equations. However, under certain
conditions a small change in the value of some parameter has a very large quantitative effect
on the solutions of these equations. Large quantitative changes in solutions describe
qualitative change in solutions describe qualitative change in the behavior of the system
modeled. The system will be called the structural unstable system.
Perhaps, the structural instability of the space-time is just an important nature of the
space-time. However, it was deserted in the theory of relativity. Indeed, the Poincare-Lorentz
transformations (the set of all possible transformations between global inertial coordinates)
consist precisely of the linear transformations which leave signature of metric unchanged.
But, as we pointed out, it is only a subgroup of the transformations group of the space-time
(2.2).

5.2. The Space-time Structure of the Finsler F(x,y)

It is well known that is not space-time that is there and that impresses its form on things,
but the things and their physical laws that determine space-time. So, we could not study the
faster than the speeds of light by the theory of relativity as the theory of tachyons, but that the
space-time structure of relativity theory must be replaced by a new space-time structure.
5.2.1. The Finsler Space-timeF(x,y)
Let us discuss the Finsler geometry; it concerns a real N-dimensional differentiable
manifold M which is endowed with a non-negative scalar function F(x,y) of two sets of
arguments: Namely, points xi and contra variant vectors yi tangent to M at xi, or symbolically,

x i ∈ M and y i ∈ M x . Our subsequent considerations will be local in nature so that,

remaining within the framework of classical tensor calculus, we shall represent geometrical
objects by their components with respect to a local coordinate system xi carried by the
background manifold M.
It will be sufficient for usual purposes to stipulate the smoothness of the function F(x,y)
by the following two conditions:
1.The function F(x,y) is at least of class C3 with respect to xi, which makes us assume in
222
turn that the background manifold M itself is at least of class C3.
2. A region M*x exists in each tangent space Mx such that, first, M*x is conic in the sense
that if M*x contains some vector yi1 then M*x contains any other vector collinear with yi1, and
second, the function F(x,y) is at least of class C5 with respect to all non-zero vectors yi ∈ M*x
will be called admissible.
Furthermore, it will be assumed that the function F(x,y) is to be positively homogeneous of
degree one with respect to yi -i.e.,
F(x,ky)=kF(x,y) (5.9)
for any k>0 and for all y M*x, and for any admissible y ,
i i

f(x,y) > 0. (5.10)

Besides this,

 ∂ 2 F 2 (x , y )
det i j
 ≠ 0. (5.11)
 ∂x ∂x 
Under these conditions, the triple (M,M*x,F(x,y)) is called an N-dimensional Finsler space,
and F(x,y) is called a Finslerian metric function. The value of the metric function F(x,y) is
treated in Finsler geometry as the length of the tangent vector yiattached to the point xi. if a
Finsler space allows a coordinate system xi such that F does not depend on these xi, the
Finsler space and the metric function are called Minkowskian.
It will be noted that, in mathematical works devoted to the Finsler geometry, additional
conditions are usually imposed on the metric function F which ensure the positive

definiteness of the quadratic form Z i

Z j ∂ 2 F 2 ( x , y ) / ∂x i ∂x j
at any point xi and for any

non-zero vector yi ∈ Mx. However, it is clear already in the Riemannian formulation of general
relativity theory that the metric structure of space-time cannot be positively definite, for the

－
space-time metric tensor must be of the indefinite signature ( +++). This reason alone makes

one expect that it is indefinite metrics that may be of interest in a Finslerian extension of
general relativity. Accordingly, we refrain deliberately from imposing the condition of
positive definiteness, thereby admitting that the
Finsler space under study can be indefinite.
As regards the homogeneity condition (5.9) it should be pointed out that the necessity of
postulation (5.9) follows from the invariant notions inherent in any centroaffine space, the
tangent space Mx being an example of such a space. Indeed, the ratio of the lengths of any two
collinear vectors yi1 and yi2 = kyi1 of the centroaffine space may be invariantly defined to be

y 11 y 13
= =L= k ,
y 21 y 22
which does not involve any metric function. Therefore, (5.9) is nothing but the requirement of
consistence of the Finslerian definition of length with the centroaffine definition. The
223
Finslerian metric function is required in order to compare the lengths of non-collinear vectors.
If a fundamental function F(x,y) is defined for all line-elements in the region R(R ⊂ M), it
would be natural to regard F as defining a distance in M, for instance the 'length' of the curve
C between the points P1 and P2 could well be defined by the integral
t2
 dx i 
I = ∫  x i , dt . (5.12)
t1 
dt 

More precisely, if A(xi) and B(xi+ dxi) $ are two neighboring points of R, the distance ds
between them is defined by

ds = F ( x j , dx j ), (5.13)

Since F is homogeneous of first degree in the dxi, this would lead to the required integral. In
this manner a metric is imposed on our M.
If, in particular, the function F is of the form

F (x i , x j ) = g ij ( x k )dx i dx j , (5.14)

where the gij(xk) are coefficients independent of the yi, the metric defined by F is the metric of
a Riemannian space.
In this paper we will assume that

F (x i , y i ) = [(eijkl g ijkl (x h )dx i dx j dx k dx l ]1/4, eijkl = ±1, i , j , k , l = 0,1,2,3.

(5.15)
An even function form for the dx is i

F ( x i , x j ) = 4 e ij g iijj ( x k )dx i dx i dx j dx j , (5.16)

where

 + 1, i = j ,

e ij = + δ , i ≠ j , i , and , j ≠ 0, 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1,
 − b , i ≠ j , i , or , j = 0, 0 ≤ b ≤ 1.

In particular, a degenerate form is

F ( x i ) = 4 [e ij g ij ( x k )dx i dx j ] 2 , δ = 1, (5.17)

where ds2 =gijdxidxj is usual Riemannian metric in the general relativity.

It is natural to assume that all distances are positive; hence, we stipulate condition (5.10).
On the other hand, the homogeneity condition (5.9) plays an important constructive role in
Finsler geometry, many Finslerian relations being based on identities ensuing from (5.9). To
derive these identities, let us consider any function Z(x,y) which is differentiable and
positively homogeneous of degree r with respect to yi; that is, Z(x,ky) = krZ(x,y) for any k> 0,
where the degree r may be any real number. On differentiation the latter equality with respect
224
to k and puttionk=1, we find that

∂Z ( x , y )
Z ( x , ky ) = k r Z ( x , y ) implies y i
= rZ ( x , y ) . (5.18)
∂y i

The assertion (5.18) is known in the literature as the Euler theorem on homogeneous
functions.
The application of (5.18) to F2 yields

F 2 ( x , y ) = g ij ( x , y ) y i y j , (5.19)

where

1 ∂2 F 2 (x , y )
g ij ( x , y ) = (5.20)
2 ∂y i ∂y j

is called the Finslerian metric tensor, it is a quadratic form. It is very interesting that the
condition (5.11) is just requisite of the Morse lemma.

5.2.2. The Catastrophe Change on the Finsler Space-timeF(x,y)

Because the Finsler space-time under our study can be indefinite, it must have to make

 ∂2F 2 
det  i j
 = 0 (5.21)
 ∂y ∂y 
on some non-zero subset of the space-time manifold M. So, with the Thom theorem (splitting
lemma), we could get

f ( x , y ) = F NM ( x , y ′1 ,L, y ′ k ) + M n −k
( x , y ′ k +1 ,L, y ′ n ), (5.22)

if the matrix ( ∂ 2 F 2 / ∂y i ∂y j
) has k zero eigenvalues and s negative eigenvalues. Then the

Thom theorem (classification theorem) tells that

FNM ( x , y ′) = Cat ( x , k ),
(5.23)
Cat ( x , k ) = CG ( k ) + Pert( x , k ),
where Cat(x,k), the catastrophe function, is a function of k canonical state variables y1,…,yk
and n canonical control parameters x1,…,xn. The catastrophe function Cat(x,k) has a further
decomposition (another splitting) into two parts CG(k) and Pert(x,k). The catastrophe germ,
CG(x), depends on only the k state variables. All of its mixed second partial derivatives vanish
at the critical point. The perturbation, Pert(x,k), depends on the k state variables and on the n
canonical control parameters.
It is clear that if equation (5.21) is satisfied then as (5.20) it will be held that
det(gij)=0, (5.24)
with the theory of the quadratic form we get

225
 ds 2 = g ij dx i dx j
= 0, (5.25)

it is known that (5.25) is just the light cone in the general relativity. On the other hand,
det(gij) > 0 and det(gij) < 0, (5.26)
with the theory of the quadratic form we get
ds2=gijdxidxj>0 and ds2= gijdxidxj<0. (5.27)
So, the space-time manifold M is divided into four parts by the different values of the

det (∂ 2 F 2 ( x , y ) / ∂y i ∂y i
) = Det :
 Det ≠ 0 ds 2 > 0 thetimelikestate,
 2
( materialstates ) ds < 0 thespacelikestate;
 (5.28)
 Det = 0 ds 2 = 0 thelightlikestate
(sin guiarities) dx i = 0 i = 0,1,2,3; theorigin.

From (5.21) and (5.28), it means that the light cone is still a catastrophe set on the curve
space-time manifold M, and both the time-like state and the space-like state are possible states
of moving particles as had been already pointed out in the flat space-time but, here the
catastrophe function has
Pert(x), it is only CG(k) in the flat space-time.
So, we expect that the catastrophe nature will be shown on the horizon of the fields of the
general relativity.

5.3. The Catastrophe Nature in the Schwarzschild Field

5.3.1. The Geodesic Equations and Its Integrations of the Schwarzschild Field
By way of example, we will discuss the spherically symmetric and static metric which obeys
the Einstein field equation

ds 2 = − µdt 2 + µ −1dr 2 + r 2 (d θ 2 + sin 2 θd φ 2 ), (5.29)

－ －
where µ= 1 rs/r =1 2m/r (rs = 2m is called the Schwarzschild radius or gravitational

radius). In this equation and thereafter in this paper, the geometric unit, c= G=1, has been
adopted. It is well known that the geodesic equations followed from (5.29) have three first
integrations:

dθ
r2 =h, (5.30)
ds

dr
µ =k, (5.31)
ds

226
 2 2
1  dr   h  1
  +   − = −E . (5.32)
µ  ds   r  µ
If we use t to replace s, we get

dθ 1  r  h
= B 2 1 − s , B = , (5.33)
dt r  r  k
2 2
1  dr   B  1 E
3   +  − = − 2 = A, (5.34)
µ  dt   r  µ k
We see that the constant A could be taken as different values:
A< 0 for subluminal-speeds (the time-like state),
A= 0 for light speed (the light like state),
A> 0 for superluminal-speeds (the space-like state).
In order to show clearly the catastrophe nature of the Schwarzschild field, we will consider a
motion along radial direction. In equation (5.34) let B=0, we will get
dr
v = = ±µ Aµ +1 . (5.35)
dt
The velocity v is the coordinate velocity obtained by a distant observer. In the general
relativity, generally, a particle can move only with the velocity 0<|v0|<1. So, for a particle far
from the gravitational center, we have

1 v 2 
−∞ <  2 − 1 = A < 0. (5.36)
µµ 

5.3.2. The Lightlike State——The Set of the Critical Points

When A=0, then

rs
v = µ = 1− , (5.37)
r
it is the coordinate velocity of light observed by a distant observer. v→0 as r→rs, and v=1
(i.e., c) as r→∞. In Einstein's view, the velocity of light effected by the gravitation fields. But,
in the catastrophe theory's view, the catastrophe set effected by the perturbation, Pert(x,k),
depends on the k state variables (here is just only r and t, because we consider only a motion
along radial direction in a spherically symmetric and static metric) and on the 4 canonical
control parameters, xi (here is just A and rs).
Integrating equation (5.37) yields

t − t 0 = r + rs ln( r − rs ), A =0 (5.38)

(5.38) describes the motion for the photon. It shows that

227
5.3.3. The Radial Subluminal Expansions

If A= －a (a>0), then v = ± µ 1 − aµ and it has a maximum v max =

1 2
3 3a
at µ =
2
3a
,

3ars
or r = (e.g., when a=1, r= 3rs, and a=2/3, r→∞, etc.), and v=0 at µ=0, or r=rs, and
3a − 2

1 ar
µ= , or r = s (e.g., when a=1, r→∞, and a=2, r=2rs, etc.). They could produce a
a a −1
subluminal expansion; it is the usual cases of general relativity.
Integrating equation (5.35) yields

arrs − (a − 1) r 2 (3 a − 2 ) r s 2(a − 1) r − ars

t − t0 = − + arcsin +
a −1 2 (a − 1) 3 ar
(5.39)
rs a
rs ln ( 2 − a ) r + ars − 2 (1 − a ) r 2 + arrs ,
[ ] 1 < a < ∞, r ≤ rs .
r − rs a −1

ars
It shows that the particle will stop at a finite distance a ≤ for a>1;
a −1

2  r  r − rs
t − t 0 = ( rs + 4) − rrs  + 3  + rs ln , a = 1. (5.40)
3  rs  r + rs
It shows that the particle will stop at an infinite distance for a=1.

(1 − a ) r 2 + arrs ( 2 − 3a ) rs  ars 
t − t0 = + ln  (1 − a ) r 2 + arrs + r 1 − a + 
a −1 2 (1 − a ) 3  2 1− a 
rs
+ rs ln (2 − a )r + ars − 2 (1 − a ) r 2 + arrs ,
[ ] 0 < a < 1.
r − rs

(5.41)

It shows that the particle with continuously move with a velocity v = 1 − a < 1 at infinite

distance for 0<a<1.

Fig. 5.1. The increasing process of the velocity

5.3.4. The Superluminal Expansions in the Schwarzschild field

228
 It is very interesting in the case about A>0; it could be produced by the space-time
catastrophe in reference to our theory. With the formula (5.35), if A= 99, then v=10c when
r→∞. It is very interesting that a very small s0’s perturbation could give an enough large

Anearby the horizon. For instance, let µ0=10－9, and v0=(1+5×10－8)µ0, then A=100. So, a

particle will move with a superluminal-speed v=10c at infinity under this condition. We guess
that the horizon is very like a chaotic state.
Figure 5.1 gives graphically the increasing of the particle velocity as a function of the
ln(r/rs), where rs is the Schwarzschild radius, and r is the radial coordinate of the particle.
We can see from Figure 5.2 that a particle moving along a space-like curve will expand
acceleratively with a superluminal-speed. When r= 10rs, the velocity of the particle achieves

about 85% of the maximum velocity vmax= A + 1 , the particle can be attended at infinity.

Fig. 5.2. Some repulsive force near the rs

Figure 5.2 shows the rs dv

dr vs. ln ( ) curve. From this curve we can see that the interaction
r
rs

between a gravitational center and a particle moving with superluminal-speed has the feature
of repulsive interaction. At r> 100rs the interaction varies according to the inverse-square law
approximately, but it is repulsive, and at r≤100rs the inverse-square law is violated.
Integrating Equation (5.35) yields

( A + 1) r 2 − Arr s (3 A + 2) rs  Ar s 
t − t0 = + ln  ( A + 1) r 2 − Arrs + A + 1r − +
A +1 2 ( A + 1)
3
 2 A + 1 
2
( A + 2) rrs − Ar s − 2 rs ( A + 1) r 2 − Arr s
rs ln = F ( A , r , rs ), A > 0.
r − rs
(5.42)
These results show that the motion of a particle is indeed very different when A has different
values. In particular, from (5.42), we get the rvs. t diagram given in Figures 5.3 and 5.4. In
Figure 5.3, we compare the r-t curves for particles with same gravitational mass (rs= 1 ly) but
different A’s. From this comparison we find that particle with higher beginning velocity has
higher limit velocity at infinity, longer delayed time before expansion and higher acceleration,
and vice versa.
Taking A=143, i.e., vmax=12, but using different value of the gravitation mass at center,

229
rs=10－4,5,10 ly, we get diagram of Fig.5.4. It shows that if particles move out from place just

outside the
Schwarzschild radius then the expansion will be slower for higher central mass. For example,
if rs= 10-4 ly, then a particle moves to r = 100 ly from initial place near the rs takes about 8.33
years. But,if rs= 5 ly, then it should take 45 years.
From equations (5.33) and (5.34) we could get several very interesting results when A>0
for the non-radial motions in the Schwarzschild fields:

1. From (5.33) we see that in the rate of revolution θ& = frac dθdt as a function of r, when

r=rm=1.5×rs. (5.43)
it will get a maximum. So, if the maximum had been found by the observations and from it
determined rm, then rs=rm/1.5.
2. From (5.33) and (5.34) we get

dθ
= B r ( A + 1)r 3 − Ar s r 2 − B 2 r + B 2 rs .
[ ] (5.44)
dr
It is clear that formula (5.44) is a hyperbola when A>>1. And the solution of (5.44) may
then be determined by elliptic integral

2B  r − r4 r − r1 r2 − r3 r1 − r4 
θ −θ0 = sn −1  2 , =

( r1 − r3 )( r2 − r4 )  r1 − r4 r − r2 r1 − r3 r2 − r4  (5.45)
= θ ( A , rs , B , r ), ( r1 > r2 > r3 > r4 ).

§6. The Superluminal Expansion of the Extragalactic Radio Sources

6.1. The Observation of the Superluminal Phenomena

6.1.1. Radio Sources With Superluminal Velocities

Brightness distributions in some extragalactic radio sources have been seen to vary so
rapidly transverse velocity of expansion is greater than the velocity of light (assuming a
cosmological origin for the redshift). The term superluminal was used to describe this
phenomenon.
The observations have all been obtained with very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI)
systems using two to five radio telescopes, spaced over thousands of kilometers, to form
multi-element interferometers.
According to the standard model of cosmology, the angular size θ of an object with redshift
z can be converted into a linear separation R,

θ
R =
H 0 q (1 + z ) 2
2
[q z + (q
0 0 − 1) 1 + 2q 0 z − 1 ,
( )] (6.1)
0
230
where H0=80 kms －1Mpc－1 is Habble constant; q0 is the deceleration parameter being taken
to be 0.05 in following.
The derivations of θ or/and R with respect to t will give the expansion rate

dθ dθ dR dR
= (1 + z ) or v = = (1 + z ) . (6.2)
dt dt 0 dt dt 0

So far, over 65 objects are identified to be superluminal expansive (2 objects in the Galaxy).
The observational data are given in Table 1.
Table 1. The Data of Superluminal Radio Sources
Source Name Redshift z Component Βapp Note
0016+731 Q,S5 1.781 8.3
0106+013 Q,4C01.02 2.107 C2 8.2
0108+388 G,OC314 0.669 <2.14
0133+207 Q,3C47 0.425 K 3.69
0153+744 Q,S5 2.34 C2 1.08
C3 2.41
C4 －5.12
0212+735 Q,S5 2.370 3.90
0234+258 Q,CTD20 1.213 9.29
0235+164 BL Lac 0.94 37 ～45
0333+321 Q,NRAO140 1.258 B 4.77
0415+379 G,3C111 0.049 3.42
0421 －014 Q 0.915 3.9

0430+052 C,3C120 0.033 A 1.86

B 3.45
C 3.36
D 3.63
E 3.36
0454+844 B,S5 0.3 >1.60
0538+498 Q,3C147 0.545 1.30
0552+398 Q,DA193 2.365 1.80
0615+820 Q,S5 0.71 2.20
0710+439 G,S4 0.518 <1.25
0711+356 Q,O1318 1.620 5.50
0716+714 B,S5 >0.3 2.30
0723+679 Q,3C179 0.846 4.80
0735+178 B,PKS >0.424 B 1.68
C0 7.20
D <3.01
0742+318 Q,2C31.30 0.462 2.48
0833+654 1.112 －2.2
231
0835+580 1.534 －4.4
0836+710 2.170 B 10.40
C 4.53
D 5.79
0850+581 Q,4C58.17 1.322 3.90
0851+202 B,OJ287 0.306 SW1 <2.69
SW2 3.20
0906+430 Q,3C216 0.670 A 2.07
B 3.86
0923+392 Q,4C39.25 0.699 A 2.40
B 3.50
1039+811 Q,S5 1.26 2.20
1040+123 Q,3C345 1.029 A2 3.10
1101+384 B,MKN421 0.031 C1 1.90
C2 1.34
1137+660 Q,3C263 0.652 1.30
1150+812 Q,S5 1.25 C2 <4.10
1156+295 Q,4C29.45 0.729 26.1
1222+216 Q,4C21.35 0.435 B 1.40
1226+023 Q,3C373 0.158 C2 8.0
C3 5.03
C4 6.60
C5 7.99
C7 4.33
C7a 5.06
C8 6.13
C9 5.47
1253 －055 Q,3C279 0.538 ?
C3
9.20
2.19
1308+326 B,B2 0.996 K1 3.58
K2 20.7
K3 7.98
1334 －127 0.541 5.2

1458+718 Q,3C309.1 0.905 6.53

B 1
1618+177 Q,3C334 0.555 1.88
1641+399 Q,3C345 0.595 C2 9.50
C3 5.87
C4 6.07 non-radial
C5 4.50 non-radial
1642+690 Q,4C69.21 0.751 7.90
1721+343 Q,4C34.47 0.2055 B 1.35
C 2.30
1749+701 B,S5 0.77 6.12
1803+784 B,S5 0.684 3.9
1807+698 3C371 0.05 5.9
232
 1823+568 B,4C56.27 0.664 K1 2.56
1828+487 Q,3C380 0.691 A 8.32
B 5.01
1830+285 Q,4C28.45 0.594 B 2.55
C 2.55
1845+797 3C390.3 0.0569 1.68
1901+319 Q,3C395 0.650 2 1
3 13.10
1928+738 Q,4C73.18 0.302 A1 3.73
B 4.32
C 3.96
C2 5.94
C3 6.64
C4 4.66
C6 4.66
C7 7.00
C9 3.61
1951+498 Q 0.4660 1.20
2007+776 B,S5 0.342 C2 2.30
2200+420 BL Lac 0.068 S1 3.70
S2 3.40
S3 3.48
S5 3.09
3.40
2230+114 Q,CTA102 1.037 <14.20
2251+158 Q,3C454.3 0.859 2 1.13
3
4
－1.12
8.78
5
5.28
2345 －167 HPQ 0.576 5.0

2352+495 G 0.237 A <1.12

B2 <1.12
1915+105 GPS － 1.25 in the Galaxy

J1655 －40 GRO in the Galaxy

6.1.2 Is the Most Popular Model Correct ?

The superluminal story begins with the discovery by Sholomitsky in the Soviet Union and
Demt of the U.S.A. of surprisingly rapid flux density changes in several quasars. Now, the
situation is very much improved. Multi-element interferometer systems are used together with
sophisticated image restoring algorithms, and there is now little doubt about the reality of
superluminal motion. Specially, researchers using the Very Large Array have reported the two
apparent superluminal motion ever detected in our Galaxy. Due to relativistic time dilation
effects, the observed plasma clouds appear to be moving at 125% the speed of light in the
233
object GRS1915+105.
Many models had been considered to explain superluminal motion including:
1. Approximately phased intensity variations in fixed components—the so-called
“Christmas Tree” or “Movie Marquee” model.
2. Non-cosmological red shifts.
3. Gravitational lenses or screens.
4. Variations in synchrotron opacity.
5. Synchrotron curvature radiation in a dipole magnetic field.
6. Light echoes.
7. Real tachyonic motion.
8. Geometric effects of relativistically moving sources.
At least a few superluminal sources, as 3C120, are found in relatively low red-shift
galaxies. Several others are in nebulosity’s with measured red shifts, and interpretations based
on non-cosmological red shifts appear unsatisfactory to all but the most avid proponents of
exotic cosmologies. Specially, two superluminal sources are found in our Galaxy. But in one
way
or another, most other models also conflict with the observations.
During the past 20 years there has been increasing interest in the effect of the finite signal
propagation time from a relativistically moving source, since simple relativistic models not
only explain the observed superluminal motion, but the rapid flux density variations, and the
absence of observed Compton scattered x rays as well. So, ones believe in that the model of
relativistic jets is best for explain superluminal motion. So far, it is most popular model.

6.1.3. Relativistic Jets

If a source of radiation is moving with relativistic velocity at an angle θ with respect to the
line of sight, then the apparent transverse velocity is given by

v sin θ
v app = (6.3)
1 − β cos θ

which has a maximum value

v max ≈ γc (6.4)

that occurs at an angle

θ m ≈ sin −1 (γ1 ), γ = 1 − β 2 , β = vc . (6.5)

The probability that a randomly oriented beam is within an angle θm of the line of sight is

P (θ m ) ≈ 1
2γ 2
. The radiation from a relativistically moving source is boosted in strength

along the
direction of motion by the factor
234
 δ = γ − n (1 − β cos θ ) − n (6.6)

where n depends on the spectral index and whether or not flow is continuous or in discrete

components, but is approximately 3. When viewed head on, the flux density S(θm) ～8γ S , so
3
0

the intrinsic luminosity appears enhanced by several orders of magnitude compared with the

flux sensity,S0, if the source were at rest. For a typical value of γ 7, v 7c, θm～ ～ ～8 , and
○

P(θm) ～0.01.
The idea of a relativistically moving source was first introduced by Rees in 1966 to avoid
the inverse Compton catastrophe implied by the rapid flux variations. It seems that the model
provided an obvious explanation of superluminal motion, but the model appears that it is not
agree in the real observational process. As the picture the model of the relativistic jets means
that a source O, on the one hand it radiation a radio ray with respect to the line of sight, on the
other hand, a relativistic jet is moving with relativistic velocity v at an angle $\theta$ with
respect to the line of sight. Then an observer will first receive a sign at point A, then receive
another sign at point C. The distance between A and C is △r= vt sinθ and the time difference

is △t= t(1 － v
c cosθ). So, an appearance speed is

∆r v sin θ
v app = = .
∆t 1 − β cos θ

As a sportsman ran the 100 meters with the shorter interval time his speed is the faster.
But, VLBI observation is that the distance between the two sub sourcesL1 at the time t1,
become L2 at t2. Then the observational speed vob will be:

L2 − L1
v ob = . (6.7)
( z + 1)(t 2 − t1 )

If ones use the model of the relativistic jets then have:

L1=vt1sinθ, and L2=vt2sinθ, (6.8)
so, the observational speed is:

L2 − L1 v sin θ
v ob = = . (6.9)
(1 + z )(t 2 − t1 ) z +1

So, the relativistic jets model could not expound the superluminal motion.

6.1.4. Superluminal acceleration

3C273B was one of the first sources to be studied with VLBI and has been the subject of
many subsequent observations. Changes in the visibility function were first observed in 1971.
Although these observations were confined to single base line, it was immediately clear that
235
the changes could be explained by a simple expansion. The references (see Table 2) examined

the visibilities function measured between 1970.83 ～1971.17, 1971.83 ～1976.46,

～
1972.33 1977.41 and 1977.56 ～1980.52, respectively, and found the apparent linear

expansion rates between the double component of 3C273. However, it is very interesting that
the expansion of 3C273 is an accelerated process (see Cao Shenglin & Liu Yongzhen, 1983).

Table 2. The apparent linear expansion rates of the quasar 3C273 at different epochs
Epoch t0(yr) Θ’(mass yr－1) v/c References

～
1970.83 1971.17 0.23 3 Cohen et.al.,1971

1971.83～1976.41 0.32 4.2 Cohen et.al., 1977

1972.33～1977.41 0.43±0.04 5.2±0.5 Seieisted et.al.,1997

1977.56～1980.52 0.76±0.04 9.6±0.5 Pearson et.al., 1981

The superluminal acceleration was also directly observed by Biretta (see Biretta et.al.,
1983) and Moore (Moore et.al.,1983) in 3C345.
We suggest that if the superluminal expansion is not apparent but is a real separation with
superluminal-speed, then all observational data may be coincident with the predictions from
the calculations given by (5.42) and (5.45).
To compare the observational data with the results given by calculation we must determine

the parameters A (or vmax), Mg(or rs), and θ& previously. The determination of A, rs and θ& may

use the following methods:

1. Determine the vmax, and a point ri and its corresponding velocity vi;
2 Determine two points ri and rj and also determine the corresponding velocities vi and vj
from measurement;
3 For non-radial expansion, determine rm, then rs=rm/1.5.

－
After determining the parameters A, rs, and θ& , we may obtain the theoretical r t (or r θ －
for the non-radial case) curves and compare it to observations.
Whether our suggestion is true or not will be tested by observation. All scientific ideas
become valid and of worth only when calculated and measured numerical values agree.

6.1.5. Data and Fitting

To compare the observational data with the results given by the theoretical calculation, let
H0=80 km/sec.Mpc.
The quasar 3C345 (z = 0.595)

236
 The quasar 3C345 was observed with VLBI networks at frequencies of 10.7 GHz and 22
GHz. It was made at four epochs between 1981.1 and 1983.1 at 10.7 GHz. Hybrid maps were
made for all except the third epoch (see Biretta et al., 1983). It was made at three different
epochs: 1981.25, and 1983.09 at 22 GHz. These data directly show a non-radial superluminal
acceleration for a new jet
component C4 relative to D in 3C345. These data are tabulated in Table 3.

Epoch 1981.10 1982.10 1982.86 1983.10 1981.25 1982.42 1983.09

Radius(mas) 0.32±0.04 0.35±0.02 0.49±0.06 0.53±0.02 0.37±0.02 0.45±0.04 0.61±0.04
PA(deg) －132±6.0 －115±2.0 －97±6.00 －94±4.0 －128±8 －103±3 －93±2.5
R0b(ly) 5.5±0.7 6.1±0.40 8.5±1.10 9.2±0.4 6.4±0.4 7.8±0.60 10.6±0.7
Θ’(r)(deg/yr) 17±8.0 23.7±10 12.5±20 21.4±9 14.7±8
Θ(A,rs,B,r) －131 －113 －99 －96 －114 －103 －95
Frequencies 10.7 GHz 22 GHz
References Biretta et al.,1983 Moore et al.,1983
Table 3. Data of the angular size and the position angle(PA) of quasar 3C345 at different
epochs
It has been estimated by the observed data in Table 3, when r=rm=7.5 ly really has a

maximum. Then, we get rs= 5 ly (or Mg= 1.67×10－13M⊙). Then, let B = 60, A = 499 from

(5.33) and (5.45) get

60  5 
θ& = 1 − , (6.10)
r2  r 

 r − 5.314 
θ − θ 0 = 1.0742sn −1  0.7739 ,0.7274 , (6.11)
 r − 2.175 
respectively. Equation (6.11) is a hyperbola.
Figures 6.1and 6.2 give the theoretical curves (6.10) and (6.11), and correspond to their
observed data respectively. It shows that the observations exactly correspond with the
theoretical curve for all except 1982.42 epoch(at 22 GHz).

Fig. 6.1. θ& -r diagram of sub source C4 in 3C345

237
 Fig. 6.2. θ -r diagram of the sub source C4 in 3C345.
It is very interesting that if rs=5 ly and let A=48 and 143, from (5.42), we get three
theoretical curves. They correspond with the observed data of C1, C2, and C3, respectively
(see Shaffer et al.,1977; Schraml et al., 1981; and Cohen et al.,1983). These three sub sources
made only radial expansion. They are shown in Figure 6.3.

Fig. 6.3 ‘Size’ of the sub sources C1, C2, and C3 in 3C345 ‘.’ The data of the observations—
the theoretical curvers;C1:t - t0 = F(48,5,r); C2 and C3: t – t0= F(143,5,r).
The quasar 3C273 (z = 0.158)
We took data of the angular size of 3C273 at different epochs. These data are tabulated in
Table 4.
Table 4. Data of the angular size of quasar 3C273 at different epochs
Epoch Frequency Θ r △ t ka Fb References
(yr) (GHz) (mass) (yr) (yr) (yr)
1970.83 7.89 1.28±0.02 9.6±0.15 0.00 0.00 [1]
1971.17 7.89 1.45±0.03 10.9±0.23 0.29 0.56 [1]
1972.33 10.7 1.74±0.24 13.1±1.8 1.30 1.26 [2]
1972.82 10.7 2.08±0.26 15.6±2.0 1.72 1.88 [2]
1973.21 10.7 2.24±0.23 16.8±1.7 2.06 2.14 [2]
1974.50 10.7 2.70±0.35 20.3±2.6 3.17 2.82 [2]
1975.40 10.7 3.71±0.48 27.8±6.3 3.95 4.06 [2]
1976.38 10.7 4.13±0.36 31.0±0.48 4.76 4.56 [2]
1977.56 10.7 5.64±0.12 42.3±1.0 5.81 6.10 [3]
1978.24 10.7 6.19±0.12 46.4±1.0 6.40 6.65 [3]

238
 1979.44 10.7 7.01±0.12 52.6±1.0 7.44 7.44 [3]
1980.52 10.7 8.01±0.12 60.1±1.0 8.37 8.38 [3]

a. △tk= (tob －1970.83)/(1+z),b. F=F(90,6.25,r)－F(90,6.25,9.6)

[1]Cohen et al.,1971, [2]Seielstad et al., 1971,[3]Pearson et al., 1981.
Let A=90, rs=6.25 ly (so Mg= 2.09×1013M⊙) in (5.42), we will get the theoretical curve (see
F in Table 4) and plot in Figure 6.4, the dots are the observed data from Table 4. The
deviation between them is smaller than the observation error (correlation coefficient r =
0.998, and residual σ= 0.185 yr).

Fig. 6.4. ‘Size’ of 3C273

Seyfert galaxy 3C120 (z = 0.033)
We took data of the angular size of Seyfert galaxy 3C120 at different epochs. They are
tabulated in Table 5, and plotted in Figure 6.5.

Fig. 6.5. ‘Size’ of 3C120

Let A = 350, rs= 1.830 ly (or Mg=6.1×1012M⊙), we will get a theoretical curve. The
observation data exactly correspond to the theoretical curve (r=0.954 and σ=0.31 yr).
Table 5. Data of the angular size of Seyfert 3C120 at different epochs
Epoch Frequency Theta r △ t ka Fb References
Tob(yr) (GHz) (mass) (ly) (yr) (yr)
1971.17 7.89 0.980 1.838 0.00 0.00 Shaffer et al.,1972
1972.44 7.89 0.984 1.845 1.23 0.66 Cohen et al.,1977c
1972.84 7.89 0.988 1.853 1.65 1.04 Witteis et al.,1975
1973.17 7.89 1.004 1.883 1.94 1.60 Witteis et al.,1975
1973.21 7.89 1.100 2.063 1.97 2.24 Schilizzi et al.,1975
1973.25 7.89 1.112 2.085 2.01 2.27 Wittels et al.,1975
239
 1973.42 7.89 1.230 2.306 2.18 2.45 Wittels et al.,1975
1973.46 7.89 1.300 2.438 2.22 2.52 Schilizzi et al.,1975
1974.00 7.89 2.500 4.688 2.74 2.93 Cohen et al.,1977c
1974.17 7.89 2.800 5.250 2.90 2.99 Schilizzi et al.,1975
1974.30 7.89 3.430 6.431 3.03 3.10 Cohen et al.,1977c
1974.50 7.89 3.560 6.675 3.22 3.13 Cohen et al.,1977c
a
△tk=(tob －1971.17)/(1+z). F=F(350,1.830,r)－F(350,1.830,1.838).
b

c
These data were obtained from Figure 5 of this paper.
NRAO 140 (z = 1.258)
Marscher and Broderick (1982) wrote that “We have obtained further VLBI observations of
NRAO 140 at 2.8 cm in February 1981.…We find that these changes are modeled (both by
hybrid mapping and by model fitting) very well by an increase in the separation of the
compact components by 0.09 to 0.16 mas, which corresponds to an angular separation rate of

0.08 to 0.14 mas yr－1” from which we may get r1=2.06ly, v(r1)=4.13 and r2=3.66 ly,

v(r2)=7.23, then we can determine its Schwarzschild radius and limit velocity. With equation
(5.42) we obtain rs= 1.53 ly, or equivalently Mg=5.1×1012M⊙ and vmax may find from the
maximum rate of angular

expansion which is 0.23 mas yr－1, or vmax=12.

So, we had estimated the masses of the central gravitational objects by these fittings
between observations and the calculations. Table 6 gives these estimated masses.
Table 6. Estimated masses of four objects
Name 3C273 3C120 3C345 NRAO140
Mg(1012M⊙) 20.9 4.44 16.7 5.10

7 The Evolution of the Universe on the Finsler Space-time

7.1. Introduction
The problems of singularity, horizon, and flatness are of a fundamental nature in
standard cosmology. This somewhat restrictive nature of the early universe situation was first
pointed out by Dicke and Peebles, but was highlighted in the context of GUTs by A. Guth
(1981). Guth's resolution of these problems is through the `inflationary universe'. Its basic
idea is that there was an epoch when vacuum energy was the dominant component of the
energy density of the universe, so that the scale factor grew exponentially. The new
inflationary scenario was proposed by Linde (1982). In order to understand the Planck epoch
and answer the simplest cosmological questions, one can ask `How did the universe begin?'.
Hawking (Hartle and Hawking, 1983) adopted what was called the Euclidean approach to
quantum gravity. In that one performed a path integral over Euclidean i.e., positive definite

240
 －
metrics rather than over metrics with Lorentzian signature ( +++) and then analytically

continued the result to the Lorentzian regime.

From these ideas one could get some simple models for evolution of the early or very early
universe. But, there are several problems:
1. There is not directly natural connection between the creation of the universe and the
inflation.
2. GUTs themselves have not been confirmed in the particle physics.
3. In the wave function of the universe the space-time transforms from a positive definite

metrics (+ + + +) to the Lorentzian regime ( － + + +), it means that space is more natural than
time.
It shall be shown that the creation of space-time and the inflation could be attributed to the
geometric feature of the two evolutionary processes of the universe are a natural array and the
time and the space have equal rights in this model.
Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1970) proposed an explanation of the formation of clusters of dust like
material that is mathematically equivalent to the analysis of the formation of singularities of
caustics. So, the formation and the large-scale distribution of the galaxies could be discussed
by the theory of the singularities and bifurcation of caustics in the 3-dimensional space.

7.2. The Cosmological Implications of the Finsler Space-time

We assume that the metric of the space-time has the form

ds = 4 dT 4
+ dX 4
+ dY 4
+ dZ 4
+ 2 hdY 2 dZ 2
− 2 hdT 2 dX 2
. (7.1)
For convenience, let us consider only the 2-dimensional case, and let

ds = 4 dT 4
+ dR 4 − 2 hdT 2 dR 2 , 0 ≤ h ≤ 1. (7.2)

It is a type of the double cusp catastrophe, and has a different catastrophe feature when h
takes different values. Now, we will discuss its cosmological implications.

7.3. The Creation of Space-time

First of all, let h=0, then

ds = 4 dT 4
+ dR 4 . (7.3)
According to the catastrophe theory, germ X4+R4 is compact. As the catastrophe theory,
Compact germs play an important role, because any perturbation of compact germ has a
minimum; therefore if minima represent the stable equilibria of some system, then for each
point of the unfolding space
there exists a stable state of the system. On the other hand, the equation T4+R4=0 has zero real
roots, so nothing will be observable in the space-time manifold, M(T,R)=T4+R4. But, M(T,R)
241
has evolution, and like the catastrophe theory, and it will be divided into four parts by
different values of the stability matrix H(T,R):
2
12T 0
H (T , R ) = = 144T 2 R 2 (7.4)
0 12 R 2
and
T 2 R 2 < 0, the seed of the time ,
T 2 R 2 > 0, the seed of the space,
(7.5)
T 2 R 2 = 0, the catastrophe set ,
T = R = 0, the origin.
Here, it shows that the creation of space-time has two natures on the Finsler space-
timeds4=dT4+dR4. On the one hand, the space and the time are created together, on the other
hand, the space will be a stable state but the time will be an unstable state of the space-time
manifold. So, ones could say that the space is a representation for the constant nature of
materiality, and the time is a representation for the indeterminate variable nature of
materiality.

7.4. The Inflation of the Universe

The metric of the space-time has the form after the creation of space-time

ds = 4 dT 4
+ dR 4 − 2 hdT 2 dR 2 , 0 < h < 1. (7.6)

It is a type of the double cusp catastrophe too, and can describe the inflation of the universe.
According to the four real roots of the stability matrix H(T,R,h) the space-time manifold,
M(T,R), could be divided into nine parts.

7.5. The Geometry of Binary Quartic Forms

We consider now the general quartic form in two variables, which for algebraic convenience
we take in the form

f ( x , y ) = ax 4 + 4bx 3 y + 6cx 2 y 2
+ 4dxy 3
+ ey 4
(7.7)

for (a,b,c,d,e) ∈ R5 (In the old textbooks this form is called ‘with binomial coefficients’.)
Let G=GL2(R), the natural left action of G on the variables induces a right action of G on

x 
R5, as follows: If f corresponds to the form (7.7), g ∈ G, and v =   , then
y 
(fg)v=f(gv). (7.8)
What this means is that we change variables by g, expand the result, and collect up according
to the terms in x4, x3y, …,etc. to get a new quartic form.
A polynomial p in (a,b,c,d,e) is said to be an invariant if
p(fg)=p(f)·(detg)k
242
for a fixed positive integer k, where det g is the determinant of g. The integer k is the weight
of the invariant. If p is a rational or algebraic invariants: k need no longer be a positive
integer. Of especial importance are the absolute invariants for which k=0. The reason is that
these are constant along G-orbits, so give us information on where the orbits lie.
The quartic form (7.7) has two basic invariants

S = ae − 4bd + 3c 2
(7.9)
T = ace + 2bcd − ad 2 − b 2 c − c 3
of weights 4,6 respectively. They are basic in the sense that every invariant can be expressed
as a polynomial in S and T. For example the discriminant of (7.7) is the invariant
∆ = S 3 − 27T 2
(7.10)
of weight 12.
In terms of the complex variable
z=x+iy
the action of Γ is given by
zgθ=eiθz. (7.11)
Then, the form (7.7) can be expressed uniquely as

f ( x , y ) = Re(αz 4 + βz 3 z + γz 2 z 2 ) (7.12)

for α , β ∈ C , γ ∈ R .

We could get explicit formulae for the change of coordinates from (a,b,c,d,e) to (α,β,γ):
a = αR + βR +γ
b = α I + 12 β I d = −α I + 12 β I (7.13)
1
c = −α R + γ 3 c = αR − βR +γ

α R = 18 (a − 6c + e ) α I = 12 (b − d )
β R = 12 (a − e ) β I = b + d (7.14)
γ = 38 (a + 2c + e )
where α=αR+iαI, β=βR+iβI, with αR, αI, βR, βI ∈ R.
We could study the real algebraic set V in R5 given by

0=△=S3 －27T 2
(7.15)

V is a cone with vertex the origin.

S4 is the unit sphere in R5= C2×R given by

| α | 2 + | β | 2 +γ 2 = 1 (7.16)

4
W =V I S

The Γ-action on C2×R is given by

243
 4 iθ 2 iθ
(α , β , γ ) g θ = ( e α ,e β , γ ).
Hence, Γ-acts orthogonally, rotating the α-plane 4 times, the β-plane twice, and fixing γ.
We let P be the projection of W from the origin into the cylinder K=S1×R3 given by α=1.
The 2-sphere S2 in S4 given by
α=0, |β|2+γ2=1,
which the projection `blows up' to infinity. We let

W ∞ =W I S 2 , W 1 =W −W ∞ .

Then W1 is diffeomorphic to P, so we must describe P, W∞, and how the two fit together.
The cylinder K is invariant under Γ. We let H be the subset of K for which α=1. Then
K=S1×H, where S1 is the circle |α|=1, β=γ=0. The group Γ acts by rotating S1 four times,
rotating the β-plane twice, and fixing the hyper planes γ=constant. Thus P is the orbit of
Q=P I H under Γ. In fact we need consider only the first half of Γ, where 0≤θ≤π. This rotates
once around S1 and gives the β-plane in H a half-twist.
The set Q decomposes into a subset Q’, corresponding to coincident real roots of f, and a
tiny extra piece corresponding to equal complex roots.
Q’ is given parametrically by
1 − 3 iϕ
β = (− 3e iϕ
+ e − 2γe − iϕ
). (7.17)
2
where is a parameter, 0≤φ<2π.
The equation (7.17) yields ‘almost all’ of Q.
When γ=0, (7.17) become
1 − 3 iϕ
β = (− 3e iϕ
+ e ) (7.18)
2
it represents the motion of a point obtained by superimposing an anticlockwise rotation in a
circle of radius 3/2 and a clockwise rotation at three times the speed in a circle of radius 1/2.
For each γ1, the curve Qγ is the locus of a point lying distance γ along the normal to the

hypocycloid Q0, where γ is measured away from the origin at β= 1. －

The evolute Q~ of Q0 is another 4-cusped hypocycloid, whose cusps lie at β=±4,±4i, and

which passes through the four cusp points of Q0.

As γ increases from 0 to 1 the cusps move outwards in pairs along the evolute. As γ from 1
the point of tangency splits into two points of self-intersection on the real β-axis, which move
outwards from the origin as the cusp-points and a self-intersection merge at swallowtail points
(where β=±4). For γ>3 the curve Qγ is a smooth oval, becoming more nearly circular as γ→∞,
and with diameter asymptotic to 2γ.
There is a local diffeomorphism from H to R3 which maps a neighborhood of (4,0,3) to a
neighborhood of (0,0,0), and within those neighborhoods maps Q’ to the bifurcation set of the

244
swallowtail catastrophe.
A point (1,β,γ) ∈ H corresponds to a quartic with two equal pairs of roots if and only if
either

(i) βR=0, βI2= －8γ－8,

(ii) βI=0, βR2 =8γ－8.

In case (i) the roots are real if |βI|≤4, complex if |βI|>4. In case (ii) the roots are real if |βR|≤4,
complex if |βR|>4.
Q’ is semi algebraic, whereas Q is algebraic. This presence of absence of whiskers is a
common phenomenon in real algebraic geometry.
Table 6. The set of non-degenerate quartic forms in two variables has four connected
components and the set of degenerate quartics divides into 12 G-orbits in open in R5.
type representative codim. Region
4 real roots －
x4 6x2y2+y4 0 inside the tetrahedron

2 real roots, 2
comples
x4 －y 4 0 outside both tetrahedron and bowls

0 real roots,
positive definite x4+y4 0 inside the top bowl
negative definite x 4
－y 4 0 inside the bottom bowl

2 equal real, 2 real

positive x2(x2 －y ) 2 1 the two faces of the tetrahedron which
have an edge in common with the top bowl
negative 1 the two faces of the tetrahedron which
－x (x －y )
2 2 2
have an edge in common with the lower
bowl
2 equal real,2
complex x2(x2+y2) 1 the surface of the top bowl
positive
negative
－x (x +y )
2 2 2 1 the surface of the lower bowl

3 equal real x 2y 2 the cusp-lines forming four edges of the

tetrahedron
2 pairs equal real
positive x 2y 2 2 the top line of self-intersection
negative －x y 2 2 2 the lower line of self-intersection

2 pairs equal
complex (x2+y2)2 2 the top whiskers
positive
negative
－(x +y ) 2 2 2 2 the lower whiskers

4 equal real
positive x4 3 the top two swallowtail points
negative －x 4 3 the bottom two swallowtail points

zero 0 5 this is not in Q: It is the vertex of the cone on

W
245
Conclusions
From the discussion in this paper, we could get the following conclusions:
(1) The special theory of relativity cannot negate the possibility of the existence of
superluminal-speed.
(2) The essential nature of the superluminal-speed is the relativity of the temporal order. If
one does not know how to distinguish the temporal orders, a particle moving with
superluminal-speed could be taken for one moving with a subluminal-speed of some unusual
nature.
(3) The special theory of relativity could be discussed in the Finsler space-time. The space-
time transformation on the Finsler metric ds4 contains a new symmetry between the time-like
and space-like.
(4) Some new invariants describe the catastrophe nature of the Finsler space-timeds4. They
obey the double-cusp catastrophe. The time-like state cannot change smoothly into the space-
like state for a motion particle. But a light like state could change suddenly into a time-like
state and space-like state. Also, a time-like state and a space-like state could change suddenly
into a light like state.
(5) The length △x will exchange the position with the time increment △t between v’s
representation and v’1s representation. The momentum (or energy) in the time-like (or space-
like) representation will be transformed into the energy (or momentum) in the space-like (or
time-like) representation.
(6) The difference between the subluminal- and superluminal-speed would be described as
follows: A particle with the subluminal-speed has positive momentum, energy, and moving
mass, and a particle with the superluminal-speed has negative ones.
(7) Usually, it is believed that Tachyons have a space-like energy-momentum four-vector so
that
E2<c2P2 (7.19)
Hence, the square of the rest mass m defined by

m2c4=E2 －c P <0.
2 2
(7.20)

requires the ‘rest mass’ to be imaginary' (see Hawking and Ellis, 1973).

～
As has been said in this paper, from the expressions (3.25) (3.28) it is clear that, no matter

whether a particle is moving with a subluminal- or superluminal-speed, in the time-like

representation it will obey Equation (3.36), but, in the space-like representation it will obey
Equation (3.37) ( or (4.9) and (4.10)). So, for a particle with superluminal-speed its mass
M(v) (energy E(v), and momentum P(v)) is negative rather than imaginary. As expression

246
(3.28)

ES(v1)= mc2－ (7.21)

when β→0.
So the particle with superluminal-speed, in the time-like representation, will remain a
negative ‘rest-mass’. We shall write:
+ mc 2 for sublu min al − speed , i .e ., v < c (or v 1 > c ),
E = (7.22)
− mc 2 for sup erlu min al − speed , i .e .,v > c (or v 1 < c ).
It was just analyzed by Dirac for the anti-particle. So, we guess that a particle with the
superluminal-speed v>c could be regarded as its anti-particle with the dual velocity v1=c2/v<c.
(8) If we suppose that the usual space-time is the Finsler space F(x,y), then space-time
possesses a catastrophic nature. In particular, the space-like curves in the general theory of
relativity will have some observational meaning.
(9) The model of relativistic jets could not to explain superluminal motion. But, the
observed superluminal expansion by and large corresponds to the motion along the space-like
curve in the Schwarzschild field. If so, we guess this expansion is a real motion with the
superluminal-speeds; the results given by calculation coincide with observations very well.
(10) Under the same assumption, we may estimate the masses of central objects. The

estimated values of these masses are in the range of 1012 ～10 13

M⊙.

References
[1] Arnold, V.I.:1986, CatastropheTheory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[2] Asanov, G.S.: 1985, Finsler Geometry, Relativity and Gauge Theories, D.Reidel Publ.Co.,
Dordrecht, Holland.
[3] Cao Shenglin:1988,Astrophys.Space Sci.145,299.
[4] Cao Shenglin:1990,Astrophys.Space Sci.174,165.
[5] Cao Shenglin:1992,Astrophys.Space Sci.190,303.
[6] Cao Shenglin:1992b,Astrophys.Space Sci.193,123.
[7] Cao Shenglin:1993,Astrophys.Space Sci.208,191.
[8] Einstein, A.: 1923, in A.Sommerfeld(ed.), The Principle of Relativity, Dover ,New York.
[9] Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R.: 1973, The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time,
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
[10] Recami, E.: 1986,Nuovo Cimento 9, 1.
[11] Rindler,W.:1977, EssentialRelativity, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[12] Rund, H.:1959, Differential Geometry of Finsler Spaces, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[13] Sen Gupta N.D.:1973,Indian J. Physics 47,385.

～
[14] Zeeman, E.C.:1977, CatastropheTheory, Selected Papers 1972 1977, Addison-Wesley.

247
About the Author:Cao Shenglin Professor of the Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal
University, Beijing, People's Republic of China. He was born in Chongqing, China, in June
1937. He worked on the Control Device Research Institute of the First Academy of China
National Space Administration from 1959 to 1978. He has published over 80 papers in the
fields of Gyroscope, QSOs, Cosmology, and the Relativistic Astrophysics.

248
 New Explanation of Advance of Planetary Perihelion
and Solar System’s Vortex Motion
Fu Yuhua
(CNOOC Research Institute, E-mail:[email protected])

Abstract: Although the explanation of general relativity for the advance of

planetary perihelion is reasonably consistent with the observed data, because its
orbit is not closed, whether or not it is consistent with the law of conservation of
energy has not been verified. For this reason a new explanation is presented: The
advance of planetary perihelion is the combined result of two motions. The first
elliptical motion creates the perihelion, and the second vortex motion creates the
advance of perihelion. In the motion of planet-sun system, under the action of
gravity, the planetary orbit is a closed ellipse, and consistent with the law of
conservation of energy. Meanwhile, the planet also participates in the vortex
motion of solar system taking the sun as center; the long-term trend of the vortex
is the further topic, but in the short-term may be considered that due to the inertia
the planetary perihelion will run circular motion in vortex and lead to the advance
of perihelion, thus also without acting against the law of conservation of energy.
Based on the result of general relativity, the approximate angular velocity of
advance of perihelion is given; based on accurate astronomical observation, the
accurate angular velocity is given. Finally the approximate expression for circular
velocity of solar system’s vortex motion is presented. For ordinary vortex motion
the circular velocity is inversely proportional to the radius r, but for solar system’s
vortex motion, it is inversely proportional to r3/2.

Key words: Advance of planetary perihelion, new explanation, general relativity,

angular velocity of advance, solar system’s vortex motion

Introduction
Many scholars believe that general relativity does not end the studying for
problem of advance of planetary perihelion, because there are many factors
affecting the advance of planetary perihelion, it still needs to continue to study
this issue. This paper presents a new explanation: The advance of planetary
perihelion is the combined result of two motions. The first elliptical motion
creates the perihelion, and the second vortex motion creates the advance of
perihelion. Finally the approximate expression for circular velocity of solar
system’s vortex motion is presented. For ordinary vortex motion the circular
velocity is inversely proportional to the radius r, but for solar system’s vortex
motion, it is inversely proportional to r3/2.

249
1 Result of general relativity
According to general relativity, the value of advance of planetary
perihelion reads [1]
24π 3a 2
ε= 2 2
T c (1 − e 2 )
（1）
where: c is the speed of light; T, a, and e are orbital period, semi-major axis
and eccentricity respectively.
Although the explanation of general relativity for the advance of planetary
perihelion is reasonably consistent with the observed data, because its orbit is
not closed, whether or not it is consistent with the law of conservation of
energy has not been verified. In fact, this verification is very difficult, so for
many years it has been left without anybody to care for.

2 New explanation of combined motion

According to this new explanation, the advance of planetary perihelion is
the combined result of two motions. The first elliptical motion creates the
perihelion, and the second vortex motion creates the advance of perihelion.
In the first motion of planet-sun system, under the action of gravity, due to
F = GMm / r 2 , and without considering other factors such as the perturbation
of other planets, the planetary orbit is a closed ellipse, and consistent with the
law of conservation of energy.
Meanwhile, the planet also participates in the vortex motion of solar
system taking the sun as center; the long-term trend of the vortex is the
further topic, and we will not discuss it in this paper; but in the short-term may
be considered that due to the inertia the planetary perihelion will run circular
motion in vortex and lead to the advance of perihelion, thus also without
acting against the law of conservation of energy.
In a word, the proposed new explanation of combined motion does not
run counter to the law of conservation of energy from start to finish.

3 Angular velocity of advance of perihelion

According to Eq.(1), taking the sun as center, the angular velocity of
advance of planetary perihelion is as follows

ω=
ε
T
=
24π 3a 2
T 3c 2 (1 − e 2 )
（2）
According to Kepler's third law, it gives

250
 T 2 4π 2
=
a 3 GM
where: G is the gravitational constant, and M is the solar mass.
Then Eq. (2) can be rewritten as
3G 3 / 2 M 3 / 2
ω = 5/ 2 2
a c (1 − e 2 )
（3）
According to this expression we can see that, the angular velocity of

advance of planetary perihelion is inversely proportional to a 5 / 2 , and the

velocity of advance of planetary perihelion is inversely proportional to a 3 / 2 .

For the results of Eq.(1), there are small differences compared with
accurate astronomical observations, so we say that results of Eq.(2) and
Eq.(3) are the approximate angular velocities of advance of perihelion based
on the related results of general relativity.
If based on accurate astronomical observation, we can reach the
accurate angular velocity of advance of perihelion as follows.
ε'
ω'=
T
where: ε ' is the accurate astronomical observation of advance of perihelion.
Now the rotate transformation in Cartesian coordinate system is applied to
derive the planetary orbit equation including the advance of perihelion.
In the planet-sun system, taking the solar center as the origin of
coordinate, the planetary orbit equation reads
( x − k )2 y 2
+ 2 =1
a2 b
where: k is the semi-focal length of ellipse.
According to the rotate transformation in Cartesian coordinate system, it
gives
x = x ' cos θ − y ' sin θ

y = x ' sin θ + y ' cos θ

where: θ is the angle of rotation (namely the angle of advance), θ = ωt or

θ = ω't .
Thus, after considering the vortex motion, the planetary rotation orbit
equation is as follows
( x ' cos θ − y ' sin θ − k ) 2 ( x ' sin θ + y ' cos θ ) 2
+ =1
a2 b2

251
4 The circular velocity of solar system’s vortex motion
We already pointed out that, the reason for the advance of planetary
perihelion is the vortex motion taking the sun as center. Now we discuss the
circular velocity of this vortex motion at the position of radius r.
Assuming that the angular velocity of solar system's vortex motion is
approximately equal to the angular velocity of advance of planetary perihelion,
and in Eq.(3) the value of a is replaced by the radius r, moreover the
eccentricity e is omitted, then apply the formula v = rω , it gives the circular
velocity of this vortex motion at the position of radius r as follows

v≈
3G 3 / 2 M 3 / 2
r 3 / 2c 2
（4）
From this expression we can see that, unlike the ordinary vortex motion
(its circular velocity is inversely proportional to the radius r), for solar system’s
vortex motion, the circular velocity is inversely proportional to r3/2.

Reference
1 A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss.. Akad. Wiss. 1915, No.47, 831-839

252
RELATIVISTIC PROBLEMS IN THE UNITARY QUANTUM VIEW OF THE
WORLD

Leo G. Sapogin
Department of Physics, Technical University (MADI)
64 Leningradsky pr., A-319, Moscow, 125319, Russia
Tel. 7-499-1550492 E-mail: [email protected]

V. A. Dzhanibekov
Department of Cosmophysics, Tomsk StateUnivesity,
36 Leninast., 634050, Tomsk, Russia.
Tel: +7-917-5300487, E-mail: [email protected]

Yu. A. Ryabov
Department of Mathematics, Technical University (MADI)
64 Leningradsky pr., A-319, 125319, Moscow, Russia
Tel. 7-499-1550326 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The present article discuses the problems of new unitary quantum view of
the world in its applications to the different aspects of the reality. There are spectacular
examples of the new Unitary Quantum world view considered in the applications for
different aspects of reality.

Keywords: Unitary Quantum Theory, Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics,

Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger Equation, Solid State Physics, Zone Theory,
Semiconductors, Tunneling Effects, Spectrum Masses, Lorentz transformations.

Introduction

It seems that the majority of researches have absolutely forgotten the fact that one of
the master-spirits of contemporary world, A. Einstein, till the end of his life had not
adopted the standard quantum mechanics at all. Better to cite his well-known words:
“Great initial success of the quantum theory could not make me believe in a dice
game being the basis of it…I do not believe this principal conception being an
appropriate foundation for physics as a whole… Physicists think me an old fool, but I
am convinced that the future development of physics will go in another direction than
heretofore… I reject the main idea of modern statistical quantum theory… I’m quite
sure that the existing statistical character of modern quantum theory should be
ascribed to the fact that that theory operates with incomplete descriptions of physical
systems only”.A.Einstein (back translation).
At the first stage of quantum mechanics evolution in the frame of classical physics’
253
theory the mechanism of corpuscular-wave dualism was not discovered at all, as it
was done later in the UQT (Sapogin,1979,1980,2011; Sapogin at all, 2003, 2005,
2008a). It’s worth a surprise that the super abstract quantum ideology ad hoc designed
by Niels Bohr was suitable in general for the description of quantum reality. An
explorer did contradict anything by strictly using new frequently paradoxical quantum
rules, and any paradox could be removed by the simple prohibition of its analysis.
Although many researches tried to solve these problems they were not successful.
The outspoken interpretation of quantum theory had become out of any criticism.
More over the determination of simulators describing one of the sides of quantum
reality had been announced as the main target of quantum science, while the picture in
figures and a-going had become simply an optional target.
Nevertheless one general philosophic problem had been remaining: the dual principles
of the fundamental physics. There were particles – the points being the source of a
field that could not be reduced to the field itself, the researches did not do their
utmost, though. Introduction of this micro-particle had resulted in a wide range of
different divergences - anybody knows that electric power of a point charge equals
infinity. A lot of ideas had appeared, absolutely brilliant ideas from mathematical
point of view, suitable for these appearing infinities abolishing. We can use as a cover
the words of P.A.Dirac: “…most physicists are completely satisfied with the existing
situation. They consider relativistic quantum field theory and electrodynamics to be
quite perfect theories and it is not necessary to be anxious about the situation. I
should say that I do not like that at all, because according to such ‘perfect’ theory we
have to neglect, without any reason, infinities that appear in the equations. It is just
mathematical nonsense. Usually in mathematics the value can be rejected only in the
case it were too small, but not because it is infinitely big and someone would like to
get rid of it.”Direction in Physics, New York, 1978(back translation).
The substantial success of the quantum mechanics (particularly in the stationary
cases) was based on the simple correlation of de Broglie wave length and geometric
properties of potential. Formally the particle was considered as a point; in other case
it was difficult to add probability amplitude character to the wave function. But the
point-character of a charge as well the principle of Complementarity did not allow to
go ahead in the elementary particles structure and thus the further development of the
quantum theory of the field in the frames of the assumed paradigm had resulted in
total fiasco of the field quantum theory itself.
There is another concept in physics; it comes from W.Clifford, A.Einstein,
E.Schrödinger and Louisde Broglie in which the particle is considered as a bunch
(wave packet) of a certain unified field. The position of associates of the concept
would be expressed the most clearly by the following words of A.Einstein: “We could
therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field
is extremely strong. A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field in
which the states of the greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of
the stone… There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and the
matter, for the Field is the only reality... and the laws of motion would automatically
254
follow from the laws of field.” (back translation).By (M. Jemmer, 1961) definition if
the particle is a wave packet, so this consideration is called unitary.
The first articles concerning this matter were published in (Sapogin,1973,1979,1980).
The entire term unitary belongs to who has classified quantum waves’ theories. The
term unitary he correlated with the theories that represent particle as a wave packet. In
Unique Quantum Theory a particle is described as a wave packet that in its movement
is periodically spreading along the Metagalaxy and is gathering again. For such
moving wave packet both the relativistic and the classical mechanics follow from
these unitary quantum equations, probably the Maxwell equations and the
gravitation follow from exact UQT equations (Sapogin at all,1984, 2005, 2008), but
this has not been proved yet being the problem of the future. Nevertheless the UQT
scalar equation (a telegraph type) in general makes it possible to obtain not only
Schrödingerbut also Maxwell equations. But for this purpose for the derivation of the
scalar unitary telegraph equation we should assume imaginary the resistance of
derivation and shunt conductance that physically is not so clear.

The field of investigations of the Unified Unitary Quantum Theory (UUQT) is the
most profound level of substance: the level of elementary particles and quantum
effects.

As well known all particles have besides corpuscular properties wave properties too
(particles can interfere with each other or with themselves), and their behavior is
described by means of the wave function. In the case of a particle moved in the free
space, the wave function is described as deBroglieplanewave which wavelength is
inverse to the momentum of the particle. If the particle is slowing down or
accelerating by applied fields then its wavelength is increasing or decreasing,
respectively. The wave itself has no physical interpretation, but the squared value of
its amplitude is proportional to the probability to find the particle in a defined place.
That is why these waves are also called “waves of probability” or “waves of
knowledge”, etc.

There is another problem: the particle has no exact value for coordinate and for
momentum at the same time, although either value could be measured arbitrarily
closely (uncertainty relation). That is why the definition of trajectory of a quantum
particle has no sense.

As opposed to the laws of the classical physics with its determinism where one can
predict results of the motion of separate particles, in the quantum theory one can only
predict the probability of the behavior of separate particles. Even the nature does not
know the way a particle goes by in the case of diffraction by two slits.

255
But it is not the most depressing. The Quantum Physics has wave-corpuscle dualism
as well as field dualism and matter dualism. All particles act as sources of field, but it
appears that they are only points which have no relation to these fields, and one can’t
tell anything in concrete about them.
Let us continue to confuse the reader. We shall consider an extremely simple
experiment with single particles in the terms of the modern quantum theory. It will
allow us to understand what is going on and will be useful for us in the future.
Let single photons fall on a semitransparent mirror directedat the angle of 45
degrees to their stream. Semitransparent means that a half of the falling light is
reflected and another one passes by. Photon counters are installed on the paths of
reflected and passed rays – Fig. 1. In the terms of the wave theory everything is
simple: an incident wave will be reflected and will be passed partially. But particles as
they are indivisible have to be reflected or be passed by. If a counter of reflected
beam’s particles registers an event it’s evidently to suppose that the second counter
will register nothing. It is easy to see that if one will re-unite passed and reflected
beams and sends them to the screen then...it'sallabout the way how we are going to
argue. Fromthewavetheorythere will be an interference pattern, but
fromthecorpusculartheory it will not occur. In fact, an interference pattern is
observed in experiments even for single photons, and our suppositions are wrong to
say the least. In order to spare the doubts about how is it possible, it is better to
forbid one to think about it. And the principle of complementarity in the modern
physics does it in any case. It allows to ask only the questions for which it’s possible
to give an answer by experimentally only. When one tries to find a particle it means
that one rejects to observe the interference pattern and vice versa. Asthough we could
know from experiment either a particle has passed by or has been reflected, we would
realize the “real particle behavior”. But it’s impossible to do by the means of macro-
instruments.
The principle of complementarity makes the quantum physics descriptively
inaccessible. “There are many experiments, that we just cannot explain without
considering the wave function as a wave that influences on the whole region and not
as particles appearing “may be here, may be there”, as it is possible in the terms of
the clearly probabilistic point of view”(E.Schrödinger). Inotherwords a wave acts in
the whole area simultaneously, not “may be here, may be there”, otherwise there
wouldn’t be any diffraction or interference.
Eventually we have to admit that the prohibitions of the principle of complementarity
respond to the weakness philosophy, and the role of this principle is obviously
analogous to the role of a calorie, a phlogiston and other obsoleteconcepts.

256
Unified field theory approach

Let us ask the questions that are forbidden by the principle of complementarity. What
is the wave of an electron? What is the behavior of an electron “indeed, when nobody
looks at it?” (its natural behavior?) How does it manage to go through a potential
barrier when its energy is less than the barrier height (tunneling effect)? How does it,
as it is indivisible, go simultaneously by two slits which are divided by a great
distance in comparison with its own size? How is an atom of hydrogen constructed at
the lowest energy state (s-state)? How can the probabilistic consideration of a wave
function result from the mathematicalformalism of the theory? Why is the actual
Quantum Mechanics reversible? This is a primary law, and the irreversibility has to
follow from it for dispose the paradoxes in the statistical mechanics. Last but not
least: how is the electron itself constructed, that point described in the terms of
probability? This is a huge complex of mysteries. All (or almost all) physicists
resigned and even prefers not to speak about it. But there is also someone who does
speak. Paul Langevin even called the formalism of Quantum Mechanics with its
principle of complementarity the “intellectual debauch”.
E. Schrödinger wrote that he “was happy for three months” when he had got the idea
to consider the particle as the packet (bunch) of de Broglie waves – until the English
mathematicianDarwin proved that the packet would spread and vanish.But the trouble
of all of these attempts (E.Schrödinger, Louis de Broglie, etc) was the fact that they
always tried to construct it by means of de Broglie waves with such dispersion that
any wave packet has to spread. The including of nonlinearity (Louis de Broglie) just
extremely complicated the problem but didn’t solve it.

Unified Unitary Quantum Theory Interpretation

The critical feature of the Unified Unitary Quantum Theory (UUQT) is the fact that it
describes the particle as a bunch (packet) of certain unified field, but not as a
questionable structure of the de Broglie waves of probability.
For “spying upon” for what the particles do which we consider as very small bunch of
the real field, let us consider a Hypothetic Observer (HO) which is able to measure the
parameters of fields of tracing particles with the hypothetic microprobe, and
dimensions of microprobe are much less than the dimensions of the particles. The
result of these measurements will be a certain structure function that describes bunch
of the real field. Obviously, this hypothetic HO and microprobe couldn’t exist, but our
thought experiments will be as simple as possible.

257
If we choose the dispersion of these partial waves equal to linear, we could have an
extremely curious process, which mathematical formulation never appears before. If
we have dispersion, then harmonic components of partial waves propagated with
different velocities will result in spreading of the wave packet over all space or over
all Metagalaxy.
Mathematical investigations show that the spreading goes on without any changes of
the form of the wave packet; but at the end, there is a moment when a wave packet
vanishes at all. Where does its energy disappear to? It remains in the form of
harmonic components that set up a certain background in any point in the space. As
these waves are not damped and continue to propagate with velocity of their own,
then afterawhile the wave packet begins to revive in another point, but its sign will be
changed at that. During the motion, the packet will appear and disappear periodically
– Fig. 2.

The envelope of this process is locus of points, locus of points of its maximum, it is a
sinusoidal quantity and it rests in all reference frames; in other words, its phase
velocity is equal zero in any reference frame, i.e. it’s relativistically invariant (only by
means of it the results of the relativistic dynamics are absolutely correct). If we
change a reference frame, we will receive a different value of wavelength of the
envelope, but it will be motionless as well. As the computing shows the wavelength of
the envelope is exactly equal to de Broglie wavelength, and the dependence of this
wavelength on packet velocity is the same! As you see, all the Unified Unitary
Quantum Theory is occupied with the resolute exploiting of this basic idea.

It should be stressed that this periodical appearing and disappearing of particles

doesn’t refer to the Quantum Mechanics, as an immovable packet doesn’t oscillate.
The requirement of the relativistic invariance, that would be the main requirement for
any theory, specifies the idea further. It states the following: when “Lord has excited
in space continuum wave packet with his finger and then he has taken it away”, then
the packet will go on oscillating as a membrane or a string after impact. The
frequency of these free oscillations is very high: it is proportional to the rest energy of
the particle and it is equal to the frequency of the so called Schrödinger’s trembling
(“zitter-bewegung”)

, .

258
Within the motion there arising de Broglie vibrations with frequency due to

dispersion. At small energies and in the presence of quick own oscillations

have no influence on experiment and all quantum phenomena result from de Broglie

oscillations. The value of frequency tends to with growth of energy and

resonance phenomenon appears that result in oscillating amplitude increase and in

mass growth. Thus the well-known graph of particle mass dependence on the
velocity Fig.3 approaching to light’s velocity constitutes actually a half of usual
resonance curve for forced oscillation of harmonic oscillator if energy dissipation

is absent. In the case when , frequency (frequency resonance),

beats appear with difference frequency

and particle will obtain absolutely new low-frequency envelop with wave length

This is a new wave. In ultra-relativistic limit case the value of becomes much
greater as typical dimension of quantum system it (new wave) interacts with. Now the
length of new wave grows with energy contrary to de Broglie wave length slowly
decreasing, and particle requires the form of quasi-stationary wave packet moving in
accordance with classical laws.
That explains the success of hydrodynamics fluid theory concerning with numerous
particle birth when the packet having extremely big amplitude is able to split into
series of packets with smaller amplitudes. But such splitting processes characterize
not only high-energy particles. Something like this takes place at small energies also,
but overwhelming majority of arising wave packets are under the barrier and so will
not be detected. It would be perfect to examine by experiments at future accelerators
the appearance of such new wave with the length growing together with energy.
(Sapogin,1979,1980, 2010,2011; Sapogin at all,2003,2005,2008).
If the HO places at the way of motion of the wave packet quite a number of his
microprobes, then due to the dispersion spreading’s and rebuilding’s he can observe
the envelope of this process, and all of this will not be at variance to the general

259
Quantum Mechanics, as this envelope corresponds with the wave function.

This figure, a sinusoidal envelope with a regular shape, can be seen by the HO in the
only case: if the only single particle would exist in the world. But the real world
consists of an enormous number of particles moving each other with different
velocities. The partial waves (harmonic components) of those particles which have
vanished at this moment can be summarized and emerge real fluctuations of the field
or in other words the vacuum fluctuations that will act in a random manner. These
fluctuations could destroy all idyllic character of measurements of our HO
(Hypothetic Observer) for single particle in Universe– the sinusoidal envelope will be
distorted by vacuum fluctuations and it will be difficult to separate it clearly.

Any wave packet that is described in the terms of the “becoming” structural function
could be decomposed by means of Fourier transforming into plane sinusoidal (partial)
waves. These waves are infinitely many, and their amplitude is infinitesimal. If we
summarize them it will emerge zero everywhere except of the area occupied by the
structure function. Thus the structure function could be represented either as a
function of time (time representation) or as a function of an amplitude of harmonic
components related to frequency (spectral representation). It is absolutely equivalent
to mathematical representations.

Now there is no necessity in the principle of complementarity that was a very

convenient view ad hoc. It is easy and clear how the synthesis of corpuscular and
wave properties is realized. Corpuscular properties occur due to the localization of a
wave packet in a small spatial region. The wave properties of the de Broglie waves
can be explained in the following way: when the wave packet approaches to the
diffraction system (for example Young’s experiment with two slits) then we have an
ordinary diffraction of partial waves by splites, and the diffraction pattern of partial
waves appears at the screen. HO could observe it with his microprobes. As these
packets are not overlapped then everything is linear and the superposition of the
partial waves creates a total diffraction pattern modulated by the de Broglie wave,
although the plain de Broglie wave doesn’t exist at all. It should be stressed that de
Broglie wave is a packet’s locus of points of maximum in his motion, and it is a
superposition of partial waves, that is why it appears in any diffraction and
interference experiment.

Quantum measurements

Let us try to consider real instruments, which are always macroscopic. Atomic nuclei
and electron shells are situated very near to each other and form a very numerous, but
260
discrete series. A transition from the one such a state to another is a quantum jump.
That is why the absorption and emitting of energy between the atomic systems is
carried out by means of the quanta.

However, it doesn’t mean that in the motion process the quantum or the particle
propagates as something constant and indivisible. The energy of the particle can be
divided or changed by vacuum fluctuations. The wave packet of a photon, for
example, can, in the issue of the overlapping of vacuum fluctuation, turn into meson
at short time, and photon can “disguise” oneself as a proton or as a neutron. It’s
assumed in the ordinary quantum field theory that a proton has “an atmosphere”
mesons; it follows from the interpretation of the results of its collisions with another
particles. There is no mesons atmosphere indeed. A proton appears and disappears
during its motion constantly at the de Broglie wavelength, and its mass changes
periodically from the double value of a proton’s mass to zero, taken on the
intermediate values of mesons masses.

Eventually, all of the quantum measurements are based on energy absorption and
present inconvertible processes(Sapogin, 1979, 1980). For every instrument founded a
particle will operate, a quantum of energy is needed at least, thus it is a threshold
energy of instrument defining its responsivity. By the way, we would like to notice
that our HO (Hypothetic Observer) uses the instruments with zero threshold energy
that is why it can register even vacuum fluctuations.
Let us consider the process of interaction of a particle with a macro-instrument
(Sapogin, 1982ab). As the particle is a wave packet then its energy is proportional to
the intensity of the packet, but it can be changed because of periodic spreading’s and
appearances. Besides the packet itself can be divided during the interactions. For
macro-instrument could register a particle it has to wait for a moment when the total
energy of the particle and of the fluctuation of the atom would be more or equal to
threshold energy. It is clear that the probability of the operation of the apparatus will
be proportional to the amplitude of the wave packet, or more exactly, to the value of
intensity of the envelope of the wave function. If the wave packet with a too low
intensity in comparison with threshold energy of the macro-instrument approaches to
the macro-instrument, the great fluctuation of vacuum is required, but the probability
of such an event is too small, and it means that the probability to detect the particle is
small too (Fig. 4).

The theоry of the quantum measurements is developed in the Unified Unitary

Quantum Theory (UUQT), and the statistical interpretation follows now from the
theory, but not just postulated, as it was before in the conventional quantum theory.
261
This point of view requires automatically that the value of the dispersion of
vacuum fluctuations is finite that, in another turn, requires the finiteness of the
Universe.

Unitary quantum illustrations

The uncertainty relation arises because energy and impact are not constants, but they
periodically change because of the dispersion disappearance and appearance of the
particle(Sapogin at all, 2003,2005,2008a). Besides because of statistical laws of
measurements with macro-instruments, there is no any way to measure anything
accurately, because of the unpredictable fluctuations of the vacuum. HO (Hypothetic
Observer) could predict the coordinate, the momentum or the energy of the packet, if
he would be the only one in the Universe, i.e. in the case of absence of the vacuum
fluctuations.

The presence of unpredictable vacuum fluctuations makes all of the laws of the
micro-world principally static for any observer. An accurate prediction of expected
events requires an accurate knowledge of the vacuum fluctuation in any moment of
time, what is impossible, because it is necessary to have the information on the
structure and the behavior of any packet (particle) in the universe and to control their
motion. The mechanical determinism of Laplace went absolutely lost in the modern
physics as well as in the future one. Maxwell was right when he told, “the true logic
of the universe is calculation of the probabilities.”(back translation).

The envelope of partial waves, occurring due to linear transformations at the wave
packet and being “in the ruins” of splitting of the packet corresponds to Huygens
principle. It explains how the relating of a moving particle with a monochromatic de
Broglie wave is formally possible, propagating in the direction of the motion, and
with all wave properties. There are partial waves that we consider as participants of
diffraction and interference, but due to the principle of superposition we get the same
result as if it a de Broglie wave would participate at the process.
The new linear equations of the UUQT allow the time inversion with simultaneous
replacingofthewavefunctionwitha conjugated one, with the formal reversibility.
Actually this reversibility takes place just in the case if the Universe consisted of the
only one particle, as in the real world the recovering of the previous vacuum
fluctuation is also needed for the total reversibility of the process. But there is a
simultaneous reversibility of all processes in the Universe required for it that is
impossible. It doesn’t mean that quantum processes are inconvertible, just the
reversibility has a static character, butnow direction of the current of time defines
entropy only.

262
The envelope, introduced before, is accurately monochromatic, but it doesn’t exist as
a traveling plane wave with such properties in the reality. Though it is related to the
energy of the particle, the following definitions, such as “waves of the probability”,
“waves of the knowledge”, could be related with it too. In contrast to the general
quantum theory, now a very important phase is coming. It is the most easy to show it
at the tunneling effect.

We would like to mention these established quantum phenomena to the reader. If we

have a sufficiently narrow barrier with the height that is bigger than the energy of an
incident particle, then it will never go through the barrier in the classical mechanics.
In the general quantum theory, the incident wave reflects and passes by partially, and
we have a finite quantity of the probability that the particle will be behind the barrier.
In these cases the general Quantum Mechanics states that the particle makes a tunnel
in the barrier for itself, hiding the “method of creation” of this tunnel.

Let us listen to what HO says of this process. If a particle is approaching closely to a

potential barrier in the phase of an absolute collapse, then it easily goes through the
barrier, not interacting with it because of linear of all of equations for the small
amplitude of the field. It just appears behind the barrier, without interacting with it, if
its width is much less than de Broglie wavelength. And there is no necessity for it to
make a tunnel. However, if it approaches in the phase with the maximal value of the
packet, then the particle would be reflected because of the nonlinear interaction of the
waves with the field of the barrier.

Now let us return to the experiment with the semitransparent mirror, discussed above.
In terms of the described point of view, the wave packet (particle) will be divided at
the mirror and enter in every beam, that depends on the packet phase near the mirror
and on the structure of the mirror in this place. We have, in general, two not equal
wave packets – “fragments” with less values of the amplitude that can interfere. The
changing of the parts of the fragments doesn’t follow by because all process are
linear, i.e. they are not dependants on amplitude. Besides the probability of detecting
of the fragments is reduced, because an appreciable fluctuation of the vacuum is
necessary for arising of threshold of detection of the counter. Consequently, in the
results of the measurements the particles have to be lost or be observed as single
particles in both of the beams simultaneously. The creation of two particles from a
single is not a confusing fact, because the energy of the fragments will be
reconstructed to the necessary level by means of the vacuum fluctuation.

Note, the statement of Standard Quantum Mechanics “A particle may be present

simultaneously at many points of quantum world” being strange from the common
sense and remained earlier without any understanding scientific explanations is
correct in principle within bounds of UQT. At present we have an ambiguous situation
263
because too many of such experiments have been carried out, for example the
classical experiments of Brown and Twiss and the variations of them (Fig. 1). It was
found out that frequently both of the counters detect particles simultaneously, that is
confirmed by the proposed mechanism. Furthermore, most of such experiments
(including experiments with entangled photons) confirm directly this
interpretation.The results of experiments with entangled particles become so simple
and understanding within bounds of UQT, that the idea to seek some over light mystic
relations between particles is fully meaningless.

In consequence, an increasing number of photon pairs is always observed in the beam

of light. However, it was found out that we can carry out such experiments which
effect remains also in the situation when there is no any way for any induced
radiation.

If we will collide particles of any kind, and if in the colliding point one or two
particles are vanished, then they have to go against another without any interaction.
Indeed, in the proton-proton interactions 6% of the particles don’t interact, but “go
through” the others.

An analogous effect takes place in the atom of hydrogen in the state of minimum of
energy. It is well known that this s-state is not rotational, and Bohr-Sommerfeld’s
atom model describes the spectrum strictly in the relativistic case. If we apply this
model to the s-state of the electron, we will obtain that the paths of the electron pass
through the nuclear, and they were early excepted as absolutely absurd. Today it is
clear that an electron just oscillates along a straight, going through the proton. All this
allowed one of the authors to consider the problem of deuteron-deuteron interaction in
other respects and to predict the coldfusion (Sapogin, 1983; Sapogin at all,
1995,1996) already in 1983.

Quantum object is getting classical one with a simultaneous increasing of its mass, i.e.
in the case of superposition of a large number of wave packets. The case when all of
packets consisting a body will consolidate and spread simultaneously, is impossible in
physics, as they have different velocities and masses. That is why such a combination
seems as a stable and permanent object, moving according to the classical mechanics
laws, though every packet is described in terms of the Quantum Mechanics. It looks
like all particles in the Universe owe their existence to each other, and the Universe
itself is just a mathematical illusion, a trick.

Injusticeto the adherents of the complementarity we have to say the following. They
do not retract it, though they have to wriggle, they have to tell that particles always go
to the mirror as correlated pairs, and one of them goes through, but the second is
264
reflected. Of course we need to consider the induced radiation effect, when the one
atom’s radiation is increasing the probability of emitting from another excited atom of
the same source, but it does not always happen.Let us return to the principle of
complementarity. It is clear, that if we would not be interested in the nature of the
particle and consider it just as an indivisible point then the principle of
complementarity is correct. It is a very curiously principle and it is amazing how N.
Bohr could invent it.

In recent years a numerous of experiments was carried out, which found out
supraluminal speeds. Not debating if the special theory of relativity is right or not, let
us show that in the Unified Unitary Quantum Theory (UUQT) any velocity is possible
and the velocity of light is not maximum possible.

Let us consider Euclidean plain space, in which the photon propagates along the X-
axis. According to the UUQT it is a wave packet and it could be presented as an
infinite sum of harmonic components, that exist on the X-axis, figurativelyspeaking,
placed at a distance of a million light years ahead and backwards. Now if we place on
the X-axis arbitrarily far the specially device, creating an anomalistic high dispersion,
then the photon could occur at the exit of the device, because the harmonic
components shifted each other. The most interesting in this process is that nothing has
moved between incident and reconstructed photons at this velocity! With other words,
the conventional definition of the velocity is getting obsolete. (Sapogin,2010,2011)

Such experiments were carried out by some teams (in Berkeley, Vienna, Cologne,
Florence, etc.) and they emerged the supraluminal speeds. The most interesting were
LijunWang’s investigations (Wang L.J. at all,2000)in which the velocity 310 times
bigger than the speed of the light (Fig. 5) was found. Wang gives the same
interpretation as ours but only for aimpulse of light. In this case it is a wrong
interpretation, because in the experiment the envelope of the light pulse is not
distorted absolutely, but it has to be obligatory, and he notices it amazed. Wang
supposes that the special theory of relativity is absolutely destroyed. But it is not quite
true.

Our idea that particles are wave packets is an absolutely original idea for the
worldwide science. The waves at the Fig. 5 have to be realized as separated partial
waves of the spectral decomposition of the wave packets of the separated photons, but
not as a spectral decomposition of the light pulse. Then the form of the momentum’s
envelope will not be distorted.

265
The aspects of the Unitary Quantum Theory are confirmed by results of their practical
applications to traditional tasks of physics. The UUQT allows firstly in the
international science, not either to compute the electron charge and the fine structure
constant (1/137) with the great precision (0.3%) (Sapogin at all, 1998,1991) but even
to compute masses of many elementary particles (Sapogin at all, 2008a,2008b,2010)
with the accuracy of 0.1-0.003%! It’s amazing that in the calculated spectrum of
masses there is a particle mass about 131.7 GeV that сould be called Higgs boson
(Sapogin, 2012). The Modern Standard Model and quantum theories of field couldn’t
even raise these problems mathematically. It should be stressed than when we will
find the spectrum of masses and charges of electron, time won’t be a part of the
ultimate equations and it will stay Newtonian, in other words, time exists only in our
minds.

In the Unified Unitary Quantum Theory all interactions and particle production
(packet split) are considered as an effect of diffraction of the packets by each other
because of the nonlinearity.An analytical solution of these tasks will require new
mathematical methods, and it is not even clear how to start with it at presence.

Approximated equation with the oscillating charge

There are such hard rules in the modern theoretical physics. Any new theory has to
include classical results. This is strictly satisfied because the Hamilton-Jacobi
relativistic equation and Dirac equation follow from the UUQT, i.e. all modern basics
of the fundamental quantum science. In the linear equations of the UUQT the mass
was replaced by the rest energy divided to square speed of light, and then the system
of 32 nonlinear integro-differential equationsappears as a consequence. They were
firstly found out by L. Sapogin and V. Boichenko(Sapogin at all, 1984) in 1984, and
only in 1988 they solved the dimensionless scalar version of this equation that allows
to get the fine structure constant – 1/137 and electron charge with accuracy 0.3%
(Sapogin at all, 1988,1991).

In this approximation of the UUQT, the wave packet is realized as a spatial divided
electric charge that oscillates, its equation depends on time, coordinate and velocity
and it could work in the rough model of the particle as oscillated charge, so we can
exploit the Newton questions. It is becoming easy to see the tunneling effect: while
the moving particle is approaching to the potential barrier, in the phase when the
charge is extremely small, it is easy for it to go through the barrier, and when the
quantity of the charge is large, the repulsion force is increasing, and the particle will
be reflected. The numerical solution of these equations (Sapogin at all 2005, 2008a,

266
2011a) for the most common quantum tasks emerges approximately the same results
as the calculation of the general Quantum Mechanics (QM). By the way, by means of
the UUQT it is possible to get this equation from the Schrödinger’s one with very low
energies (Sapogin at all, 2003, 2005, 2008a). But there are though some interesting
differences. The equations of motion of the oscillated charge were not treated in
physics before and they have an important difference from the classical laws of
motion – the invariance of the motion in the relation to invariance translations. It
means the absence of the great classical momentum and energy conservation
laws. They appear in the UUQT and then in the classical mechanics only with an
averaging for all particles.
Now we obtain Uncertainty relations (Sapogin at all,2003, 2005, 2008a, 2010,
2011). As far as the particle (wave packet) is periodically appearing and vanishing
at de Broglie wave length (more precisely, the packet disappears twice, and the
probability of its detecting is sufficiently big in maximum region only) the
position of such a packet may be detected with error
λ h
∆x ≥ and then ∆x ⋅ P ≥ .
2 2
As at measuring of momentum module is inevitable the error ∆P = 2P , then we
have following inequality:
∆x ⋅ ∆P ≥ h .
The statements of standard quantum mechanics that particles do not have a
trajectory become more understandable. Of course, there is a lot of truth in those
words. First, it is possible to say so about intermittent (dotted) motion of the
particle with oscillating charge. Second, any packet (particle) is able during its
motion to split into few parts. Each of that parts being summed with vacuum
fluctuation may results, in principle, in few new particles. Or visa versa the
broken particle may vanish at all and contribute to general fluctuating chaos of the
vacuum. But in any case it is better to have more clear idea of particle concrete
motion than operate with generally accepted nowadays-obscure sentence about
lack of trajectory.

The consideration of the task on oscillations of particles with an oscillating charge in

a parabolic well (harmonic oscillator) besides the common results of QM for
stationary states results in two different solutions that are shown on Fig. 6. New
amazing solutions appeared, one of them was called “Maternity home” and another
was called “Crematorium”. In the first case the energy of the particle can increase
indefinitely, furthermore if we proceed from a very low initial quantity in the
equation, it results in the increasing of the energy of the particle – in the production of
the matter, indeed. The second solution could due to collapse (disappear) of the
matter-particle. These solutions are logically independent directly, and their
appearance depends on initial phase. With other words, one solution describes the
267
matter (energy) production, and another one its collapse; and it may be said that the
Unified Unitary Quantum Theory (UUQT) allows to describe the creation of the
matter and the Universe, but not as a result of the Big Bang. The Universe wouldn’t
be given to us in the static form, it arose in some way and it continues to develop, and
we could see that one of the basic features is the filling of space by matter.

New sources of energy

As well known, in all experiments the local law of energy conservation (LEC) and the
law of conservation of momentum in individual quantum processes are correct only
for high-energy states. For low energies we can’t claim that, because of the
uncertainty relation and the stochastic nature of QM’s predictions. That is why the
idea of the global, but not of local LEC exists invisibly in the QM and it’s not a new
one.
For the physics it only means that for the stationary solution with fixed discrete
energy levels (the general QM) of the velocity of the particle reflected by a wall is
equal to incident one. The UUQT allows to consider another ways too. Thus if the
velocity of the particle for every reflection is decreasing then it is corresponding to the
“crematorium” solution, but if it is increasing then it is corresponding to the
“Maternity home”. What scenario would turn to the reality depends on the initial
phase of the wave function and on the energy of the particle. Besides the UUQT is
fundamentally inapplicable for a closed system, because such systems are
idealizations, which are very useful, but not according to the base of consideration
used in the UUQT.

Anyway, the whole modern science, including the Quantum Mechanics (QM), is still
based on the great LEC. However, there is a difficult situation in the Quantum
Mechanics. It deals with the fact that the LEC follows only from the Newton
mechanics. QM generalizes the facts of the classical mechanics including all of its
laws, but its results have a sufficiently statistical nature, they are correct only for large
amounts of particles. But how do we have to consider single particles, with their
individual processes? It appears that for the single particles LEC does not follow from
QM (!), thus individual events are absolutely incidental and do not follow this law. To
evade this question it was announced that Quantum Mechanics doesn’t describe
individual events (!?)

Let us discuss a thought experiment. To make our reasons more simple let operate a
certain quantum ball-particle. If the ball is approaching to the wall, then its velocity
after reflection will always be equal to the incident velocity (here we neglect a
268
quantity of the friction force and consider that the ball and the wall are perfectly
elastic). In the case of the quantum ball the velocity after the reflection would possess
the whole arrange of the values, in different experiments under equal conditions.
There would be some balls that would be reflected with velocities that are higher and
some that are lower than the initial velocity, and some of them with velocities equal to
the incident one, and every case would be considered statistically in the terms of the
Quantum Mechanics.

Let us answer the following question: what would happen if we place another wall
opposite the first, and would try to increase the velocity of the ball after every
reflection? Then we would get increasing of energy of the ball without action of any
external force. The energetic of the systems in the XXI century will treat the question
of constructing of initial conditions for a numerous quantity of particles to realize
only the “Maternity home” solution so that the “Crematorium” solution would be
damped as far as possible. But it depends on the selection of initial phases and the
geometry of the system.

Thus, if we use the aspects of the Unified Unitary Quantum Theory

appropriately then there won’t be a general prohibition for creating of a
quantum perpetuum mobile.Formally there is no such a prohibition even in the
general Quantum Mechanics, because there are no conservation laws for a single
process under the low energy conditions, but it treats with probabilities instead of this.
In other words, the Quantum Mechanics (QM) also offers opportunities for getting
energy by collecting of random process someway, and today it seems that UUQT
affords such an opportunity, it suggests the ways how to regulate the values of
probabilities.

During the theoretical investigations, a numerous of calculations for the equation of

oscillating charge was performed, thus moment of particles falling with different
velocities were summarized and the result was compared to moment of reflected
particles. It was found out that for different repulsive potentials, a total momentum of
reflected particles is equal to momentum of the falling particles with a high accuracy,
but for a single scattering particle the value of momentum could be either less or more
than the momentum of the falling particle. This problem is very complicated and it
requires subsequent researches as all this depends on initial conditions (velocity,
phase, distance) complexly as well.

The prospects following from the UUQT are not even the most significant. Any flat
bans as the impossibility of perpetuum mobile creation and any other confirmations of

269
the immovability of conservation laws are unacceptable in philosophy. No, these laws
would never be neglected; but there would be such areas in science and technology,
very limited in the beginning, so that these laws would be not enough.

The problem of existing of the global conservation laws (we have proved that they are
not local laws) is left in abeyance. Nothing but the idleness and atavism of the human
thinking lead to it. But this idleness of thinking – concerning the physics – manifests
itself in the intuitive atavism for the Newton laws.

Yes, the conservation laws are incontestable in the classical mechanics and in terms of
this theory a continuously operating machine is theoretically impossible. It should be
stressed that the conservation laws were transferred to the Quantum Mechanics as an
object of worship of the classical mechanics. But the Quantum Mechanics is more
fundamental, Newton laws follow from it as a particular case. And if in the terms of
the Quantum Mechanics a possibility to get energy from nothing is theoretically
possible, thus a quantum perpetuum mobile could be constructed.

It is made possible by means of the equation with oscillating charge. It describes

single particles; the difference in their behavior depends on the initial phase of the
wave function, but there are no conservation laws for an individual particle at all, they
appear only after an ensemble averaging.The equation with an oscillating charge is
absolutely new type of motion equation (Sapogin, 1996;Sapogin at all, 2011a). For
such equation energy and impulse conversation laws do not exist. It appears at terms
of ensemble averaging. By the way Schrodinger mechanics also do not propose
energy conversation laws for small energies (it can offer only a probability of this or
that event happening) but it cannot advise how to combine processes and energy
liberation while UQT can. A theorem on the circulation does not work in the equation
with oscillating charge that allows to use different was to move charge from the point
A to the point B, but different ways operations will be diverse and this difference
should be used. The authors are trying to design new power plant working at these
principles. We think that such a plant will be able to produce energy with extremely
small charges. If such power program would be fulfilled on our Planet with no doubt
it will result in heat pollution of the environment. But UQT suggests a decision again:
we can construct refrigerating plants with feasibility of “Crematorium” solution where
Earth extra heat will disappear. Numerous experiments with the cold nuclear fusion
(including the latest of Andrea Rossi - Italy) have shown that nuclear reactions do
exist but the nuclear reactions’ products by themselves are not enough for the
explanation of huge amount of heat being produced. It is the responsibility of the
UQT solutions “Maternity home” (Sapogin at all, 2003, 2005, 2008a, 2011c). So it

270
looks like catalysis mechanism described above.Besides all the equation with
oscillating charge is quite good in describing the wave properties of the particle. We
predict that experiments on the diffraction reflection of electrons from the lattice
(classical experiments of Davisson–Germer) can be simulated by supercomputer, but
authors do not have such possibility.

Interestingly enough, there are apparatus called Testatik Machine M/L Converter
from religious group “Methernitha”, they belong to a religious Christian commune,
situated in Linden near Bern. Theirs maker is Swiss physicist Paul Baumann living in
the commune.These fantastic devices, direct current generators, are made as a four
dimensions type: with power value of 0.1, 0.3, 3 and 10 kW. Externally this device
resembles an electrostatic machine with Leyden jars, so familiar from school physics
laboratory. There are two acrylic discs with 36 narrow sectors of thin aluminium stuck
to it. The discs rotate in different directions and their mechanical energy is hundreds
times lower that produced energy – it accounts for about 100 mW in measurements.
The largest device with the power value of 10 kW has disc diameters more than 2 m,
and the smallest has 20 cm; the device with the power value of 3 kW has 20 kg in
weight. There is no cooling or heating of the air during the long operation of the
device, it just smells of ozone there. It was found out that the inventor doesn’t clearly
understand the principle of operation of the device.

Professor S. Marinov (Austria), whom the commune had given as a present the device
with the power value of 100 W wrote in his book called “Difficult way to the truth –
documents on the violation of conservation laws”, issued in 1989 by International
Publishers East-West: “I can confirm without any doubt that this device is a classical
perpetuum mobile. Without any initial impact, it could rotate an unlimited long period
of time and generate electrical energy equal to 100 W... In that device, the motor and
generator are connected... However, it is not clear how is it possible.“(back
translation).

The authors of the Unified Unitary Quantum Theory know approximately how this
device is constructed, but in this article we are going to do only what is absolutely
clear: we are going to show that the operation of this device completely corresponds
with the UUQT.Evidently, it operates due to the charge separation concept. Let us
consider two metallic spherical surfaces with a hole isolated from the Earth and from
each other. If we carry a first electron from sphere A to the inner surface of sphere B
through the hole by means of an isolated stick, then there appears a potential
difference. Further, if we carry the second one and the subsequent electrons, sphere A

271
would attract the carried charge, and B – would repeal it. It is clear that to move the
charge we will have to spend energy. (Fig. 7).

In the Technical University – MADI (Moscow) professor V.I. Uchastkin gives

lectures on the Unified Unitary Quantum Theory (UUQT) and new energy sources. In
his explanations, he uses the figurative analogy: “Let us consider a sack of potatoes
which mass is m. If we carried it to the fourth floor (the height is h), then we spend
the quantity of work opposite to the gravitational field which is equal to mgh. And if
we throw it down we would get kinetic energy mv2/2, and these quantities would be
equal to each other. But we could also carry not the whole sack, but every potato one
by one. The work of one quantum of a potato’s transfer depends on time, velocity and
coordinate, and it must be carried in such way that the spent wоrk would be minimal.
If you carry the whole sack in this way, you can get the quantity mv2/2 >mgh. So, there
are no changes in the system, but the energy has appeared.”

Prospects

Let us remember the problem about the maintenance of long-term flights to the outer
space with electricity. The Prof. Uchastkin’s analogy describes precisely a theoretical
approach for solving this problem. Of course, there is a great deal to do though, to
understand what phenomenon will play the role of those “quantum potatoes” and how
to construct an instrument that would be able to support a minimal energy to “bring
them to the fourth floor”.

How can a spaceship be supplied with energy during many months of flight? Near the
Earth, photovoltaic cells are used but the more the distance to the Sun is increasing,
the more needless they are; using of a nuclear energy source is problematical for
different causes. Today we can neither improve this situation considerably nor do we
have even any theoretical conditions which could let us approach it. On the base of
such a situation there are common ideas of the construction of matter and its
properties. Now then, a new conception of physics is being proposed. Like many
others as well. If we stay by the space technology, it’s over constructing of engines
based on new principles of energy production, maintaining of real-time
telecommunication on the distances in outer space, free of limits which are proper to
the diffusion of electromagnetic waves… It follows from the foregoing that UUQT
opens up a perspective of a solution for the communication problem on extremely
wide distances in outer space for it excludes the limits of information exchange
between Earth and spaceship. The theory also predicts the approaches to creating of

272
the new energy sources and of the new types of engines that would be almost ideal
for creating of spaceships of the future.

Conventional jet propulsions transform the conducted energy in the kinetic energy of
the beam of a working body flowing from the engine, and the reaction force of this
beam – the pulling force – accelerate the spaceship. Therefore space flights to
extremely wide distances will require huge stocks of working body.

A classical progression curve reflects the velocity increasing of a thrown-off mass of

the working body. Though there is a possibility for creating of a very weak constant
pulling – but! – without throwing off of mass.

Let us use the method of analogy again. Regard a classical trick problem in physics
for universities’ admission tests: there is a boat in motionless water and a man with a
sandbag in this boat. Can he move the boat by performing any manipulations with the
sandbag, for an endless time?

Correct answer: throw the sandbag from the front part of the boat to its back, then
carry it back slowly, throw it again and so on. As the viscous friction force by Stocks
is proportional to the velocity, the boat will perform swinging motions, over which
some linear movement will be applied. Based on this idea, marsch buggies were
constructed in Germany – there is heavy mass moving in there, in one direction
quickly and back slowly. Many decades ago, the same effect (Dean’s engine) was
wide-ragingly discussed in the USSR in popular science magazines and on TV.

There is a similar phenomenon in the classical electrodynamics as well as in the

quantum electrodynamics and it’s related to the Lorentz radiative friction force. The
appearance of Lorentz’ force becomes evident by considering the interaction of the
charge and the field caused by it.For a motionless charge the force of such an
interaction – or “self-action” – is equal to zero, otherwise the free charge would
experience a self-acceleration. The charge begins to move, but the electromagnetic
field, as its spread’s velocity is finite, can’t reschedule immediately. The accelerated
charge practically flies onto its own field; with other words, this effect can be
described as appearance of energy flow which is directed upstream to the flow and
slowing it down. It generates “electromagnetic viscosity” which value is related to the
acceleration.

How can this phenomenon be used? If there is a charge cloud in flat capacitor, it is
possible to make it swing between sheets with different values of acceleration
forwards and backwards by applying a sawing motion to the sheets. Because of
273
different forces of radiation friction in the alternate and opposite direction, pulling
force appears along the lines of electric field. The radiation of such accelerated
charges is always perpendicular to their movement and can be screened, but the most
important thing on it is the fact that it doesn’t change its impulse in relation to the
direction of the capacitor’s field.It may be paradoxical, but it seems that we get a
pulling force by spending energy for this process without throwing-off of any mass in
the direction, which is opposite to the motion’s one. The authors even published in the
US-magazine “Journal of New Energy” vol.5, #1, 2000 an article, containing an exact
analytical solution of this problem: the pulling of some micrograms appears in a flat

capacitor, containing a cloud of electrons in which the distance between the

sheets is many meters long, by applying of sawing potential of millions of volts.Of

course, it is an insignificant result in relation to such a huge (hypothetical) instrument
employment, and the using of electron cloud in a flat capacitor has practically no
prospects. But if stabile charged particles exist which mass is at least one-millionth of
electron mass, then this idea becomes very interesting from the technical point of
view. Do such stabile charged leptons exist at all and how is it possible to generate
them in a sufficiently large number? Today nobody can give an answer...

To generate pulling it is still possible to throw off the mass/ matter, “getting” it in a
specially created potential hole, accelerating in it in the same time. UUQT allows
such solution generally that is evident from the “Maternity home” solution.

Let us consider the results. UUQT will in future let us solve several basic problems of
the worldwide energy supply and all problems in outer space: immediate information
changing, the problem of energy supply and constructing of new engine types. It is
absolutely precipitant to make technical plans for those solutions, but the foregoing
should be considered not as a wanton imagination, but as a possible future
programmer of fundamental research to transpose our civilization to new physical
principles.
Evaluation of UQT ideas resulted in instinctively absolutely clear picture of quantum
events in terms of figures and movements. And philosophical principal of
Complementarity can be now hidden with well-deserved honors.In spite of
mathematical complexity Unitary Quantum Theory will stop ordinary Quantum
Mechanics paradox and consequently frank words of Richard Feynman: “I can easily
say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” will become the property of
history.
Moreover, by solving the QUT equations it became possible to obtain with the high
precision an electron charge, as for scalar telegraph UQT equation it gave with
appropriate precision mass spectrums of all elementary particles (Sapogin at all,

274
2008a, 2008b, 2010). The same spectrum was followed from the solution of the
Schrödinger and Klein-Gordon integro-differential equations. The risk of computed
mass spectrum being random is less than . Of course such results cannot be

obtained without sacrifice. What would we offered in sacrifice if replaced an

Ordinary Quantum Mechanics by the Unitary Unified Quantum Field Theory Field
(UUQFT)?
1. There are no in UUQFT strict principles of superposition. It is violated if wave
packets are colliding.
2. There are no strict close systems in UUQFT and the Conservation Laws works for
very big energies only. Note that the Conservation Laws forbid beginnings of the
Universe.
3. The classical relativistic relation between energy and impulses is valid in UUQFT
only after averaging of observed phenomena and Relativistic Invariance itself is not
"the sacred cow".
4. The Space in UUQFT is non homogenous and non isotropic.
5. The particles and their interaction are not local.
6. The existing Standard Model Quantum Theory of Elementary Particles requires
much alteration.
7. Thevelocityconceptasquotientfromdivisionof the traversed path tosome time
interval is not quite appropriate in UQT. If a wave packet (particle) is spreading along
the Megagalaxy and then appearing somewhere else, what should we do with the rate,
if nothing moves between the points of disappearance and arrival, does it mean that
particle has just simply disappeared and then appeared in a new place?
There was observed resembling crushing defeat of physics 50 years ago as "weak
interaction" burst, so to say, into physics.
As soon UQT is nonlinear it automatically combines all four interactions that can pass
from one into another at different distances.
Below we analyze the most important fields of science from UUQFT general physics
positions.
Lorentz transformations.
It’s quite complicated. The special relativity – is in fact Lorentz transformations
(1904) derived by V.Vogt (1887) in the century before last. These transformations
followed from the properties of Maxwell equations which are also proposed in the
nineteenth century (1873). One of these equations connecting electrostatic field
divergence and electric charge (Gauss' law of flux), in fact is just another
mathematical notation of Coulomb's law for point charges.
But today anybody knows that Coulomb’s law is valid for fixed point charges only. If
charges are frequently moving Coulomb’s law is not performed. Besides anybody
knows that lasers beams are scattered in vacuum one over another, which is absolutely
impossible in Maxwell equations. That means that Maxwell equations are
approximate - and for the moving point charges experimental results essentially
differs from the estimated ones in the case charges areas are overlapping.
Few people think about the shocking nonsense of presenting in any course of physics

275
of point charge electric field in the form of a certain “sun” with field lines
symmetrically coming from the point. But electric field – is a vector, and what for is it
directed? The total sum of such vectors is null, isn’t it?
There are no attempts to talk about, but such idealization is not correct. We should
note that Sir Isaak Newton did not used term of a point charge at all, but it’s ridiculous
to think that such simple idea had not come to him! As for Einstein, he considered
“electron is a stranger in electrodynamics”. Maxwell equations are not ultimate truth
and so we should forget, disavow the common statement about relativist invariance
requirement being obligatory “permission” for any future theory.
To reassure severe critics we should note that UQT is relativistically invariant, it
allows to obtain correct correlation between an energy and impulse, mass increases
with a rate, as for relativistic invariance just follow of the fact that the envelope of
moving packet is quiet in any (including non-inertial) reference systems. To be honest
we should note that subwaves the particles consist of are relativistically abnormal, at
the same time envelope wave function following from their movement confirms terms
of Lorentz transformations.
The success of Maxwell equations in description of the prior-quantum view of world
was very impressing. Its correlation of the classical mechanics in forms of
requirement to correspond Lorentz transformations was perfectly confirmed by the
experiments that all these had resulted in unreasoned statement of Maxwell equations
being an ultimate truth…
Other reasons for this were later very carefully investigated by a disciple of one of the
authors (L.S.), Professor Yu.L.Ratis. (S.Korolev Samara State Aero-Space
University), who has formulated the modern spinor quantum electrodynamics from
the UQT point of view:
1. Maxwell equations contain constant c, which is interpreted as phase velocity of a
plane electromagnetic wave in the vacuum.
2. Michelson and Morley have never measured the dependence of the velocity of a
plane electromagnetic wave in the vacuum on the reference system velocity as soon
plane waves were mathematical abstraction and it was impossible to analyze their
properties in the laboratory experiment in principle.
3. Electromagnetic waves cannot exist in vacuum by definition. A spatial domain
where an electromagnetic wave is spreading – is no longer a vacuum. Once
electromagnetic field arises in some spatial region at the same moment such domain
acquires new characteristic – it became a material media. And such media possesses
special material attributes including power and impulse.
4. Since electromagnetic wave while coming through the abstract vacuum (the
mathematical vacuum) transforms it in a material media (physical vacuum) it will
interact with this media.
5. The result of the electromagnetic wave and physical vacuum interaction are
compact wave packets, called photons.
6. The group velocity of the wave packet (photon) spreading in the media with the
normal dispersion is always less its phase velocity.
All abovementioned allows making unambiguous conclusion: the main difficulties of

276
the modern relativistic quantum theory of the field arise from deeply fallacious
presuppositions in its base. The reason for this tragic global error was a tripe
substitution of ideas – velocity of electromagnetic wave packets ‘c’ being transformed
in numerous experiments physics have construed as constant ‘c’ appearing in
Maxwell equations and Lorentz transformations. Such blind admiration of Maxwell
and Einstein geniuses (authors in no case do not doubt in the genius of these persons)
had led XX century physics up a blind alley. The way out was in the necessity of
revision of the entire fundamental postulates underlying the modern physics. Exactly
that was done by UUQFT.(Sapogin, 2010, 2011)

Some time ago CERN has conducted repeated experiments of the neutrino velocity
measurement that appeared to be higher than velocity of the light. For UUQFT they
were like a balm into the wounds. The administration of CERN renounced after
sometimes these results considering them as the consequence of experimental errors.
As far as the authors know, not all participants of this
experiment agree to such renouncing. Besides, many astronomers detect superluminal
velocities during observations of stars and galaxies.In fact the movements in excess of
the light velocity were discovered earlier by numerous groups of researches. Nearly
everybody disbelieved it. And now the neutrino movements exceeding the velocity of
the light were disclosed in CERN. The importance of these experiments for UUQFT
is settled in the article (Sapogin,2011) where at the page 69 it is written that “this
should be considered as direct experimental proof of UUQFT principle”.

Note, this question is terribly complicate and probably is to be leaved to next

generations. From one side, the time in UQT exists, so to say, in our head only. From
other side, the Lorenz Transformations describe correctly some experimental facts, for
example, the mass growing with velocity. Otherwise, all atomic accelerators would be
out of order. Thereafter, it is a big mistake to consider all Special Relativity Theory as
erroneous.
There are also other ideas. For example, at «New Relativistic Paradoxes and Open
Questions», by Florentin Smarandache, shows several paradoxes, inconsistencies,
contradictions, and anomalies in the Theory of Relativity. According to the author, not
all physical laws are the same in all inertial reference frames, and he gives several
counter-examples. He also supports superluminal speeds, and he considers that the
speed of light in vacuum is variable depending on the moving reference frame. The
author explains that the red shift and blue shift are not entirely due to the Doppler
Effect, but also to the medium composition (i.e. its physical elements, fields, density,
heterogeneity, properties, etc.).
Professor Smarandache considers that the space is not curved and the light near
massive cosmic bodies bends not because of the gravity only as the General Theory of
Relativity asserts (Gravitational Lensing), but because of the Medium Lensing.
In order to make the distinction between “clock” and “time”, he suggests a first
experiment with a different clock type for the GPS clocks, for proving that the
resulted dilation and contraction factors are different from those obtained with the
cesium atomic clock; and a second experiment with different medium compositions
277
for proving that different degrees of red shifts/blu shifts would result.
To regret, the authors today have no decisive position to these complicate questions.
Standard model
As soon relativistic invariance underlies every of the numerous quantum theories of
the field, it leaves a devilish imprint at everything. Nevertheless relativistic ratio
between energy and impulse although being absolutely correct in fact are not
obligatory follow from relativistic invariance only and can result from another
mathematical reasons that will be discovered in future. Nowadays Standard Model
(SM) combines the most elegant mathematical miracles of researches which hands
were tied with relativistic strait-jacket and it not so bad describes these experimental
data. Amazing that it was possible to think it out at all.
Nowadays to confirm SM one should find a Higgs boson and for this purpose the
governments of some countries assigned essential sums for the construction of Large
Hadron Collider (LHC). For entire SM the interaction with Higgs field is extremely
important, as soon without such a field other particles just will not have mass at all,
and that till lead into the theory destruction.
To start with we should note that the Higgs field is material and can be identified with
media (aether) as it was in former centuries. But SM authors as well as modern
physics have carefully forgotten about it. We would not like to raise here once again
the old discussion about it. It’s a quite complicated problem and let us leaves it to the
next generation.
But another problem of SM has never mentioned before: in the interaction with Higgs
field any particle obtains mass. As for Higgs boson itself, it is totally falling out of this
universal for every particle mechanism of mass generation! And that is not a mere
trifle, such “mismatching” being fundamental fraught with certain consequences for
SM.
After Higgs boson discovery nothing valuable for the world will happen except an
immense banquet. Of course boson will justify the waste of tens billions of Euros…
But even now some opinions in CERN are expressed that probably boson non-
disclosure will reveal a series of new breath-taking prospects… and where were these
voices before construction, we wonder? But that’s not the point! If this elusive particle
were the only weakness of SM!
To our regret today this theory cannot compute correctly the masses of elementary
particles including the mass of Higgs boson. More worse, that SM contains from 20
to 60 adjusting – arbitrary! - parameters (there are different versions of SM). SM does
not have theoretically proved algorithm for spectrum mass computation – and no
ideas how to do it!
All these bear strong resemblance to the situation with Ptolemaic model of Solar
system before appearance of Kepler’s laws and Newton’s mechanics. This earth-
centered model of the planets movement in Solar system at the moment of appearance
had required introduction of 40 epicycles, specially selected for the coordination of
theoretical forecasts and observations. Its description of planets positions was quite
good; but later to increase the forecasts accuracy it had required another 40 additional
epicycles… Good mathematicians know that epicycles are in fact analogues of

278
Fourier coefficients in moment decomposition in accordance with Kepler’s laws; so
by adding epicycles the accuracy of the Ptolemaic model can be increased too.
However that does not mean that the Ptolemaic model is adequately describing the
reality. Quite the contrary…
The Unitary Quantum Theory allowed computing the mass spectrum of elementary
particles without any adjusting parameters. By the way computed spectrum (Sapogin
at all, 2008ab, 2010) has particle with mass 131.51711 GeV (L=2, m=2). Once
desired it can be called Higgs boson, it lies within declared by the CERN+Tevatron
mass interval 125-140 GeV expected to contain Higgs boson. CERN promises to
obtain more precise mass value by December 2012.
Note the following remarkable fact: the standard theory allowed to detect spectra by
using always the quantum equations with outer potential and as corollaries to
geometric relations between de Broglie wave’s length and characteristic dimension of
potential function. The quantum equation of our theory do not contain the outer
potential and describe a particle in empty free space; the mass quantization arises
owing to the delicate balance of dispersion and non-linearity which provides the
stability of some wave packets number. It is the first case when spectra are detected
by using the quantum equations without outer potential.
Nuclear physics.
Nuclear physics as a part of quantum theory is very luckless. Thus the potential of the
strong interactions is so complicated that no one even very bulky and intricate
mathematical expression is able to describe with more or less veracity the experiments
of two nucleons interaction. This interaction depends in very complicated manner
from all parameters of the nucleons movement and their orientation towards vectors
of velocity, acceleration, spin, magnetic movement, etc. Scarcely one can find a
parameter which practice interaction does not depend on. From UQT point of view
the strong interactions appear in the result of nucleons represented by the wave
packets overlapping. Today the way of mathematical notation of the overlapping wave
packets interaction is absolutely vague as soon nonlinear interaction in any space-time
point of the waves is different due to different amplitudes.
It’s a really complicated problem as soon there is only one nonlinear mathematical
problem existing for each space-time point and even with the intuitive clearance of
situation we do not expects its soon solution. The complete understanding of the
nuclear structure hardly can be expected in the soonest time without exact expression
for the potential of the strong interaction.
In general it should be noted that quantum world looks more clear and simple in UQT
than in the general quantum mechanics, but we cannot repeat it while speaking about
the mathematics used. The appearance of the exact analytical solution of the scalar
problem of elementary particles mass spectrum can be considered as Fate gift (or
God’s help) for UQT. By the way the standard Schrödingerquantum mechanics has
the same gift – the exact analytical decision of the Hydrogen atom.
The nuclear process in terms of small energies should be reviewed. Today the strict
nuclear physics does not assume nuclear reactions at small energies that contradict
experimental data. Here we should also note our skepticism towards the idea of

279
nuclear fusion in Tokamaks, we consider this way as hopeless. To justify these
experiments we have to mention that the decision was made in the absentia of other
ideas and under the great pressure of the future power problems. But the use of the
reactions of classical cold fusion for the power output is also difficult due to the
complexity of colliding nuclei phasing. This phenomenon is well described by the
equation with oscillating charge, while the cold nuclear fusion had been predicted in
UQT 6 years before its real discovery (Sapogin, 1983).
Solid-state physics.
The band theory of solid is based at the point on the solution of the task of an electron
movement in the field of two or more charges. But this problem does not have
analytical solution jet, in practice a speculative quality solution is used only. The
results are that electrons in the solid have quite specific allowed power bands. This
field of the science is very successful and hardly will be revised. Any solution of the
equations with the oscillating charge for the electron moving in the field of few nuclei
also result in appearance of allowed and forbidden bands (Sapogin at all, 2003,
2005,2008a,2011a). Somewhat apart is classical tunneling effect. In UQT the
probability of tunneling effect appearance depends on the phase of the wave function
(in contrast to the ordinary quantum theory, where at the squaring of the wave
function module it dependence on the wave phase totally disappears). It could be
interesting to prove such dependence by the experiments. It can be easily done if
creating a new transistor on the basis of absolutely new principle of the electron
current control (Sapogin at all, 2011b).
We are not going to analyze the modern theory of superconductivity, but we are sure
that the equation with oscillating charge will deepen on both understanding of
superconductivity as well as mysterious properties of quantum liquids.
Astrophysics and Cosmology.
The authors regret not being in sympathized with the ideas of the Universe origin
from one singular point. The most amazing in this theory is a detailed computation of
events occurred in the first fractions of the second just after the Big Bang. Today
when the fundamental physics is making only first shy steps towards the real
understanding of the quantum processes we still do not have clear model of the
particles, or understanding of a spin appearance, a charge and magnetic moments.
According to UQT the processes of the multiple particle production at collision is a
common result of the waves packets of big amplitudes diffraction in periodic
structures one another, as for the multiple outgoing in different directions particles
they correspond to the general diffraction maximums. But we do not assume the
responsibility of the mechanism of the multiple particles production for the Universe
appearance. To our opinion the complete understanding of the quantum world will
arise only after solving of 32 nonlinear integro-differential equations of UQT
(Sapogin at all,1984,2003,2005,2008a). To their regret the authors like castrates in a
harem can only look at these equations.
And many cosmologists would like to use theories assuming existence Universe
localities where the energy is coming into being and also other localities where the
energy annihilates. For example, British astronomer Fred Hoyle has developed the

280
theory of Universe where it takes the place the continuous creation of matter. He
wrote:“… Different atoms constituting the matter do not exist at some given moment
of time and then after instant they exist already. I must admit this idea may look as
strange… But all our ideas about creation are strange. According to previous theories
the whole quantity of matter in Universe was coming into being just as whole and all
process of creation looks as super-gigantic instant explosion. As for me, such idea
seems much stranger, than idea of continuous creation…” F.Hoyle, La nature de
l’Universe, 1952.
The official astronomical science does not accept the ideas of F.Hoyle and of some
other astronomers (H.Bondi, T.Gold, and P.Jordan) about continuous creation of
matter in Universe because the Conservation Laws are considered as infallible. But
from the viewpoint of our UQT these ideas are quite not strange.
Our real ‘world’ continuum consists of an enormous quantity of particles moving with
different velocities. Partial waves of the postulated vanishing particles create real
vacuum fluctuations that change in a very random way. Certain particles randomly
appear in such a system, owing to the harmonic component energy of other vanished
particles. The number of such “dependant particles” changes, though; they suddenly
appear and vanish forever, as the probability of their reappearance is negligibly small,
and so we do expect that all particles are indebted to each other for their existence.
Yet, if some particles are disappearing within an object, other particles are arising at
the same moment in that object due to the contribution of those vanishing particles’
harmonic components –and vice versa. The simultaneous presence of all of the
particles within one discrete macroscopic object is unreal. Some constituent particles
vanish within the object while others appear. In general, a mass object is extant
overall, but is not instantaneously substantive and merely a ‘false’ image. It is clear
that the number of particles according to such a theory is inconstant and all their
ongoing processes are random, and their probability analysis will remain always on
the agenda of future research.
In accordance with UQT there are another solutions for the quantum harmonic
oscillator besides stationary, where the given tiny incipient fluctuation is growing,
gaining power and finally becoming a particle. It is so called "Mathernity Home”
solution. There are also other solutions where substance (power) is disappearing. Such
solutions have been called “Crematorium”. May be Metagalaxy is simply entangled in
searching the balance, isn’t it?
All this allows expecting that space continuum in the centers of Galaxies produces
different particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, which are the sources of light atoms.
Later thanks to the gravitation light atoms are transformed into gas nebulas where
under gravity compression the stars are lighting. It’s quite possible that the current
theory of Stars evolution is correct in general while describing (via Supernova) the
production of other atoms apart Hydrogen and Carbon the planets consist of. We do
not think nuclear process at small energies (which are possible in UQT, but
impossible in standard quantum theory) will essentially modify evolutionary view of
the Galaxies development.
It is interesting that the state with the minimum quantum values L=0,m=0 belongs to

281
the very heavy neutral scalar particle (WIMP) with our name Dzhan and mass about
69.6 TeV, which in principle should purely interact with the others (Sapogin at all,
2005, 2008ab, 2010). With the growth of the quantum numbers the mass of the
particle is diminishing. So there should be a lot of Dzhan-particles due to the small
quantum numbers. And probably their existence is responsible for the dark matter in
general, in accordance with some evaluations Metagalaxy consist of up to 80-90% of
the dark matter.
Gravitational theory.
No doubt that Gravitational theory should follow from 32 nonlinear integro-
differential equations of UQT and the authors are expecting that it can be done in
future (Sapogin at all, 1984, 2005, 2008a). Nevertheless we will make now some
conservative assertions. The current data regarding the Universe expansion can be
interpreted as the change of the gravitational potential sign (gravity is replacing by
repulsion) at great distances for the great masses. Probably the difference between
absolute the values of electric charge of a proton and a electron, say in 15 – 20 signs,
is responsible for his phenomena, but for us this idea is extremely unsympathetic. On
the other hand there is an impression that the variation of the gravity potential is
momentary and acts at the same time in all spatial domains (long-range action). Thus
any attempts to propose lateness correction of the changes of gravitational potential in
the planetary motion equation require the said changes to be occurred with velocities
which are many times higher than the velocity of light. Apart there is the question of
existence and velocities of the gravity waves, where is no clarity at all. It could be
clarified between 16 and 22 of July 1994 when comet Shoemaker-Levy had collided
with Jupiter, but humanity missed such possibility. At the moment of the comet huge
cores collision with the Jupiter ball of gas its surface should started radial oscillations
and created gravity waves, if they exist at all. It’s astonishing but astronomers all over
the world in every observatory were able to observe this phenomenon nearly in real
time conditions (the light was coming from Jupiter to the Earth about an hour), as for
the gravity specialists they had overslept such a chance to study gravity waves
velocity at all as far as the authors are informed. At the same time according to the
processed information (Hlistunov at all, 2011) from Russian Command-and-
Measuring Complex for the monitoring and control of the space objects at the entire
moment of collision geodesic satellites “Topex-Poceidon” and “GEO_IK” began
swaying at their orbits. Normally the orbit of a geodesic satellite lies inside the tube
with about 1 km diameter and the orbit can be control with the high accuracy – not
more than one meter precision for the position data and centimeters per second for
velocity. During the collision the sensors registered 5-8 times increase of the
trajectory tube diameter. In the same article Hlistunov at all on the basis of correlation
analysis of the position data measurements and information obtained from
earthquake-detection station it was shown that the waves of gravitational potential
variation were the trigger for earthquakes. To the authors’ regret they do not have the
similar information from NASA.
Chemical catalysis.
The process of chemical catalysis and the catalysts are the great mystery of the

282
modern science. The number of chemical catalysis theories equals the number of
chemical catalytic processes. Specialist of chemical catalysis used to think that this or
that reaction is not being processed only if a special catalyst has not been found. Even
Michael Faraday studied these problems. He seems to say platinum black being the
universal catalyst. Only this (while platinum practically does not react with anything)
immediately suggests an idea that chemical processes are not enabled at all and we
should look for the physical universal mechanism of reactions.
The UQT has such a process. The details are listed in the articles (Sapogin at all,
2003, 2005, 2008a, 2011c). The universal mechanism of heterogeneous catalysis for
example in Ammonia synthesis consists of the following: Nitrogen molecular falls
into a cavity (hole) of the catalyst few tens of Angstrom unit size. At some initial
terms molecular starts oscillating with an energy augmentation implementing thus
solution “Maternity home” like in a normal potential well. If the augmented energy
excesses the binding energy of molecular Nitrogen then atomic Nitrogen at the exit
from the cavity will be caught by protons (Hydrogen), form Ammonia and then quit
the game and free cavity for the new deeds.
We are sure that in such a way water can be decomposed for Oxygen and Hydrogen.
At normal conditions the mixture of Oxygen and Hydrogen is stable. In other words
two stable substances (water and gas mixture) are simply divided by a high energy
barrier, that can be overcome (tunneling effect analogue) by using the exact catalyst
and the UQT ideas. For today a lot of experiments of water decompositions are
known, the energy evolved in the process of hydrogen combustion is ten times higher
than necessary for decomposition. It makes possible to design an engine running from
water.
Conclusion
It seems that if UQT were correctly describing the world properties the radical
transformation of the civilization would be possible. In conclusion we should express
our astonishment that UQT is incomprehensible for any thinking person, it’s a
mystery to us.

We are concluding by reminding of the prophetical words of the famous US science-

fiction author Arthur Clarke: “Something that is theoretically possible will be
achieved practically independent of technical difficulties. It’s enough to desire it.”
(back translation)- Profiles of the Future, 1963.
We would like to add the amazing phrase of A. de Saint-Exupéry: “The truth is not
something that could be proved, but something that makes all things easy and clear”
(back translation).
Acknowledgements:
The authors thank for discussions to professors F. Smarandache, V.A.Boichenko,
A.S.Bogomolv, V.V.Graboshnikov,Yu.P.Savin, V.I.Uchastkin.
REFERENCES:
Jammer M. (1961). Concepts of mass in classical and modern physics. Harvard
University Press.

283
Sapogin L.G. (1973). «United Field and Quantum Mechanics», System Researches
(Physical Researches) Acad. Science USSR, Vladivostok, 2, pp. 54-84, (Russian).
Sapogin L.G. (1979). «On Unitary Quantum Mechanics». NuovoCimento, vol. 53A,
No 2, p.251.
Sapogin L.G. (1980). “A Unitary Quantum Field Theory”. Annales de la Fondation
Louis de Broglie, vol.5, No 4, p.285-300.
Sapogin L.G. (1982a). A Statistical Theory of Measurements in Unitary Quantum
Mechanics. NuovoCimento, vol.70B, No.1, p.80.
Sapogin L.G. (1982b). A Statistical Theory of the Detector in Unitary Quantum
Mechanics. NuovoCimento, vol.71B, No.3 , p.246.
Sapogin L.G. (1983), Journal «Technics for a young», No.1, page 41. (Russian).
SapoginL.G. ,Boichenko V.A., (1984). “On the Equation of the Unitary Quantum
Theory”. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, vol. 9, No.3, p.221.
Sapogin L.G., Boichenko V.A. (1988). “On the Solution of One Non-linear
Equation”. NuovoCimento, vol.102B, No 4, p.433.
Sapogin L.G., Boichenko V.A. (1991). “On the Charge and Mass of Particles in
Unitary Quantum Theory”. NuovoCimento, vol.104A, No 10, p.1483.
Sapogin, L.G.,I.V.Kulikov (1995) “Cold Nuclear Fusion in the Unitary Quantum
Theory», Chinese Journal of Nuclear Physics, vol.17, No 4, p.360-370,.
Sapogin, L.G. (1996) “Cold Nuclear Fusion and Energy Generation Processes in
Terms of the
Schroedinger Equation”. Chinese Journal of Nuclear Physics vol.19,#2, p.115-120,
1996
Sapogin L.G., RyabovYu.A., Utchastkin V.I. (2003). Unitary Quantum Theory and a
New Energy Sources. Ed. MADI, Moscow, (Russian).
Sapogin L.G., RyabovYu.A, Boichenko V.A. (2005). Unitary Quantum Theory and a
New Sources of Energy, Archer Enterprises, Geneva, NY, USA.
Sapogin L.G., Ryabov Yu. A., Boichenko V. A. (2008a). Unitary Quantum Theory and
a New Sources of Energy, Ed. Science-Press, Moscow, (Russian, transl. from
English).
Sapogin L.G., Ryabov Yu. A. (2008b). «On the mass spectrum of elementary particles
in Unitary Quantum Theory», The Old and New Concepts of Physics, Vol. 5, No 3
www.uni.lodz.pl/concepts
Sapogin L.G., Dzhanibekov V.A.(2008c), Journal «Technics for a young», No.9,11,
February (Russian).
Sapogin L.G., Ryabov Yu. A. (2010). «New Theoretical Results about the Mass
Spectrum of Elementary Particles». Applied Physics Research, vol. 2, No 1, p.86-
98, May. www.ccsenet.org/apr
Sapogin L.G.(2010),”About Unitary Quantum Field Theory” Applied Physics
Research, vol. 2, No 2, p.114-140, November. www.ccsenet.org/apr
Sapogin L.G., Ryabov Yu. A. (2011a). "Approximation Equations with oscillating
charge in Unitary Quantum Theory and its applications to the analysis of some
quantum problems." International Journal of Applied Science and
Technology,Vol.1, No 5, September. www.ijastnet.com

284
Sapogin L.G., Dzhanibekov V.A., Sapogin V.G. (2011b).” A new approach to control
electroncurrent in Unitary Quantum Theory”. International Journal of Applied
Science and Technology,Vol.1,No.6, November.www.ijastnet.com
Sapogin L.G., Ryabov Yu. A. (2011c).”Unitary Quantum Theory and Catalytic Process
Theory.” International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences and Technolodgy
3(2),pp.93-120 www.ijopaasat.in
Sapogin L.G.(2011),”An Unitary Unified Quantum Field Theory” Global Journal of
Science Frontier Research,vol.11, Issue 4,Version 1.0, July.
Sapogin L.G. (2012), Journal «Technics for a young», No.2, page 2-11, February
(Russian).
Sapogin L.G., Ryabov Yu. A.,Dzhanibekov V.A. (2012a),"Problems in the Unitary
Quantum View of the World" International Journal of Applied Science and
Technology,Vol.2, No .5, May. www.ijastnet.com
Sapogin L.G.,Dzhanibekov V.A. (2012b),"Object Lessons of the Unitary Quantum
Theory " Journal of Modern Physics and Applied ,Vol., No .1 page 1-22,
http://scik.org
Smarandach Florentin (2012) “New Relativistic Paradoxes and Open Questions”,
Somipress.
Wang L.J. etc. (2000). “Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation”, Nature, 406,
p.277-279.
W.Hlistunov,Poduvalcev V.V.,Mogilyuk J.G. (2011) ”Science and Education”-pub.
electronic scientific and technical periodic #11,November.

Figures

Figure 1. Experiments with individual photons on semitransparent mirror

285
Figure 2. Behaviour of wave packet in linear dispersion medium
(i.e., rather like a series of stroboscopic photographs).

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

286
 Figure 5. Experiments of L.Wang - superluminal light propagation.

Figure 6.

Figure 7. Work for transferring the charge depends on the mode of transferring and on
the path.

287
 Questioning the Special and General Relativity

Florentin Smarandache
University of New Mexico
705 Gurley Ave., Gallup, NM 87301, USA
[email protected]

Abstract. In this paper one revisits several paradoxes, inconsistencies, contradictions,

and anomalies in the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Also, one re-
proposes new types of Relativities and two physical experiments

1. Introduction.
We have published two books [1, 2] questioning the special and general
theories of relativity.
a) In the first book we presented our 1972 hypothesis that there is no speed
barrier in the universe and one can construct arbitrary speeds -thus
refuting the speed of light postulate.
While Einstein considered a relative space and relative time but the ultimate speedof
light, we do the opposite: we consider an absolute time and absolute space but no
ultimate speed, and we call it the Absolute Theory of Relativity (ATR). The ATR has
no time dilation, no length contraction, no relativity of simultaneity, and no relativistic
paradoxes.
We then parameterize Einstein’s thought experiment with atomic clocks,
supposing that we know neither if the space and time are relative or absolute, nor if
thespeed of light is ultimate speed or not. We obtain a Parameterized Special Theory
ofRelativity (PSTR). Our PSTR generalizes not only Einstein’s Special Theory of
Relativity,but also our ATR, and introduces three more possible Relativities to be
studied in the future.
Afterwards, we extend our research considering not only constant velocities
butconstant accelerations too.
Eventually we proposed a NoninertialMultirelativity for the same thought
experiment, i.e. considering non-constant accelerations and arbitrary 3D-curves.

b) In the second book we considered that not all physical laws are the same in
all inertial reference frames, and we gave several counter-examples. We also
supported superluminal speeds, and we considered that the speed of light in
vacuum is variable depending on the moving reference frame. Space and
time are absolute (universal), and separated from each other. Lorentz
contraction and Minkovski’s metric are unrealistic.
We explained that the redshift and blueshift are not entirely due to the Doppler
Effect, but rather to the Medium Gradient and Refraction Index (which are
288
determined by the medium composition: i.e. its physical elements, fields, density,
heterogeneity, properties, etc.).
We considered that the space is not curved and the light near massive cosmic
bodies bends not because of the gravity only as the General Theory of Relativity
asserts (Gravitational Lensing), but because of the Medium Lensing.
In order to make the distinction between “clock” and “time”, we suggested a
first experiment with a different clock type for the GPS clocks, for proving that the
resulted dilation and contraction factors are different from those obtained with the
cesium atomic clock; and a second experiment with different medium compositions
for proving that different degrees of redshifts/blushifts and different degrees of
medium lensing would result.

In the next sections we revisit several relativistic inconsistencies and we

propose new research directions.

2. Multirelativity with Nonconstant Acceleration and 3D-Curves.

In a 3D-Euclidean space for location and in an1D-oriented Euclidean space for

time we consider a reference frame F1 with respect to which a particle P0 travels with
a nonconstant acceleration a0 on a 3D curve C0 in an elapsed time ∆t0.
Then we suppose the reference frame F1 is moving with nonconstant acceleration
a1on a 3D curve C1 with respect to another reference frame F2. Similarly, the
reference frame F2 is moving with a nonconstant acceleration a2 on a 3D curve C2
with respect to another reference frame F3.
And so on: the reference frame Fn-1 is moving with a nonconstant acceleration an-1 on
a 3D curve Cn-1 with respect to another reference frame Fn (where n>2).
We call this a NoninertialMultirelativity, i.e. the most general case.
2.1. Research Problems on
Multirelativity.
a) How would the particle’s trajectory
curve C0 be seen by an observer in the reference frame Fn ?
b) What would be the particle’s speed
(acceleration) as measured by the observer from the reference frame Fn ?
c) What would be the elapsed time of the
particle as seen by the observer in the reference frame Fn ?
d) What are the transformation equations
from a reference frame to another?
e) Similar questions for rotating reference
systems.

Particular cases would be helpful in starting such research, for example

studying particles or reference frames travelling on linear curves, or on special
curves, with constant speeds or constant accelerations, in reference frames that
289
 have one, two, or three parallel coordinate axes. Then later trying to generalize the
results.

2.2. Example in Multirelativityof

Nonlinear 3D-Trajectories of Particle and Reference Frames.

Since each constant speed v can be considered a constant zero-acceleration with

initial velocity v, we treat the general case (i.e. the constant acceleration).
Let’s consider in the reference frame F1 a particle P0traveling on a curve C0 from A to
B:

B B’

C0

A
Fig. 1
with a constant acceleration a0 and initial velocity v0. Let’s take into consideration the
earth’s gravity g too that influences the trajectory.
F1 (which has the Cartesian system X1Y1Z1) is moving with a constant acceleration a1
with initial velocity v1 in the positive direction of the X1-axis (the OY1- and OZ1-axes
are parallel respectively with OY2 and OZ2) with respect to the frame F2 (whose
Cartesian system is X2Y2Z2).
The arclength of AB is noted by d.
→
From an observer in F2 the trajectory AB of the particle P0 in F1 is seen as a 2D- or
→
3D-curve AB ' .
The curve AB’ is described in F2 by a function
f (a0 , v0, a1, v1, g, C0, A, B,θ ) = ( x2(t), y2(t), z2(t))
(1)

i.e.
∆t 2 2 2
ArcLength(AB') = ∫ [ x2 '(t)] +[ y2 '(t)] +[ z2 '(t)] dt ≡ L(∆t ', ∆t)
0 (2)

where x2’(t), y2’(t), z2’(t) are respectively the derivatives of x2(t), y2(t), z2(t) with

respect to t, and L(∆t’,∆t) is a notation to mean that the arclengthL, from A to B’,

depends on ∆tand also on d, but d depends on ∆t’.

The distance traveled by the reference frame F1 in ∆t elapsed time is

290
 1 2
s1 = v1 (∆t ) + a1 (∆t )
2 (3)
Supposing that particle’s traveling is seen as a constant acceleration by the observer in
F2, then we have:
1 2
L ( ∆t ' , ∆t ) = x v0 (∆t ) + x a0 (∆t ) (4)
2
where x v0 = the initial particle’s velocity as seen by the observer in F2,

and x a0 = the particle’s constant acceleration as seen by the observer in F2.

1 2
We know that in F1: AB = d = v 0 (∆t ') + a 0 (∆t ') . (5)
2
Depending on the suppositions regarding he connections between ∆t’ and ∆t (in an
absolute time reference frame they are equal), or on the supposition about the

acceleration of the particle x a0 and x v0 we get particular cases in formula (1).

The reader can repeat this thought experiment for the case when the
accelerations a0and a1 are not constant, and the reference frame F1 is moving with
respect to the reference frame F2 on an arbitrary 3D-curve.

3. Length Contraction is Independent of Time

The length contraction is, according to the Theory of Relativity, along the
direction of the motion. And if the length is perpendicular on the direction of
motion there is no contraction (according to the same theory).

My question is this: it looks that the length contraction is independent of time

(according to the Theory of Relativity)!... i.e. if a rocket flies one second, or the
rocket flies one year the rocket's along-the-motion length contraction is the same,
since the contraction factor

(6)

depends on the rocket's speed (v) and on the light speed in vacuum (c) only.
I find this as unfair, incomplete. It is logical that flying more and more should
increase the length contraction.
What about the cosmic bodies that continuously travel, do they contract only
once or are they continuously contracting?

291
4. Elasticity of Relativistic Rigid Bodies?

In the classical Twin Paradox, according to the Special Theory of Relativity,

when the traveling twin blasts off from the Earth to a relative velocity v = with

respect to the Earth, his measuring stick and other physical objects in the direction of
relative motion shrink to half their lengths.

How is that possible in the real physical world to have let’s say a rigid rocket
shrinking to half and then later elongated back to normal (as an elastic material)? It is
more science fiction…

What is the explanation for the traveler's measuring stick and other physical objects,
in effect, return to the same length to their original length in the Stay-At-Home, but
there is no record of their having shrunk? Where this quantity of Joules of energy
come from in order to shrink and then tacitly elongate back the stick?

If it's a rigid (not elastic) object, how can it shrink and then elongate back to normal? It
might get broken in this situation. This is like a science game…

5. Relativistic Masses vs. Absolute Masses

Similarly, the relativistic masses are considered as increasing when traveling at a

relativistic speed. But if the object is rigid, doesn’t it break?

And, by the way, not all masses are variable, there exist absolute masses in the
universe.

6. Miraculous Return to the Original Length!

A rocket has length L at rest, afterwards in flying the length shrinks to L·C(v), then
suddenly stops. According to the Special Theory of Relativity the rocket’s length
L·C(v) tacitly returns to its original length! [As the rocket was made of… plasticizer!]

7. Miraculous Return to the Original Mass!

Similarly, assume the rigid rocket’s mass at rest is M; after flying this mass increases
to M/C(v). Then, when the rockets stops, according to the Special Theory of Relativity
the mass tacitly… returns to its original value (as it was elastic… rocket!).

8. Symmetry and Asymmetry!

In some examples, the Special Theory of Relativity considers a symmetric time

dilation of two inertial reference frames.
But in other examples, such as in the GPS position system where the satellite
292
clocks are slowed because of the satellite velocity, it considers an asymmetric time
dilation of two inertial reference frames.
As in the cause of the Twin Paradox, the time dilation was simply… abandoned!
Again an auto-contradiction.

9. Physical and Non-Physical Time Dilation!

The proponents of the Special Theory of Relativity contradict themselves when

for some examples they say there is a physicaltime dilation (e.g. for particle
accelerators, GPS, VBLI, NASA), and for other examples there is a non-physical time
dilation (for interpreting the Twin Paradox).
This is a self-contradiction.
In the Absolute Theory of Relativity [2] one considers an absolute space, absolute
time, absolute observer, and superluminal speeds are allowed. Superluminal
phenomena do not involve traveling in time, neither objects traveling at c to having
infinite masses, nor objects at superluminal speeds to having imaginary masses.
The speed of light in vacuum is not "c" in all reference frames, but varies. It depends
on the speed of its frame of reference and on the observer’s frame of reference.
Simultaneity does exist and it is objective in nature.
ATR has no time dilation, no length contraction, no relativitistic simultaneities, and all
STR paradoxes disappear in ATR.

10. Density Increasing?

According to the Special Theory of Relativity the mass of a moving object increases
with the speed of the object, but what really increases: the object density, the object
volume, or both?

Because:

Mass = Volume × Density (7)

and since the object length decreases (in the direction of movement), then should we
understand that the object volume also decreases?

a) What is the Mass-Increasing Factor equal to?

Einstein himself disliked the concept of relativistic mass given by the formula:

m
M (v ) =
v2
1− 2
c (8)

wherem = rest mass,

293
 andM = relativistic mass of the object moving at speed v.

b) What is the Volume-Increasing Factor equal to?

c) What is the Density-Increasing Factor equal to?

11. The Mass Paradox

The increasing in a moving frame of reference gives birth to another paradox.

If there are n ≥ 2 simultaneous observers, each one moving with a different speed
v1, v2, …, and respectively vn with respect to the body, then the mass of the body
has simultaneously n different values, M(v1), M(v2), …, M(vn) respectively in the
previous formula, which is impossible and ridiculous in practice, alike in the
paradoxism movement.
12. Another Superluminal Thought Experiment

Suppose we have two particles A and B that fly in the opposite direction from the
fixed point O, with the speeds v1 and respectively v2 with respect to an observer that
stays in the point O, as in the below figure:

A B
O
Fig. 2
Let’s consider that v1 + v2 ≥ c.
A) But, an observer that travels with particle A (therefore he is at rest with
particle A) measures the speed of particle B as being v =v1 + v2 ≥ c.

Similarly for an observer that travels with particle B: he measures the speed of
particle A as also being superluminal: v =v1 + v2 ≥ c.
B) If we suppose v1 = c and v2> 0, then for the observer that travels with particle
A his speed with respect to observer in O is c. But, in the same time, for the
observer that travels with particle A his speed with respect to particle B should
be greater that c, otherwise it would result that particle B was stationary with
respect to observer in O. It results that c + v2> c for non-null v2, contrarily to
the Special Theory of Relativity.

C) Let’s recall several of Einstein’s relativistic formulas:

a) Time Dilation Formula is:

∆t '
∆t (v) =
v2
1− 2
c (9)
where∆t = non-proper time,
and∆t’ = proper time.

294
b) Length Contraction Formula is:

v2
L(v) = L '. 1 − 2
c (10)
whereL = non-proper length,
andL’ = proper length.

c) Relativistic Momentum Formula of an object of mass m, moving with speed

v, is:
mv
p (v ) = . (11)
v2
1− 2
c
d) Energy Formula of an object at rest, with rest mass m, is
E0 = mc2. (12)
e) The Total Energy Formula of an object of mass m, moving at speed v, is:
mc 2
E (v ) = . (13)
v2
1− 2
c
f) Kinetic Energy Formula of an object of mass m, moving at speed v, is:
 
 
1
E (v) = mc 2  − 1
 v 2 . (14)
 1− 2 
 c 
Let’s consider instead of particles two objects A and B flying in opposite directions as
above.
C1) Firstly, when a clock goes at speed c with respect to any observer frame,
the Special Theory of Relativity breakdown (because time dilates to infinity,
length contracts to zero, relativistic momentum is infinity, the total energy and
the kinetic energy are also infinite)! One actually gets the indeterminacy 1/0.
Similarly in Lorentz Relativity for a clock going at speed c with respect to the
Preferred Frame.

C2) Not talking about superluminal speeds for which, according to the Special
Theory of Relativity, the non-proper time, non-proper length, relativistic
momentum, total energy and kinetic energy becomes… imaginary!

D) We have hypothesized [2] that

superluminal particles do exist and they do not necessitate infinite energy for
295
 traveling since the above Einstein’s 2.13.C a)-f) relativistic formulas are valid in
an imaginary space, not in the real one.

13. Another Dilemma about Length Contraction

The distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri (which is the closest star to our solar
system) is 4.3 light-years, as measured by an observer on our planet.
A particle travels from Alpha Centauri to Earth at speed v = c (for example a photon)
relative to the observer on Earth.
According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity:

. (15)

(16)
whereL’ = proper length (which is the distance between two points measured by an
observer at rest with respect to them);
L = non-proper length (distance between two points measured by an observer
that is not at rest with respect to them);
v = constant speed of the moving reference frame;
c = speed of light in vacuum.
Therefore the contracted length:

, (17)

which is a contradictory result since the distance between Alpha Centauri and Earth is
much far from zero, and even from the reference frame of the moving photon it takes
to the photon 4.3 light-years to get to Earth.
14. The Paradox of Simultaneity: Who is the Killer?

We change Einstein’s thought experiment on simultaneity in the following way. Let’s

consider a train moving as below from left to right:

A M B

A’ M’ B’
Fig. 3. The Paradox of Simultaneity
And a passenger Marcello in the middle point M of AB. A and B are the end and
respectively the beginning of the train. Assume that in the train at the joints A and B
there are Alex and respectively Barbara carrying each of them a gun of same caliber
and bullet speed. Simultaneously, according to an observer Ot who stays at the
midpoint M in the train, Alex and Barbara fatally shoot Marcello in the heart.
Therefore according to observer in the train Ot, both Alex and Barbara are guilty of
first degree murder, since both their bullets penetrate Marcello’s heart in the same

296
time. Therefore Alex and Barbara are both killers.
Let’s consider another observer Oe on the embankment, who sits at the midpoint M’
which coincides with M. Similarly on the embankment the points A’ and B’ coincide
respectively with A and B. According to the observer on the embankment, Oe, upon
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity because the train moves from left to right,
Barbara’s bullet penetrates Marcello’s heart and kills him before Alex. Therefore
Barbara is a killer.
But Alex is not a killer, since his bullet arrives later than Barbara’s, therefore Alex’s
bullet penetrates a dead body (not a living body). According to the observer on
embankment, Oe, it’s Barbara who fired the gun before Alex did.
Contradiction.
14.1. The Dilemma of Simultaneity

Let’s consider two entangled particles A and B flying in the opposite directions. Let’s
assume they are so far away that light needs much time to travel from A to B.
If A is in state s, it instantaneously causes B to be in state s too.
We disagree with Theory of Relativity’s statement that there are no influences that
travel faster than light.
According to the Special Theory of Relativity we have:
A) For an observer O1,traveling with particle A at time t, the event “A is in state s”
occurs before the event “B is in state s”.
B) For another observer O2,traveling with particle B at time t, the event “A is in
state s” occurs after the event “B is in state s”.
C) But these two observers are in contradiction with a quantum observer O3,
which sits in the point M, where the particles started to fly from. O3,
measuring particle A to be in state s at time t, will automatically know that
particle B is in state s as well. Therefore, for the quantum experimenter O3 the
particles A and B are simultaneously in the state s.

A M B
Fig. 4
14.2. Relativity of Simultaneity is Just an Appearance

In general let’s consider two simultaneous events in a reference frame at rest with
respect to the events.
In a moving reference frame, the same events don’t look simultaneous, but this is only
an appearance, a subjective impression.
In our Absolute Theory of Relativity we have no relativity of simultaneity.
15. Minowski’sSpacetime in Heterogeneous Medium

In general, let’s consider two simultaneous events in a reference frame at rest with
respect to the events. In a moving reference frame the same events don’t look
simultaneous, but this is only an appearance.
297
Let’s consider the locations L1(x1, y1, z1) and L2(x2, y2, z2) and times t1 < t2. The
spacetime distance between the events E1 = {I bread} at (x1, y1, z1 ,t1), and E2 = {I
bread} at (x2, y2, z2, t2) gives the answer:

(18)
Let’s say that d(E1, E2) = 0, then d(E1, E2) means that light has travelled in vacuum
from location L1 to location L2 in the period of time t2 - t1.
L2
L1
Fig. 5
But we see no connection between the fact that “I bread” and the fact that “light
travels in vacuum on a distance equals to |L1L2|”!
Let’s change this thought experiment and suppose that both locations L1(x1, y1, z1) and
L2(x2, y2, z2) are under water, somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Now light in the water
has a smaller speed (cw) than in vacuum, i.e. cw< c. Therefore within the same
interval of time t2 - t1, light travels in the water a lesser distance than L1L2. Thus d(E1,
E2) has a different representation now L1L:
L2
L1 L
Fig.6
And, if instead of water we consider another liquid, then d(E1, E2) would give another
new result.
Therefore, if we straightforwardly extend Minkowski’sspacetime for an aquatic only
medium, i.e. all locations Li(xi, yi, zi) are under water, but we still refer to the light
speed but in the water (cw) then the coordinates of underwater events Ew would be
Ew(xi, yi, zi ,cw, ti) and Minkowski underwater distance would be:

(19)
But if the underwater medium is completely dark it might be better to consider the
speed of sound as aquatic animals used in order to communicate (similarly as
submarines use sonar). Let’s denote by sw the underwater speed of sound. Then the
underwater events Ews(xi, yi, zi ,sw.ti) with respect to the speed of sound would have
the Minkowski underwater distance:

(20)
Similarly for any medium M where all locations Li(xi, yi, zi) are settled in, and for
speed of any waves W that can travel from a location to another location in this

298
medium.
15.1. Spacetime Diagram Didn’t Take into Account the Medium
Composition

The problem becomes more complex when one has a heterogeneous medium and the
waves travel with a speed v1 in a part and another speed v2 in another part, and so on
[we mean the speed of light in liquids, in plastic, in glass, in quartz, in non-vacuum
space in general]…
15.2. The Spacetime-Interval does not Distinguish Between Events’
Nature.

If an event E1 occurs at location L1(x1, y1, z1) and time t1, and another event E2
occurs at the location L2(x2, y2, z2) and time t2, with t1 <t2, in the Minkowskispacetime,
the squared distance d2(E1, E2) between them is the same and equal to:

(21)
no matter what kind of events we have!
For example, if one has the event E1={John drinks} and the event
E2={George eats}, there is no connection between these two events. Or if one
has two connected events: E1={Arthur is born} and E2={Arthur dies}. There

should be at least one parameter [let’s call it “N”] in the above

spacetime coordinate formula representing the event’s nature.
15.3. The Real Meaning of the Spacetime-Interval
The spacetime interval is measured in light-meters. One light-meter means the
time it takes the light to go one meter, i.e. 3x10-9 seconds. One can rewrite the
spacetime interval as :

. (22)

There are three possibilities:

a) means that the Euclidean distance L1L2 between locations L1 and

L2 is travelled by light in exactly the elapsed time . The events of

coordinates (x, y, z, t) in this case form the so-called light cone.

b) means that light travels an Euclidean distance greater than L1L2 in the

elapsed time The below quantity in meters:

299
 (23)
means that light travels further than L2 in the prolongation of the straight line

L1L2 within the elapsed time .

The events in this second case form the time-like region.

means that light travels less on the straight line L1L2. The below
quantity, in meters:

(24)

means how much Euclidean distance is missing to the travelling light on straight
line L1L2, starting from L1 in order to reach L2.
The events in this third case form the space-like region.
We consider a diagram with the location represented by a horizontal axis (L) on

, the time represented by a vertical axis (t) on perpendicular on (L),

and the spacetime distance represented by an axis ( ) perpendicular on the plane of

the previous two axes. Axis ( ) from is extended down as ( ) on

300
 Fig. 7

16. Relative or Absolute?

It is strange the fact that the space is considered relative and time also relative in the
Theory of Relativity, but the so-called spacetime is absolute; this is an oxymoron.
Transforming time into space, or reciprocally, is just a funny concoction, but unreal.
Since the spacetime is absolute, it is not clear if anything is relative in the Theory of
Relativity or not?
17. Controller is not Aware

Let’s assume that the controller is not aware of the flying rocket. Then does it still
exist a time dilation for the controller and space contraction for the astronaut? The
relativists again say that it is “meaningless” (undecidable). But what kind of theories
give birth to undecidable propositions? Incomplete or inconsistent theories.
18. Distorted Bodies

By space contraction, the bodies are distorted, i.e. the proportions are not kept and
angles in general are not invariant (only the right angles formed by body’s edges
perpendicular on other body edges along the motion are invariant). For the right
triangle:
A
0
c 90 b

B a C motion direction
Fig. 8

with A= , but after lengths’ contraction, the edges become:

(25)

(26)

(27)

But in general

, so , or . (28)

19. Pure Gravitational Field?20

The General Theory of Relativity asserts that it is possible to have a pure gravitational
field, without any matter at all, which acts as a source for itself.
Then the following questions arise: What does happen to the cosmic travelling small,
medium and massive objects to the atomic and sub-atomic particles in this pure
301
gravitational field? Do they fall to the bottom of the pure gravitational field, and do
they eventually form a compact cosmic body whose own gravitational field is this
pure gravitational field?
Does it exist any experiment proving that gravity influences light speed or light
trajectory? Does indeed gravity attract light?
{The light escaping or not a gravitational field in General Theory of Relativity or in a
Black Hole can be considered if it has been experimentally proven that light is
influenced by gravity.}
Also, if mass produces gravity and gravity produces mass, then it results that pure
gravitational field will produce/generate some mass. How? Will objects, dust,
particles be attracted in and condensed into a compact body inside of this pure
gravitational field?
20. Other Pure Fields?

As a generalization of the previous Pure Gravitational Field, is it possible to have

a Pure Magnetic Field, or Pure Electric Field, or Pure Electromagnetic Field, etc.
without matter in its proximity?
21. Conservation Law for Gravity?
A) If a planet explodes or is destroyed, what does happen to the planet
gravitational field? Does it disappear? Does there exist a conservation law for
gravity?

For example: If a planet is split into n>2 parts, will the planet gravitational
field be also split among these n parts?
Is the gravitational field conserved or transformed? If transformed, would it be
into energy?
22. What Happens to the Curved Space around a Massive Object that has been
Destroyed?

A) According to the General Theory of Relativity the space is curved around a

massive object. Then, after the planet explodes (due to internal forces) or
destroyed (because of external forces) does the space around it still remain
curved or does it straighten back to flat?

How would the disappearance of a planet impact the other planets? Will its
orbit be occupied by another cosmic object that might be forming from
residues that fall into this orbit?
B) If space is curved around a star and forms tracks that planets travel
following these tracks as rail-roads, why not other (small, or medium, or
massive) objects are falling into these tracks and traveling around the star
on the same orbits?

23. What Happens to the Planets that Orbit a Star that has Died?
302
If a star explodes or is destroyed or dies, what happens to the planets that orbit it? Will
they continue to orbit by inertia the point where the star used to be? For how long
time?
24. Is Time an Entity without Beginning and Ending?

Is there a beginning and ending of time? Or is the time an entity without ending or
beginning?
We dough the Big Bang Theory that asserts a creatio ex nihilo of the Universe…
If it was a point in the Big Bang that exploded, where did this point come from? What
was before that point?
25. Creating Gravity

Massive cosmic bodies create gravity. Is there a bound for such cosmic bodies
(depending on mass, volume, density, and may be position) starting from which
cosmic bodies create gravity, while below that bound they don’t create gravity?
26. Not All Physical Laws are the Same in All Inertial Reference Frames

A. Different Inertial Values for a Moving Object.

The laws of physics are not the same in all directions for a moving object
according to the Special Theory of Relativity,
since lengths which are oblique to the direction motion are contracted with the
oblique-factor OC(v,θ),
while the lengths along the motion direction are contracted with a different factor
C(v),
but lengths that are perpendicular to the direction motion are not contracted at
all;
which require different inertia values for the moving object.
B. There are universal constants that are not quite “constant” throughout the
universe.
C. Would it be possible to get physical systems where the energy conservation
law doesn’t hold?
D. Would it be possible to get physical systems where the Earth’s physical laws
are invalid?
Maybe our laws are only local, but non-local laws may apply in other
galaxies.
We believe on other planets, or in other solar systems, galaxies the laws of
physics are not the same.
The Laws of Physics are influenced by the medium composition, velocity,
etc. of the frame of reference.

27. Back in Time?

If the time runs faster at the top of a gravitational field than at the bottom of a
gravitational field, then sending a signal from top down could be like a message sent
303
back in time, which is unrealistic!
28. Wormholes do not Exist in a Real World

The Wormholes were predicted by the Theory of Relativity [through Hermann Weyl
in 1921 and John Archibald Wheeler in 1957], but the Wormholes permit time travel
(that is unrealistic) and violate the causality.
The Wormholes can be valid in an imaginary space only.
29. Newton’s Physics or Einstein’s Metaphysics?

Is it any threshold of the speeds, let’s say , with such that for the

speeds 0 <v < we apply Newton’s Physics, and for the speeds v > we apply
Einstein’s Special Relativity?
The proponents of Special Relativity say that Einstein’s Velocity Addition Formula
v1 + v 2
v1 + v 2 =
v1 ⋅ v 2
1+ 2
c (29)
prevails for any speeds. But this formula fails for superluminal speeds.
30. Neither 2c is a Speed Limit

We do not agree with the Lorentz Relativity and the Lorentz Ether Relativity that
support superluminal speeds up to a limit of 2c, although the absolute velocities are
added using normal arithmetic in these two Relativities. We think there can
constructed speeds that overpass2c as well.
31. Subjective Dilation-Time

For two observers, in two moving referential frames, each one sees a time dilation for
the other (time-dilation symmetry). But this is clearly a subjective time dilation, not
an objective time dilation.
These symmetric time dilations cannot be simultaneously done in practice; it is
absurd.
32. Subjective Local Time vs. Objective Global Time

The proponents of the Theory of Relativity assert that the so-called black hole is so
powerful, that even the time itself is brought to a stop. But this looks very much as
science fiction, since the objective time goes on anyway.
33. Relative vs. Absolute Space and Time

Einstein says that there is no absolute space or absolute time. But we argue that we
can mathematically consider an absolute space and absolute time, in order to
eliminate all paradoxes and anomalies from Theory of Relativity.
Relative Space and Time are referring to Subjective Theory of Relativities, while
Absolute Space and Time are referring to Objective Theory of Relativity {see the
304
Absolute Theory of Relativity [2]}.
The observers are relative, subjective indeed, but mathematically there can be
considered an Absolute Observer. {There are things which are absolute.}
34. Contraction of the Universe?

If the Universe is expanding (therefore moving), according to the Special Theory of

Relativity it should be contracting along the moving direction.
Continuously moving bringing continuously contracting?… therefore until
getting back to a point (as the supposed original Big Bang)?
35. The Michelson-Morley Null Experiment was not quite Null

While the establishment interpreted the result of Michelson-Morley Experiment as

null, many other researchers considered it as not quite null.
The supposed Michelson-Morley Null Experiment instigated the physical theorists to
invent Relativity Theories with abnormal/non-practical length contraction, time
dilation, mass increase, etc.

36. Variable Speed of Light in Vacuum

The speed of light in vacuum is not invariant as seen by different frame of reference
observers. It depends on the light source and its frame of reference.
Its addition with other speeds follows the classical law of velocity addition.
37. Instantaneous Acceleration?

In all paradoxes involving movement it is supposed that something goes at a constant

uniform speed. One assumes a so-called "instantaneous acceleration": it is considered
the ideal case when jumping from zero velocity directly to velocity v, and similarly
jumping back from v to zero velocity when stopping.
Therefore, many Thought Experiments are just approximations, no matter how large
is the segment of constant speed with respect to the acceleration segment, because one
cannot get to the constant speed without starting from zero speed.
38. Where the Extra-Mass Comes from?

Relativistic Mass increases with speed according to the Theory of Relativity. But an
elementary question arises: where the extra-mass comes from?
Also, how the extra-mass was produced? Where did the extra-energy come from?
Assuming that the initial mass has a charge, then does the increased mass have the
same charge?
39. Space is Not Curved

For a 1D(one-dimensional)-curve one can see its curvature in a 2D-space.

For a 2D-surface one can see its curvature in a 3D-space.
But how to see the curvature of a 3D-body, since there is no 4D-space in the real
world? {We do not talk about the spacetime which has dimension four, since the
spacetime is unreal.}
Some physicists assume the possibility of hidden dimension(s), but such things have
305
not yet been found.
Since there is no 4D-space in the real world (time is not taken into consideration since
it is an independent entity), the 3D-space cannot be curved.
40. Black Hole is an Imaginary Cosmic Body

Since the Black Hole purely aroused from the mathematical solution by
Schwarzschild (and Hilbert) to the Einstein’s Field Equations, and because Einstein’s
Field Equations do not describe the real universe, the Black Hole is so far just an
imaginary cosmic body (or the notion of “black hole” has to be redefined).
While the Black Body, for example, is a theoretical ideal (not entirely realized in
practice, but only approximated…), which has not at all the power of reflecting light,
the relativists consider the Black Hole as a physical object (!)
41. Fact or Mathematical Artifact?

Interestingly, even the Black Hole’s center, which is a point of infinite density and
zero volume (which looks fantastic!), is considered a real physical entity, although
clearly it is a mathematical artifact.
42. What is the Maximum Discovered Density in the Universe?

Since no experiment has ever shown a density being infinite for a physical object in
the universe, our question is what would be the maximum discovered density in the
universe? Would it be possible to create any given density?
43. Maximum Strongest Fields?
a) What is the strongest gravitational field in the universe?

What would be the maximum gravitational field to be produced in the

laboratory?
b) Similarly, what is the strongest electric field in the universe?

What would be the maximum electric field to be produced in the laboratory?

c) Similarly, what is the strongest magnetic field in the universe?

What would be the maximum magnetic field to be produced in the laboratory?

44. How to Compute the Mass of a Singularity Point?

Let’s consider the Black Hole’s singularity that occurs for r = 0 in

1/2
 2Gm 
g 00 =  1 − 2 
 c r  (30)
where
m = mass of the spherically cosmic body;
G = gravitational constant of the body;
r = distance from the cosmic body to the clock;
c = speed of light in vacuum;
and represents, according to the relativists, an infinitely dense point-mass that is at the
center of the Black Hole.
306
It is not clear how to compute the mass of this singularity, since
Mass = Volume × Density =
= 0 × ∞ = 0, ∞, or another value?
(31)
Another singularity occurs for
2Gm
r= (32)
c2
in
−1
g11 = 1/2
 2Gm 
1 − 2 
 c r  (33)
And it is considered by relativists as Schwarzschild radius of a Black Hole, or the
radius of the event horizon.
45. Mute Body

What about a cosmic body whose escape speed would be greater than the speed of
sound (instead of the speed of light)? Therefore, no sound would come out from that
body, so it would be labeled as “mute body”!
46. Travel in Time is Science Fiction

Relativists also support the travel to the past and travel to the future. But these are not
possible in reality (see the traveling time paradoxes, where travelers change the past
or the future). Because, for example, if somebody has changed the past, we don’t
know which one was the real past, the original one or the changed one? It is not
possible to have two or pasts!
Relativists conclude that it is possible to travel in the future in the real world, because
when we board an aircraft, for example, we are moving with respect to those who
remain behind, therefore our time will pass slowly compared to those who remain
behind. But this is an illusion since according to the absolute observer time is the
same in moving or staying reference frame. Maybe the biological or subjective time
changes, but not the objective time.
47. Time Coming to a Halt?

According to the relativists, when

1/2
 2Gm 
1 − 2  = 0 (34)
 cr 
the time would come to a halt, because Schwarzschild’s solution to Einstein’s Field
Equations for a spherically symmetric body shows that the rate of the clock is reduced
by the factor
1/2
 2Gm 
1 − 2  . (35)
 cr 

307
But in the real world this is fantasy!
48. No Wormholes

Therefore, Einstein-Rosen Bridge, as a solution to Einstein’s Field Equations, which

allegedly connects different regions of the universe and just could be used as a time
machine, is just fictitious.
49. Escape Velocity

The escape velocity from an alleged Black Hole is

c = 2Gm / r . (36)
But in the future technology, it would be able to accelerate a photon inside of a Black
Home’s event horizon to have it travels at a speed greater than c. Also the
superluminal particles would escape.
Thus the Black Hole would not be black any longer.
50. What about more Cosmic Bodies?

Schwarzschild considered only one cosmic spherical body when solving Einstein’s
Field Equations. But, what about more cosmic bodies (or more Black Holes)?
51. No Universe Expansion since Earth is not the Center of the Universe

Hubble’s Law (1929) says that all galaxies are moving away from Earth at a velocity
which is directly proportional to their distances from Earth. It presumes that, due only
to the velocity at which the galaxies are moving away from the Earth, one has the
redshift.
Yet, it looks that Hubble’s Law is not followed by the quasars, which have big
redshifts, emit large amounts of energy and lie behind our Milky Galaxy.
According to Hubble’s Law, the universe is expanding, and the velocity of a receding
galaxy with respect to our Earth is
v = H0·D (37)
whereH0 = Hubble’s Constant, and Ho is between 50-100 (typically 70) km/sec per
megaparsec (3.26 million light-years);
andD = distance from the galaxy to the Earth.
But, if the galaxies recede with respect to the Earth at a velocity proportional
to their distances from Earth, it involves that our Earth is, or is becoming, the center
of the universe.

308
 Fig. 9. Diagram of Allegedly Expansion Universe
In the above diagram, the Earth stays in the expansion center, and G1, G2, …, Gn, …
are galaxies, while G1’, G2’, …, Gn’, … are respectively their expansion positions after
a certain t1. The diagram is continuously extended in all directions, according to
Hubble’s Law, and after times t2, t3,… the corresponding new positions of the galaxies
would respectively be G1’’, G2’’, …, Gn’’, … at time t2, then G1’’’, G2’’’, …, Gn’’’, … at
time t3, etc. the galaxies getting further and further from the Earth, i.e. pushing the
Earth closer and closer to the center of all galaxies.
Even if Earth was not the center of the universe at the alleged Big Bang, after such
permanent expansion of the universe with respect to the Earth, it would result that the
Earth is in process of becoming the center of the universe… But the experiments do
not show that.
52. Photon’s Wavelength Stretching and Shrinking?

The photon is considered of having a dual form: wave and particle.

If the photon is a wave, it has been asserted that the photon’s wavelength is stretched
inside the intergalactic space, because of the expansion of the universe. But what
happens with the photon’s wavelength when the photon enters a galactic space (which
is not expanding), and afterwards it exists the galactic space and enters an
intergalactic space (which is expanding), and so on?

But, when the wavelength increases the wave frequency decreases (redshift);
therefore the wave’s momentum and energy are diminished in the expansion of the
universe. It seems to be an antithesis between the quantum mechanics (Copenhagen
style) and the universe expansion.
309
If the photon is a particle, similarly because of the so-called expansion of the
universe, does its pathlength increases inside the intergalactic space (which is
expanding) and decreases inside the galactic space (which is not expanding)? Thus,
what happens with its pathlength when the photon passes from an intergalactic space
to a galactic space, then again to intergalactic space, and so on?

53. White Holes?

From Einstein’s Field Equations one can also deduce the so-called White Holes,
which are opposite to the Black Holes, and their property is that things are spewing
out from the While Holes. But then if all matter is spewing out, as in antigravity, then
the White Hole would contain no matter at all. Will it then remain only as a pure
antigravity field? Very strange cosmic object…

54. Scientific Perversity

If data obtained from any experiment or application matches the Theory of Relativity,
then that type of data is considered covered by and supporting the Theory of
Relativity.
But, if such data does not match the Theory of Relativity predictions, then it is
considered as not covered by the Theory of Relativity, and therefore (!) not
contradicting the Theory of Relativity.
All pretended tests of General Relativity can be solved without using the General
Relativity.
That’s why it became a break in the developing of science since every experiment and
theory has not to be in conflict with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which became a
fictitious theory producing confusions, ambiguities and self-contradictions.
Unfortunately the optical illusions were taken for realities…
An untrue hypothesis that “the speed of light is constant in vacuum in all reference
frames (no matter with what uniformly moving speeds!) in all directions” generates a
theory whose consequences are weird, non-common sense, even anti-logical and
unrealistic. From invalid postulates one gets ridiculous conclusions like in comic
stories.
The physicists dream too much and suddenly they invent fantasy theories and require
us to take them for granted.
Theories that produce fantastic consequences are fantastic themselves.
Einstein’s Relativity is more a science game than reality.
Lorentz Transformation is just a distortion factor of the reality.
The Gravitational Waves have not been discovered.
Einstein’s Field Equations and Pseudotensor are valid in an imaginary space only.
There is no proof that Einstein’s Field Equations do not violate the common law of
conservation of energy and momentum.
Other times, in order to bridge the gap between the Theory of Relativity and
experimentally found data, all kind of strange things and ideas are invented.
Instead of fitting the theory to better describe the reality, the reality is distorted in
310
order to fit into the theory!

References:
1. Smarandache, Florentin, Absolute Theory of Relativity & Parameterized
Special Theory of Relativity &NoninertialMultirelativity, 92 p., 1982,
Somipress, Fès, Morocco.
2. Smarandache, Florentin, New Relativistic Paradoxes and Open Questions,
126 p., 1983, Somipress, Fès, Morocco.

3. Bell, J. S., On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,Physics 1, pp. 195-200,

1964.
4. Bohm, D., The Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky,Quantum Th., pp.
611-623, 1951.
5. Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N., Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, pp.
777-780, 1935.
6. Smarandache, F., There is No Speed Barrier in the Universe, mss., Liceul
Pedagogic Rm. Valcea, Physics Prof. Elena Albu,1972.
7. Rindler, W., Length Contraction Paradox, Am. J. Phys., 29(6), 1961.
8. Einstein, A., ZurEletrodynamikbewegterKörper, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 17,
pp. 891-921, 1905.
9. A. Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Annalen der
Physik, 17, 891-921, 1905.

311
Unsolved Problems in Special and
General Relativity
This book includes 21 papers written by 23 authors and co-authors. All
papers included herein are produced by scholars from People’s Republic of
China, except two papers written by Prof. L. Sapogin, V.A. Dzhanibekov,
Yu. A. Ryabov from Russia, and by Prof. Florentin Smarandache from USA.
The editors hope that the papers included here will contribute to advance
scholarly research on some aspects of Special and General Relativity. This
book is suitable for students and scholars interested in studies on physics.

Contributors:

Hua Di Hu Chang-Wei
Li Zifeng Jiang Chun-Xuan
Li Wen-Xiu Liu Taixiang

Shi Yong-Cheng Tu Runsheng

Xu Jianmin Wu Fengming

Dong Jingfeng Yang Shijia

Duan Zhongxiao Cao Shenglin
Fu Yuhua Leo G. Sapogin
Guo Kaizhe

Guo Chongwu V.A. Dzhanibekov

Guo Ying-Huan Yu. A. Ryabov
Guo Zhen-Hua Florentin Smarandache