An Introduction to Relativistic Cosmology: A Simple ... · observer and the object observed. The...
Transcript of An Introduction to Relativistic Cosmology: A Simple ... · observer and the object observed. The...
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 200
An Introduction to Relativistic Cosmology: A Simple Relativity
Theory of Everything
Burhan Davarcioglu
Department of Physics, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey
Abstract—Simple relativity theory of everything (RTE) postulates that all physical measurement of
velocity, time, space, energy, and density are relative and depend on the relative motion between the
observer and the object observed. The theory diverges from Einstein’s relativity in that it applies the
relativity principle to all matter, including light photons. For the simple case of constant relativite
motion, the theory yields novel time, distance, energy, and density transformations, and constructs a
new model of the universe spacetime. The cosmology describes a universe where the material world
is static and the luminous world expanding. This cosmology makes it possible to reconcile the static
universe of Einstein with observations of the expanding universe. The theoretical results obtained
reveal that RTE is compatible with quantum theory and Big Bang theories. For the case of very low
velocities; the transformations obtained yield Newton’s laws of motion and energy. The theory
generates plausible definitions of dark matter and dark energy and uses them to make a fairly good
prediction of the content of the universe. In addition, it makes remarkably good predictions
concerning several important phenomena, including prediction of the accelerating expansion of the
universe, a remarkably good estimate of the Hubble constant and of the content of the universe.
Keywords—special relativity, spacetime, energy, simple relativity theory, Lorentz’s invariance
I. INTRODUCTION
The theory of special relativity (SR) of Einstein is essentially based on the constancy of the
velocity of light in all inertial frames of reference. Einstein introduced this as a physical principle or
axiom in order to explain the negative outcome of the experiments of Michelson and Morley who
tried to prove the existence of a drift velocity of the earth in hypothetical ether. This sounds like
introducing the old ether idea from the nineteenth century. Our knowledge has only little improved
since then. The ether was abolished by Einstein, but indirectly reintroduced by himself in his theory
of general relativity. It is possible to define an “objective” frame of reference constituted by existing
masses. However, in the last years a number of experiments came up showing that the velocity of
light is not an incontrovertible constant. His explanations are wound and based on quantum effects
“tunnelling” which should not appear in systems with exclusively macroscopic dimensions. Most
convincing would be an explanation by classical physics which is also the basis of electromagnetic
signal transmission. When doing this, earlier inconsistencies are resolved and an absolute motion of
the earth against the space background is detected. This revolutionary insight has not been
recognized in the scientific public so far [1].
Fundamental of modern physics is the principle of relativity. Besides the reasonable
assumption that laws of nature work in the same way in all reference frames not being accelerated to
one another, it is postulated that the transformation between reference frames is always of the same
form. It is assumed that all frames of reference be of equal kind. This consideration does not take
into account that the universe is structured by masses which define reference points for physical
processes. The whole universe is impleted with gravitational and electromagnetic fields. This also
holds for the “empty” ranges between galaxies and galaxy clusters since the particle density is non-
vanishing in interstellar space to today’s knowledge. While Einstein based his theory: on the
relativity principle of motion and constancy of the velocity of light. We can extend the comparison
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 201
with usual media by assigning a state of motion to the space itself. Masses “swim” in this space and
therefore reflect its movement. Conversely, the fields created by the masses determine the
surrounding space in a fedback manner. Both entities cannot be considered independently from each
other. Our physical environment is defined by the objectively existing structure which is defined by
masses, charges and fields. These are adequately described in an objective manner by laws of nature
being independent from subjective human receptions.
So we can say that in certain areas of the cosmos we can neglect the influence of cosmic
fields, but normally we use the visible beacons (earth, sun, centers of galaxies) to define reference
frames. The cosmos as a whole is described by general relativity which states that the masses define
the space. Without masses there is no space at all. “Special relativity is merely an augmentation to
Minkowski space by the arbitrary insertion of mass and energy into Minkowski space with the
constrained kinematic features of Minkowski space applied to those masses and energies”. When it
comes to define the frames of reference, however, the state of motion relative to the absolutely
defined environment is important again. All these arguments become much more intelligible if we
assume that the space between massive particles has a state of motion. The motivation for the present
article comes from several cosmological observations [2-4], also see for review [5], and high energy
experiments indicating that SR theory and the Lorentz invariance principle might have been violated
[6, 7]. To account for such violations, several theories, which allow for a breakdown of Lorentz
invariance, or at least slight violations at sufficiently high energies, have been proposed. That
includes theories and models of gravitational forces within the context of a quantum theory [8, 9],
loop quantum gravity [10]. Other models that incorporate Lorentz violation are emergent gauge
bosons [11, 12], varying moduli and ghost condensate [13], spacetime varying coupling, and varying
speed of light cosmology [13, 14-18]. The neutrino sector provides other cases of possible Lorentz
violation [8, 9, 19]. The possibility of breaking the speed of light and the violation of Lorentz
symmetry has far reaching ramifications on our understanding of physics.
This article puts forward a new relativity theory called “a simple relativity theory of
everything” (RTE). The theory relaxes Einstein’s constancy of light-velocity principle and postulates
that all measurements of velocity, time, space, energy, and density of an object depend on the
relative motion between the observer’s frame of reference and the object. In this respect, RTE
resembles previous attempts to construct relativity theories that relax Einstein’s velocity of light
invariance [1, 20]. Another motivation for proposing an alternative to Einstein’s SR stems from SR’s
sharp contradictions with both quantum theory and Big Bang theories, as well as with related
empirical evidence. Quantum theory and abundant related evidence indicate that at sufficiently high
energies, matter enters into a quantum state. In contrast, SR prescribes that normal matter does not
transform into any form. From a cosmological perspective it is well established that the universe is
curved, open, and expanding at an accelerating rate [21-23]. Conversely, SR claims that the universe
is flat, isotropic, and static. In addition, Big Bang theories and related inflammation models and
findings indicate that our universe is comprised mainly of dark energy and dark matter (with only
≈4.6% normal matter). In comparison, SR claims that 100% of the universe is matter. These are very
fundamental and unbridgeable differences, causing an unbiased scholar to conclude that SR might be
flawed. The argument for such deduction is straightforward: a theory that produces results that
sharply conflict with two key theories, and more important, with strong empirical results, should not
remain unquestionable, as SR has remained for over a century. Dark energy and dark matter
constitute about 95% of the universe. Nonetheless, not much is known about them. Existing theories,
including general relativity, fail to provide plausible definitious of the two entities, or to predict their
amounts in the universe. More importantly, natural definitions of dark energy and dark matter and
predicts the content of the universe with high accuracy [24].
This article seeks to respond to such challenges by proposing an alternative theory to SR,
called “RTE”. The proposed theory is “simple” since it assumes that all frames of reference move
with constant velocity with respect to one another. It is also simple because it has no presuppositions,
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 202
except the one stating that there is no preferred frame of reference and that the laws of physics are
the same in all inertial frames [25, 26]. In contrast, it is a theory of “everything” since it provides
impressive explanations for a wide range of physical phenomena, beginning from a precise
prediction of all neutrino velocity experiments [6, 7] through prediction of quantum criticality at
energies equaling the Golden ratio [27], to near precise calculation of the Hubble constant and the
content of the universe.
RTE is based on Galileo’s relativity principle, postulating that there is no absolute motion
and that objects have velocities only with respect to one another. This means that any statement of an
object’s velocity must be made in regard to something else. In this respect, RTE does not differ from
SR. On the other hand, it departs fundamentally from SR in that it relaxes its second postulate and
subjugates light photons, like any terrestrial matter, to the relativity principle. Put more succinctly,
RTE postulates that everything is relative, “full stop”, with light being no exception. This is a
fundamental departure from SR, and consequently, from Lorentz symmetry principle. In addition to
complete relativism, RTE assumes that all translation of information regarding events, from one
frame of reference to another, is carried by light or electromagnetic waves with equal velocity. This
should not be considered a drawback, since the results of RTE are directly applicable to physical
systems which use other ways for communicating information, given that the relative speed of the
information carrier is known to the observer.
Interestingly, while RTE sharply contradicts SR and Lorentz’s invariance, it is consistent
with well grounded research in chemistry and microbiology, which emphasizes the crucial role of
asymmetry, or “chirality”, in the creation and development of all living organisms, from amino acids
to the human body. This body of research further suggests that the source of all asymmetry in life is
to be traced back to the physical asymmetry of the universe [28]. “It is only slightly overstating the
case to say that physics is the study of symmetry” [2]. Such a view was succinctly expressed by
Louis Pasteur, the celebrated chemist and microbiologist, who wrote that: “The universe is
asymmetrical and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of
the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetrical; for if one placed the
entire set of bodies that compose the solar system, each moving in its own way, before a mirror, the
image shown would not be super imposable on the reality” [13].
II. GENERAL RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY To what extent is the electric charge itself responsible for the curvature of space that is, how
does it contribute towards “Gravity”? The Reissner-Nordstrom metric involves the effect of charge
as well as mass in curving the space around it. We may easily derive the result from the Reissner-
Nordstrom metric that the gravitational potential of the charge falls off as the square of the distance
of the charge, the constant of proportionality being much smaller than the value of gravity. The
electric charge itself exerts a “Repulsive Gravity” which gets masked by the attractive influence of
the mass of the particle [10].
A problem concerns the interpretation of length contraction and time dilation. Originally
Einstein believed that these changes are virtual, i.e. are only measured values of an observer moving
relative to another system. The scales of the real objects never change. Later after upcoming of
general relativity it became clear that scales have to change in reality because the gravitational field
is real in the sense that it evokes real, measurable forces. So it was implicitly assumed that also the
scale changes of special relativity have to be real. This however is a severe philosophical problem
since two observers measuring the same object would obtain different values for identical physical
properties of the object. This discrepancy has not been addressed in literature until today and reflects
inconsistencies in the transition from general to special relativity [1].
The physics literature provides no compelling argument for special relativistic tachyons and
only some rare instances where departures from standard Lorentz symmetry could be motivated. We
feel that the most compelling arguments for possible departures from standard Lorentz symmetry are
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 203
found in the part of the quantum gravity literature which motivates [8-12] the adoption of a
nonclassical geometry description of spacetime, with associated violations or deformations of
Lorentz symmetry. Another noteworthy possibility is the much studied idea of large extra
dimensions, within which several authors have motivated mechanisms for violations of Lorentz
symmetry [8]. Concerning the quantum gravity literature the observer that superluminal particles
have been motivated in some quantum gravity studies. We aspects of the quantum gravity problem
offer motivation for a particle dependence of the effects so that it would not be surprising to find the
superluminal behavior of neutrinos, possibly even just some types of neutrinos, to be a few orders of
magnitude stronger than for other particles.
The dichotomous cosmology introduced in 2014 that is inspired by the tired light theory [16].
It describes a universe where the material world is static and the luminous world expanding. This
cosmology makes it possible to reconcile the static universe of Einstein with observations of the
expanding universe. Specifically, the theory is reported to conform with the time dilation effect with
the stretching of supernova light curves by a factor (1+z), and the Tolman surface brightness test.
The astronomical observations that support the dichotomous cosmology are as follow:
� the linear relationship between the luminosity distance and redshift of supernovae
� the Etherington distance duality which is based on observations is a consequence of the
nowadays study’s model
� a Monte Carlo simulation testing framework based on the observations of the zCosmos.
The relationship of supernova light curves by a factor (1+z), and the factor (1+z)4 for the radiation
energy density inferred from the cosmic microwave background radiation [13, 17].
The reciprocity theorem for null geodesics is of fundamental importance for observations in
astrophysics and cosmology. The core of the reciprocity theorem is the fact that many geometric
properties are invariant when the roles of source and observer in astronomical observations are
transposed. In the simplest case, it states that for two observers at rest relative to each other in an
arbitrary static spacetime, objects of identical size at each observer are seen by the other observer to
subtend identical solid angles. When there are relative motions, as in the case of cosmology,
allowance for redshift effects must be made, as follows:
� let the observer area distance r0 be defined by dS0 = (r0)2dΩ0, where a (past directed) bundle
of null rays subtending a solid angle dΩ0 at the observer at time t0 has cross sectional area dS0
at the object observed (notionally a galaxy).
� Similarly let the galaxy area distance rG be defined by dSG = (rG)2dΩG, where a (future
directed) bundle of null rays subtending a solid angle dΩG at the galaxy has cross sectional
area dSG at the observer at the same time t0.
Then these two area distances are related by
(rG)2 = (r0)
2(1+z)
2 (1)
where z is the redshift measured for the galaxy by the observer. This is the general reciprocity
theorem; it shows that in any cosmological model whatever, no matter how lumpy or anisotropic.
The area distance up the null cone is the same as the area distance down, up to redshift factors
(which must be there because of the way solid angles transform under velocity transformations).
The observer area distance, also known as the distance by apparent size, is in principle
determinable by direct astronomical observation (choose objects of known physical size and measure
their angular size). The galaxy area distance (the reciprocal distance based on null geodesics from the
galaxy to the observer instead of from the observer to the galaxy) is not. However on considering the
emission of radiation from the source, diverging from it on the outgoing null rays centered on its
world line. One can see that the galaxy area distance rG is (up to redshift factors) the same as the
directly observable luminosity distance D, determined by measuring the apparent flux of radiation F
from the object and comparing it with the its intrinsic luminosity L.
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 204
F = L/4πD2 D
2 = (rG)
2(1+z)
2 (2)
Hence the luminosity distance too is equal to the observer area distance, up to redshift factors:
namely (1) and (2) together imply
D2 = (r0)
2(1+z)
4 (3)
This can be regarded as an alternative form of the reciprocity theorem. An immediate consequence is
the optical theorem that the surface brightness of an extended source, while dependent on redshift, is
independent of the area distance of the observer from the source.
That radiation with a black body spectrum maintains a black body spectrum as it propagates,
but with observed temperature To related to the emitted temperature Te by
To = Te/(1+z) (4)
again this is true for both isotropic and anisotropic models. These results all are founded, in the end,
on the hypothesis of general relativity theory that light travels on null geodesics in a Riemannian
spacetime. It gives a proof by use of normal coordinates, followed by transformation to a general
coordinate system. This general result was then lost to later generations of cosmologists, and was
independently rediscovered in the 1960s. It was developed as a power series (approximate) result in
the remarkable paper on observational cosmology by Kristian and Sachs in 1966. They conjectured it
was an exact result in arbitrary universes [29]. Proofs initially were essentially based on geometric
optics; a kinetic theory version was outlined by Sachs and Wolfe [30].
Following from equations (1) to (2), are a key element for cosmology in three areas. Firstly,
for galaxy observations: they show that luminosities and angular sizes are dependent on each other,
shaping the way that galaxy observations are analyzed [13]. In principle the key relation (3) is
testable by astronomical observations, but in practice there are so many uncertainties in the
astronomical parameters that this relation is taken for granted and used to eliminate one of the
unknowns. What is directly measurable by detectors in the case of extended sources is not the total
flux F given by equation (2) but rather the pointwise surface brightness given by equation (4); the
flux F is a derived quantity. Secondly, these relations are a key element in analyzing cosmic black
body radiation observations. Equation (4) provides the foundation for understanding how the cosmic
black body radiation temperature changes in standard isotropic cosmologies after decoupling in
Weinberg [31], the radiation measurements providing the basic evidence for the hot Big Bang
expansion of the universe. It is also the foundation for cosmic black body radiation anisotropy
analyses in cosmology, a key element of present day cosmology. This is also the basis for the
pioneering analysis of cosmic black body radiation anisotropies in spatially homogeneous
anisotropic cosmologies by Thorne [32]. Thirdly, these relations underlie observed luminosities
occurring in gravitational lensing (where the geometry is locally anisotropic by its nature); thus
provide the foundation for understanding lensing brightness. It emphasize that follow from the
Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin approximated covariant Maxwell equations in an arbitrary spacetime; the
photon picture was used only for ease of expression [13].
In principle the key relation (3) is testable by astronomical observations, if one can locate
sources with bothwell defined and narrowly constrained intrinsic luminosities and sizes (but this test
is difficult carry out in practice, as indicated above). If this relation were observationally found to not
be true, this would be a major crisis for observational cosmology “any observed major deviation
from would be a catastrophe from the theoretician’s viewpoint” [29]. Because the results equations
(1)-(4) above hold for all cosmological models based on Riemannian spacetimes (in particular, do
not depend either on the Einstein field equations or the nature of matter present). That is not
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 205
generically true in other kinds of geometries, for example in spacetimes with torsion. One would be
able to derive generalised versions of the relations above in such spacetimes; but then inter alia the
key relation (4) would presumably no longer be true in general, and the entire standard body of
analysis of the cosmic black body radiation anisotropies would be in doubt.
The relativity principle states that all inertial frames are equivalent for describing the laws of
physics. A difference by measurement is not detectable. The prerequisite is that a global, absolute
reference frame does not exist. Then space itself is a medium which shows optical properties and a
local structure which is defined by the vacuum or background potential. The new interpretation of
Michelson and Morley experiments is compatible with this concept.
III. TRANSFORMATIONS In Einsteinian relativity the transformations are the same in both directions which is a
consequence of the relativity principle. For the sake of simplicity, the theoretical analysis presented
here is confined to the simple case of collinear and constant relative velocities. For such a case,
considering all three spatial dimensions becomes cumbersome and unnecessary; since we can simply
treat the constant velocity as + or − the scalar value of the velocity vector υ.
3.1. Time and velocity transformations There is a principal difference in the time transformations. Consider the two frames of
reference F and F′ shown (two observers in two reference frames moving with velocity υ with
respect to each other), suppose that the two frames are moving apart from each other at a constant
velocity υ. Assume further that at time t1 in F (and t′1 in F′) a body starts moving in the +x direction
from point x1 (x′1 in F′) to point x2 (x′2 in F′). Suppose that the times of arrival in F and are t2 and t′2,
respectively. Finally, assume that the start times in F and F' are synchronized such that t1 = t′1.
Since the start times t1 and t′1 are synchronized, the end time t2, measured in F, equals the end
time plus the time t′2 which is the time it takes the light beam marking the body’s arrival at x2 to
reach the observer in F
t2 = t′2+δt δt = x3/c (5)
where x3 is the distance (measured in F) travelled by F′ relative to F in time t2 and also that defining
t/t′ = 1/1−β where β = υ/c note that 1/1−β is positive when F and F′ depart from each other, and
negative when they approach each other.
(a)
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 206
(b)
Figure 1. Time transformations for the one way (a) and round trip (b)
To velocity transformation; the similarity between the time dilations predicted by RTE and
SR at relatively low velocities, particularly for the round trip, implies that the time transformation
depicted in t/t′ = 1/1−β2 should yield the null. In a typical experiment, the velocity of neutrinos is
determined by measuring the time of travel and the distance between a source and a receiver. Using
the time transformation, the relative velocity υ−c/c could be expressed as υ−c0/c. So there is a
coupling between space and time which ensures the basic axiom of constancy of υ=c.
Figure 1. depicts the relative time t/t′ as a function of β for the one way and round trip. The
dashed lines depict the corresponding predictions of SR. For the one way trip and the case in which F
and F′ depart from each other with velocity β (0≤β≤1), RTE and SR yield similar predictions,
although the time dilation predicted by RTE is larger than that predicted by SR. Conversely, for
approaching objects (β<0) RTE predicts that the internal time measured at F will be shorter than that
measured at F′. For the round trip the results of RTE and SR in 1≤β≤1 are qualitatively similar,
except that the time dilation predicted by RTE is larger than that predicted by SR. Notice that for
small β values the two theories yield almost identical results. For example, for the velocity of the
earth around the sun of (υ≈29.78 km/s), and c=299792.458 km/s, the one way time dilation predicted
by RTE is t/t′≈1.000099350, while the comparable result of SR is ≈1.000000005 (the difference is
≈9.9345x10-5
). For the round trip RTE yields t/t′≈2.0000000197, while SR yields ≈2.0000000099.
As can be seen, the difference between the two predictions is negligible (≈9.9x10-9
).
3.2. Distance transformation To derive the distance transformation, assume that a light pulse with velocity c0 relative to the
internal frame F′ travels from x′1 in the +x direction. The velocity of light c, as measured in frame F
will be
c = c0+υ = (1+υ/c0)c0 = (1+β)c0….. (6)
The time in F′ for the light pulse to pass from x′1 to x′2 is (x′2−x′1)/c0, and the comparable time in F is
(x2−x1)/c0. Which yields
(x2−x1)/(x′2−x′1) = (1+β)/(1−β) (7)
Figure 2. depicts the relative distance Δx/Δx′ = (x2−x1)/(x′2−x′1) as a function of β, together
with the respective relative distance according to SR (in dashed black). As could be seen, where as
SR prescribes that irrespective of direction, objects moving relative to an internal frame will contract,
RTE predicts that a moving object will contract or expand, depending on whether it approaches the
internal frame or departs from it. For relative velocity exceeding the velocity of light (β>1), RTE
predicts that Δx/Δx′ will become negative. Since Δx′ is positive, this implies that for bodies departing
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 207
from an internal frame with a velocity higher than the velocity of light, the length of a rod of rest
length l0, placed along the x axis, will be negative.
Figure 2. Distance transformation
3.3. Density and energy transformations Similar analyses for density and kinetic energy yield the following transformations
ρ/ρ′ = (1−β)/(1+β) (8)
E = 0.5m0(c0)2β
2(1−β)/(1+β) (9)
Figure 3. Density transformation
As shown in Figure 3. the density of departing bodies relative to an observer is predicted to
decrease with β, reaching zero for velocity equaling the speed of light. For bodies approaching the
observer (β<1) RTE, similar to SR, predicts that the relative density will increase nonlinearly, from
at β=0, to infinitely higher values as β approaches −1. For β<−1 and β>1, RTE predicts that the
relative density, as measured in F, will be negative [24].
The predicted decline in kinetic energy at velocities above β≈0.618, despite the decrease in
velocity, suggests that mass and energy transform gradually from normal mass and energy to
unobservable dark mass and dark energy. The non-monotonic change in energy at a critical β value,
equaling the golden ratio (≈0.618), resonates with recent experimental findings [28], which
demonstrated that applying a magnetic field at right angles to an aligned chain of cobalt niobate
atoms, makes the cobalt enter a quantum critical state, in which the ratio between the frequencies of
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 208
the first two notes of the resonance equals; the highest-order E8 symmetry group discovered in
mathematics [27].
Figures 4. depict the kinetic energy, normalized by as a function of β. As shown in the Figure
4. the kinetic energy displays a non-monotonic behavior with two maxima: one at negative β values
(approaching bodies) and the other at positive β values (departing bodies).
Figure 4. Kinetic energy as a function of velocity β
Figure 5. Energy as a function of velocity according to three theories
A new special relativity theory (SR-Einstein), called complete relativity theory (CR-
Suleiman) that is anchored in Galileo’s relativity, but without the notion of a prefered frame. The
theory results are consistent with Newtonian and quantum mechanics (Figure 5 and Figure 6) [24].
Figure 6. Comparison between CR’s prediction of the content of the universe and cosmological measurements
The relativity principle states that all inertial frames are equivalent for describing the laws of
physics. A difference by measurement is not detectable. The prerequisite is that a global, absolute
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 209
reference frame does not exist. The relativity principle would be valid only if space were exactly
homogeneous, i.e. free of matter. From general relativity it follows that this velocity is not constant
but dependent on the strength of the gravitational and other fields.
Existing cosmological data reveal that our universe includes about 4.6% atoms, 72% dark
energy, and 23% dark matter. While the nature of atoms is reasonably understood, our current
knowledge about dark energy is based on cosmological measurements and not on theory. The
incorporation of the cosmological factor in general relativity does not constitute a serious theoretical
account for dark energy, simply because the introduced anti-gravitational force has nothing to do
with Einstein’s relativity theories. In fact, it was added in order to “fill a big hole” in general
relativity, which contrary to contemporary measurements by Edwin Hubble [24] prescribed that the
universe should collapse into itself, rather than expand. The theoretical explanation regarding dark
matter is even more problematic and completely speculative. The proposed theory suggests a simple
and straightforward interpretation for both dark energy and dark matter.
IV. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION There are several interpretation problems in conventional special relativity. When comparing
two frames being in motion to one another, the length rods of the other system appear shortened,
seen from the system where the observer resides. This follows from the symmetry of the
transformation law (Lorentz transformation). When the speed of one system is adopted to that of the
other system, the difference in rod length disappears. At least Einstein has assumed that the scale
change is a measuring artifact and not real.
Time dilation is regarded differently. In the well known twin paradoxon it is assumed that the
integral taken over the coordinate time is identical to the real elapsed time, the scale change is
considered to be a real effect as is done in general relativity. There is a contradiction in the
interpretation. Contrary to this, the alternative theory assumes the scale changes always to be real.
Since all length changes are related to the rest frame, there is no “symmetry” between measurements
when one moving system measures quantities in another. For the twin paradoxon this means that the
twin having higher absolute speed ages faster than the other one. Both twins can calculate the age of
the other twin and come to the same result. All contradictions are removed.
The SR formalism asserts that only relative descriptions of phenomena between two or more
observers have any meaning. In fact we now understand that all effects are dynamically and
observationally relative to an ontologically real, that is, detectable dynamical 3-space. Ironically this
situation has always been known as an “absolute effect”. The most extraordinary outcome of recent
discoveries is that a dynamical 3-space exists, and that from the beginning of physics this has been
missed that a most fundamental aspect of reality has been completely overlooked.
I have proposed a novel relativity theory called “RTE”. The theory makes no assumptions.
Similar to Galileo and Einstein’s relativity, it postulates that the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames of reference and all physical measurements are relative to the frame of reference in
which they were measured. The above stated postulate was applied to all physical measures
including the velocity of light. The theory generates a time transformation similar to the Doppler
formula, alongside novel transformations for distance, density, and energy. For bodies travelling
away from an observer, RTE predicts a time dilation. On the other hand, for bodies travelling
towards the observer, RTE predicts that time will be shorter. For the round trip, the theory predicts a
time dilation regardless of the direction of movement relative to the observer.
The predictions for distance are complementary: For bodies travelling towards the observer,
the theory predicts a length contraction along the movement axes. In contrast, for bodies travelling
away from the observer, it predicts that length will increase. The density equation prescribes that the
relative density of bodies travelling towards the observer will increase, whereas the density of bodies
travelling away from the observe will decrease. As a result, in all the derived transformations the
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 210
relative velocity υ=c constitutes a singularity point, at which the translation of physical
measurements from one frame to another is undefined.
No less important, the theory puts forward novel relativistic definitions of dark matter and
dark energy and, based on the definitions, calculates the amounts of matter, dark matter, and dark
energy with high precision. In addition, it provides a plausible answer to the open question of what
caused the Big Bang, according to which it might have been the outcome of an enormous “collision”
between our universe and a “mirror image” universe comprised of dark matter and dark energy.
V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Professor Dr. Ramzi Suleiman (Physics Department, Laboratory of
Optics and Spectroscopy, University of Haifa, Haifa-Israel) for the oppurtunity to perform this work
and his valuable comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES [1] H. Eckardt, “An alternative hypothesis for special relativity,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 56-65, 2009.
[2] P. W. Anderson, “More is different,” Science, Vol. 177, No. 4047, pp. 393-396, 1972.
[3] K. Hirata, T. Kajita, M. Koshiba, M. Nakahata, Y. Oyama, N. Sato, A. Suzuki, M. Takita, and Y. Totsuka, “Observation of a neutrino burst from the supernova SN1987A,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 58, No. 14, pp. 1490-1493, 1987.
[4] R. M. Bionta, G. Blewitt, C. B. Bratton, D. Casper, A. Ciocio, R. Claus, B. Cortez, M. Crouch, S. T. Dye, S. Errede, G. W. Foster, W. Gajewski, K. S. Ganezer, M. Goldhaber, T. J. Haines, T. W. Jones, D. Kielczewska, W. R. Kropp, J. G. Learned, J. M. LoSecco, J. Matthews, R. Miller, M. S. Mudan, H. S. Park, L. R. Price, F. Reines, J. Schultz, S. Seidel, E. Shumard, D. Sinclair, H. W. Sobel, J. L. Stone, L. R. Sulak, R. Svoboda, G. Thornton, J. C. van der Velde, and C. Wuest, “Observation of a neutrino burst in coincidence with supernova 1987A in the large magellanic cloud,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 58, No. 14, pp. 1494-1496, 1987.
[5] V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell, “Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 11-31, 2011.
[6] G. Amelino-Camelia, G. Gubitosi, N. Loret, F. Mercati, G. Rosati, and P. Lipari, “Opera-reassessing data on the energy dependence of the speed of neutrinos,” International Journal of Modern Physics D, Vol. 20, No. 14, pp. 2623-2640, 2011.
[7] G. R. Kalbfleisch, N. Baggett, E. C. Fowler, and J. Alspector, “Experimental comparison of neutrino, antineutrino, and muon velocities,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 43, No. 19, pp. 1361-1364, 1979.
[8] V. A. Kosteleck′y and S. Samuel, “Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string theory,” Physical Review D, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 683-685, 1989.
[9] O. Bertolami, R. Lehnert, R. Potting, and A. Ribeiro, “Cosmological acceleration, varying couplings, and Lorentz breaking,” Physical Review D, Vol. 69, No. 8, pp. 083513, 2004.
[10] A. Palit, “Amazing facts in general relativity,” Global Journal of Pure and Applied Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 68-83, 2012.
[11] P. Kraus and E. T. Pullin, “Photons and gravitons as Goldstone bosons and the cosmological constant,” Physical Review D, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 045015, 2002.
[12] A. Jenkins, “Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance,” Physical Review D, Vol. 69, No. 10, pp. 105007, 2004.
[13] G. F. R. Ellis, “On the definition of distance in general relativity,” General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 39, No. 7, pp. 1047-1052, 2007.
[14] Y. Heymann, “The dichotomous cosmology with a static material world and expanding luminous world,” 3rd Annual International Conference on Chemistry and Physics, Athens, Greece, July 20-23, 2015, pp. 38.
[15] Y. Heymann, “Redshift adjustment to the distance modulus,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 6-7, 2012.
[16] Y. Heymann, “The dichotomous cosmology with a static material world and expanding luminous world,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 178-181, 2014.
[17] I. M. H. Etherington, “On the definition of distance in general relativity,” Philosophical Magazine, Series 7, Vol. 15, No. 100, pp. 761-773, 1933.
[18] G. F. R. Ellis, “Relativistic cosmology,” Proceedings of the 47th International School of Physics “Enriro Fermi”, R. K. Sachs., Ed. New York and London: Academic Press, 1971, Vol. 15, pp. 104-182.
[19] J. Silk and S. D. M. White, “The determination of qo using X-ray and microwave measurement of galaxy clusters,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Vol. 226, pp. L103, 1978.
[20] S. J. G. Gift, “Light speed invariance is a remarkable illusion,” Physics Essays, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1-5, 2010.
[21] A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, and R. P. Kirsher, “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 1009-1038, 1998.
[22] A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, M. C. Liu, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, J. Tonry, P. Woudt, R. J. Brunner, A. Dey, R. Gal, J. Graham, J. Larkin, S. C. Odewahn, and B. Oppenheimer, “Tests of the accelerating universe with near-infrared observations of a high-redshift type Ia supernova,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 536, No. 1, pp. 62-67, 2000.
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)
Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]
@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 211
[23] E. V. Linder, “Exploring the expansion history of the universe,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 90, No. 9, pp. 091301, 2003.
[24] R. Suleiman, “The dark side revealed: A complete relativity theory predicts the content of the universe,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 4, No.4, pp. 34-38, 2013.
[25] A. Sen, “How Galileo could have derived the special theory,” American Journal of Physics, Vol.62, No. 2, pp. 157-162, 1994.
[26] W. S. C. William, Introducing Special Relativity, 2nd ed., London, England: CRS Press Taylor and Francis, 2002, p. 264.
[27] R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, E. M. Wheeler, E. Wawrzynska, D. Prabhakaran, M. Telling, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, and K. Kiefer, “Quantum criticality in an Ising chain: Experimental evidence for emergent E8 symmetry,” Science, Vol. 327, No. 5962, pp. 177-180, 2010.
[28] A. T. Borchers, P. A. Davis, and M. E. Gershwin, “The asymmetry of existence: Do we owe our existence to cold dark matter and the weak force?,” Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 229, No. 1, pp. 21-32, 2004.
[29] J. Kristian and R. K. Sachs, “Observations in cosmology,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 143, No. 2, pp. 379-387, 1966.
[30] R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, “Perturbations of a cosmological model and angular variations of the microwave background,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 147, No. 1, pp. 73-90, 1967.
[31] S. W. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, 1st ed., New York, USA: Wiley, 1972.
[32] K. S. Thorne, “Primordial element formation, primordial magnetic fields and the isotropy of the universe,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 148, No.1, pp. 51-68, 1967.