Most of the papers are linked in the description of the UA-cam video. Even more are linked in the paper it is summarizing, by the same name, also lined in the video. The EM pulse experiment is linked at the end of my comment above. This is the most recent, where the propagation delay of an EM pulse was measured in the nearfield, and no propagation delay was observed. This shows that the front speed (or information speed) is instantaneous in the nearfield, proving Relativity wrong. The speed of gravity was also determined by Simone LaPlace in the late 1700's to be instantaneous, by noting the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. If gravity propagated at speed c, gravitational forces tangential to the orbits would result, causing the planets to spiral away. Since the planets have been stable for a very long time, the speed of nearfield gravity must be instantaneous. See speed of gravity Wikipedia.
That refers to Heisenberg's formula. No two opposites can exist at the same time at the same place. The second law I added to that is. They can. When they are at the same place in another time. Or at the same time at a different place. The problem is you are using Euclidian geometry to space time. Which cannot be quantum mechanical.
Maudlin does a great job showing why many people believe a tension (or worse, “a contradiction") exists between special relativity (SR) and quantum mechanics (QM). However, “the usual understanding of John Bell’s famous theorem … that certain observed correlations between experiments done far away from each other cannot be predicted or explained if no causes go faster than light” is not strictly true. Indeed, not only is there no contradiction between SR and QM due to the QM prediction and observed violation of Bell’s inequality, but the axiomatic reconstruction of QM from information-theoretic principles shows that the two theories actually follow from the same principle. Specifically, the kinematics of SR (Lorentz transformations) and QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. We spell all of this out for the "general reader" in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024), but here is a synopsis. According to Einstein, SR is a "principle theory," i.e., a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. For SR that empirically discovered fact is the light postulate -- everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR. Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory and its empirically discovered fact is called Information Invariance & Continuity. In more physical terms, Information Invariance & Continuity entails that everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the "Planck postulate"). Since h is a constant of Nature according to Planck's radiation law, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by relative orientations in space (rotations), the relativity principle tells us the Planck postulate must obtain, whence the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of QM. Quantum superposition is one consequence of the Planck postulate and that leads to 'average-only' conservation, which is responsible for the mystery of quantum entanglement. However, once you understand how ‘average-only’ conservation follows from quantum superposition, which follows from the Planck postulate, which follows from the relativity principle and Planck’s radiation law, there is nothing mysterious about the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. Here is how those correlations make perfect sense using spin-1/2 (as Maudlin introduced). Suppose you send a vertical spin up electron to Stern-Gerlach (SG) magnets oriented at 60 deg relative to the vertical. Since spin is a form of angular momentum, classical mechanics says the amount of the vertical +1 angular momentum that you should measure at 60 deg is +1*cos(60) = 1/2 (in units of hbar/2). But, the SG measurement of electron spin constitutes a measurement of h, so everyone has to get the same +/- 1 for a spin measurement in any SG spatial orientation (as Maudlin pointed out), which means you can't get what you expect from common sense classical mechanics. Instead, QM says the measurement of a vertical spin up electron at 60 deg will produce +1 with a probability of 0.75 and it will produce -1 with a probability of 0.25, so the average is (+1 + 1 + 1 - 1)/4 = 1/2. In other words, QM says you get the common sense classical result on 'average only' because of the observer-independence of h. [Notice that indeterminism follows necessarily, since we have to average the required +/- 1 results.] Now suppose Alice and Bob are measuring the spin singlet state (the two spins are anti-aligned when measured in the same direction, as shown in this video) and Alice obtains +1 vertically and Bob measures his particle at 120 deg relative to Alice. Obviously, if Bob had measured vertically he would have obtained -1, so at 120 deg Alice says he should get 1/2 per our single particle example. But of course, Bob must measure the same value for h that Alice does, so he can't get the fractional value of h Alice says he should (otherwise, Alice would be in a preferred reference frame). Instead, his outcomes at 120 deg corresponding to Alice's +1 outcomes vertically average to 1/2 just like the single particle case. And, of course, the data are symmetric so Bob can partition the results according to -*-his-*- +/- 1 outcomes and show that Alice's results satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on 'average only'. In the end, Alice partitions the data per her +/- 1 outcomes and says Bob's results must be averaged to satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum, while Bob's partition says Alice's outcomes must be averaged (Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame, Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020)). This should remind you immediately of an analogous situation in SR. There when Alice and Bob occupy different references frames via relative motion, they partition spacetime events per their own surfaces of simultaneity and show clearly that each other's meter sticks are short and their clocks run slow. In other words, the mystery of quantum entanglement resides in 'average-only' conservation that results from "no preferred reference frame" (NPRF) giving the observer-independence of h (NPRF + h). And, the mysteries of length contraction and time dilation reside in the relativity of simultaneity that results from "no preferred reference frame" giving the observer-independence of c (NPRF + c). So, whose meter sticks are really short and whose clocks really run slow? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no causal mechanism shortening meter sticks and slowing down clocks in SR. Length contraction and time dilation are not dynamical effects, they are kinematic facts due to the light postulate, as justified by the relativity principle. Likewise, who has to average their data to conserve spin angular momentum? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no non-local or superdeterministic or retro causal mechanism responsible for Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. ‘Average-only’ conservation is not a dynamical effect, it’s a kinematic fact due to the Planck postulate, as justified by the relativity principle. Give up your constructive bias for QM (just as is done for SR) and physics makes perfect sense, i.e., no “contradiction exists” between QM and SR. But, the implications for your worldview are profound; given the result from quantum information theory and the conclusion of this video, reality is not fundamentally about causal mechanisms.
QM is a local theory. Tim just doesn't like the idea of relative states on philosophical grounds for contradicting with the intuitive notion that there can be an privileged frame of reference, i.e. some sort of foliation in spacetime, so he insists it must be wrong. He never even defends this assumption, he just dismissed the alternative as "I don't know what that means," meaning he refuses to even engage with the literature on the subject.
Quantum Mechanics is like 4 different schools of theories only one of which is local, the others all reject it. Even if you think Tim's completely overlooking the right one the implication that it's synonymous with QM as a whole is silly.
@@onlynormalperson This isn't about "interpretation" or "theory." The mathematical formalism is literally local in the sense that it is Lorentz invariant. Supporters of the pilot wave theory tend to mislead people a bit by saying that it makes the same predictions as QM, but they forget that our best theory of nature is actually QFT and not QM, so it being able to reproduce QM is hardly that impressive these days. QFT relies on locality to work, as it is takes into account special relativity. Maudlin keeps suggesting he is working on his own personal model that will somehow solve this problem, yet given it remains unsolved for a century I'm not going to get my hopes up. The mathematics are objectively local, all the talk of "nonlocality" arises either philosophically from positing additional metaphysical entities which are not necessary, or they arise mathematically due to people like Tim thinking QFT must be wrong and it needs to have new parameters, despite there being no evidence it is wrong (his contentions with it are on purely philosophical grounds). I mean, I'm not against people giving money to people to research things that will likely go nowhere. As Prutkov put it, _"Who interferes with the seeker for unwettable gunpowder?"_ But I do think it's bizarre for someone who _isn't_ a researcher being paid to study other things to actually insist QFT must be wrong, rather than to just adjust their metaphysical prejudices they started with, i.e. people who are _not_ working on the foundations of physics shouldn't take Tim that seriously. This guy believes superluminal communication is possible. Sure, I'm completely in favor of throwing money at him to test it, but I would not in any way _believe_ any of these ideas until there is actual confirmation!
@amihartz I've never heard Tim say faster than light communication is possible. I think on the podcast with Sean Caroll he offhandly mentioned a new paper that looked like it was making that case, but I don't remember him ever advocating it. Beyond that it kinda sounds like you're annoyed a literal philosopher is concerned with ontology? I don't get it. Of course any contentions Tim has with physics models will be philosophical, that's the entire job description.
@@onlynormalperson I've heard him talk multiple times about thinking it's possible and if I recall correctly he even said he's looking for someone to help do the experiment, which like I said I totally support someone funding his experiment! Your next point is just a bizarre straw man. I am saying I'm skeptical that we should be positing metaphysical entities which we not only do not have evidence that they exist but their very existence contradicts the laws of physics. Why twist to my point into something it is not?
@amihartz what is the metaphysical entity being proposed? A discreet foliation? Yeah of course we should be super skeptical of that. But you're not framing it as a bad answer to ontological questions, you're framing the questions as misguided which I find strange. As for FTL communication I've watched several of Tim's lectures and I don't remember that ever coming up, IDK, maybe he has stuff for people that aren't laypeople so it's not come up in my feed and Googling.
The incompatibility of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is due to Relativity. The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *UA-cam presentation of above arguments: ua-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/v-deo.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I'm not in a good position to judge whether that argument is correct in principle, but I think it's basically self refuting to say that relativity can't be proven as a theory through experimental method and then to say that part of an alternative theory has been proven through experiments. Either we fundamentally can know if relativity is right, or we can't fundamentally know how light works, I don't think both can be true.
Experiments can not absolutely prove a theory, because there is a chance another experiment may contradict it. But you can disprove a theory absolutely by experimentally showing that the theory fails to predict the observed result. Experimentally measuring that the speed of light is not a constant would disprove Relativity, since it's 2nd postulate assumes that the speed of light is a constant c. So, scientific theories can't be absolutely proven, but they can be strongly supported by evidence, making them the best explanation we have for a phenomenon, until they are proven wrong by an experiment.
Do you have any keywords or authors names that I can google to read up on what experiments your talking about. Fascinating stuff. It would be much appreciated.
It's 2024, and people still ruin a lecture with bad audio and video that doesn't show the slides clearly.
They are not made for you
@@nihlify Then who for? Who like bad audio and not being able to see the slides?
Most of the papers are linked in the description of the UA-cam video. Even more are linked in the paper it is summarizing, by the same name, also lined in the video. The EM pulse experiment is linked at the end of my comment above. This is the most recent, where the propagation delay of an EM pulse was measured in the nearfield, and no propagation delay was observed. This shows that the front speed (or information speed) is instantaneous in the nearfield, proving Relativity wrong. The speed of gravity was also determined by Simone LaPlace in the late 1700's to be instantaneous, by noting the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. If gravity propagated at speed c, gravitational forces tangential to the orbits would result, causing the planets to spiral away. Since the planets have been stable for a very long time, the speed of nearfield gravity must be instantaneous. See speed of gravity Wikipedia.
That refers to Heisenberg's formula. No two opposites can exist at the same time at the same place.
The second law I added to that is. They can. When they are at the same place in another time.
Or at the same time at a different place.
The problem is you are using Euclidian geometry to space time.
Which cannot be quantum mechanical.
When will Alice and Bob get their Nobel Prize?
Maudlin does a great job showing why many people believe a tension (or worse, “a contradiction") exists between special relativity (SR) and quantum mechanics (QM). However, “the usual understanding of John Bell’s famous theorem … that certain observed correlations between experiments done far away from each other cannot be predicted or explained if no causes go faster than light” is not strictly true. Indeed, not only is there no contradiction between SR and QM due to the QM prediction and observed violation of Bell’s inequality, but the axiomatic reconstruction of QM from information-theoretic principles shows that the two theories actually follow from the same principle.
Specifically, the kinematics of SR (Lorentz transformations) and QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. We spell all of this out for the "general reader" in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024), but here is a synopsis.
According to Einstein, SR is a "principle theory," i.e., a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. For SR that empirically discovered fact is the light postulate -- everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR.
Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory and its empirically discovered fact is called Information Invariance & Continuity. In more physical terms, Information Invariance & Continuity entails that everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the "Planck postulate"). Since h is a constant of Nature according to Planck's radiation law, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by relative orientations in space (rotations), the relativity principle tells us the Planck postulate must obtain, whence the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of QM.
Quantum superposition is one consequence of the Planck postulate and that leads to 'average-only' conservation, which is responsible for the mystery of quantum entanglement. However, once you understand how ‘average-only’ conservation follows from quantum superposition, which follows from the Planck postulate, which follows from the relativity principle and Planck’s radiation law, there is nothing mysterious about the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. Here is how those correlations make perfect sense using spin-1/2 (as Maudlin introduced).
Suppose you send a vertical spin up electron to Stern-Gerlach (SG) magnets oriented at 60 deg relative to the vertical. Since spin is a form of angular momentum, classical mechanics says the amount of the vertical +1 angular momentum that you should measure at 60 deg is +1*cos(60) = 1/2 (in units of hbar/2). But, the SG measurement of electron spin constitutes a measurement of h, so everyone has to get the same +/- 1 for a spin measurement in any SG spatial orientation (as Maudlin pointed out), which means you can't get what you expect from common sense classical mechanics. Instead, QM says the measurement of a vertical spin up electron at 60 deg will produce +1 with a probability of 0.75 and it will produce -1 with a probability of 0.25, so the average is (+1 + 1 + 1 - 1)/4 = 1/2. In other words, QM says you get the common sense classical result on 'average only' because of the observer-independence of h. [Notice that indeterminism follows necessarily, since we have to average the required +/- 1 results.]
Now suppose Alice and Bob are measuring the spin singlet state (the two spins are anti-aligned when measured in the same direction, as shown in this video) and Alice obtains +1 vertically and Bob measures his particle at 120 deg relative to Alice. Obviously, if Bob had measured vertically he would have obtained -1, so at 120 deg Alice says he should get 1/2 per our single particle example. But of course, Bob must measure the same value for h that Alice does, so he can't get the fractional value of h Alice says he should (otherwise, Alice would be in a preferred reference frame). Instead, his outcomes at 120 deg corresponding to Alice's +1 outcomes vertically average to 1/2 just like the single particle case. And, of course, the data are symmetric so Bob can partition the results according to -*-his-*- +/- 1 outcomes and show that Alice's results satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on 'average only'.
In the end, Alice partitions the data per her +/- 1 outcomes and says Bob's results must be averaged to satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum, while Bob's partition says Alice's outcomes must be averaged (Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame, Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020)). This should remind you immediately of an analogous situation in SR. There when Alice and Bob occupy different references frames via relative motion, they partition spacetime events per their own surfaces of simultaneity and show clearly that each other's meter sticks are short and their clocks run slow.
In other words, the mystery of quantum entanglement resides in 'average-only' conservation that results from "no preferred reference frame" (NPRF) giving the observer-independence of h (NPRF + h). And, the mysteries of length contraction and time dilation reside in the relativity of simultaneity that results from "no preferred reference frame" giving the observer-independence of c (NPRF + c).
So, whose meter sticks are really short and whose clocks really run slow? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no causal mechanism shortening meter sticks and slowing down clocks in SR. Length contraction and time dilation are not dynamical effects, they are kinematic facts due to the light postulate, as justified by the relativity principle.
Likewise, who has to average their data to conserve spin angular momentum? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no non-local or superdeterministic or retro causal mechanism responsible for Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. ‘Average-only’ conservation is not a dynamical effect, it’s a kinematic fact due to the Planck postulate, as justified by the relativity principle.
Give up your constructive bias for QM (just as is done for SR) and physics makes perfect sense, i.e., no “contradiction exists” between QM and SR. But, the implications for your worldview are profound; given the result from quantum information theory and the conclusion of this video, reality is not fundamentally about causal mechanisms.
QM is a local theory. Tim just doesn't like the idea of relative states on philosophical grounds for contradicting with the intuitive notion that there can be an privileged frame of reference, i.e. some sort of foliation in spacetime, so he insists it must be wrong. He never even defends this assumption, he just dismissed the alternative as "I don't know what that means," meaning he refuses to even engage with the literature on the subject.
Quantum Mechanics is like 4 different schools of theories only one of which is local, the others all reject it. Even if you think Tim's completely overlooking the right one the implication that it's synonymous with QM as a whole is silly.
@@onlynormalperson This isn't about "interpretation" or "theory." The mathematical formalism is literally local in the sense that it is Lorentz invariant. Supporters of the pilot wave theory tend to mislead people a bit by saying that it makes the same predictions as QM, but they forget that our best theory of nature is actually QFT and not QM, so it being able to reproduce QM is hardly that impressive these days. QFT relies on locality to work, as it is takes into account special relativity. Maudlin keeps suggesting he is working on his own personal model that will somehow solve this problem, yet given it remains unsolved for a century I'm not going to get my hopes up.
The mathematics are objectively local, all the talk of "nonlocality" arises either philosophically from positing additional metaphysical entities which are not necessary, or they arise mathematically due to people like Tim thinking QFT must be wrong and it needs to have new parameters, despite there being no evidence it is wrong (his contentions with it are on purely philosophical grounds).
I mean, I'm not against people giving money to people to research things that will likely go nowhere. As Prutkov put it, _"Who interferes with the seeker for unwettable gunpowder?"_ But I do think it's bizarre for someone who _isn't_ a researcher being paid to study other things to actually insist QFT must be wrong, rather than to just adjust their metaphysical prejudices they started with, i.e. people who are _not_ working on the foundations of physics shouldn't take Tim that seriously. This guy believes superluminal communication is possible. Sure, I'm completely in favor of throwing money at him to test it, but I would not in any way _believe_ any of these ideas until there is actual confirmation!
@amihartz I've never heard Tim say faster than light communication is possible. I think on the podcast with Sean Caroll he offhandly mentioned a new paper that looked like it was making that case, but I don't remember him ever advocating it.
Beyond that it kinda sounds like you're annoyed a literal philosopher is concerned with ontology? I don't get it. Of course any contentions Tim has with physics models will be philosophical, that's the entire job description.
@@onlynormalperson I've heard him talk multiple times about thinking it's possible and if I recall correctly he even said he's looking for someone to help do the experiment, which like I said I totally support someone funding his experiment!
Your next point is just a bizarre straw man. I am saying I'm skeptical that we should be positing metaphysical entities which we not only do not have evidence that they exist but their very existence contradicts the laws of physics. Why twist to my point into something it is not?
@amihartz what is the metaphysical entity being proposed? A discreet foliation? Yeah of course we should be super skeptical of that.
But you're not framing it as a bad answer to ontological questions, you're framing the questions as misguided which I find strange.
As for FTL communication I've watched several of Tim's lectures and I don't remember that ever coming up, IDK, maybe he has stuff for people that aren't laypeople so it's not come up in my feed and Googling.
The incompatibility of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is due to Relativity. The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*UA-cam presentation of above arguments: ua-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/v-deo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I'm not in a good position to judge whether that argument is correct in principle, but I think it's basically self refuting to say that relativity can't be proven as a theory through experimental method and then to say that part of an alternative theory has been proven through experiments.
Either we fundamentally can know if relativity is right, or we can't fundamentally know how light works, I don't think both can be true.
Experiments can not absolutely prove a theory, because there is a chance another experiment may contradict it. But you can disprove a theory absolutely by experimentally showing that the theory fails to predict the observed result. Experimentally measuring that the speed of light is not a constant would disprove Relativity, since it's 2nd postulate assumes that the speed of light is a constant c. So, scientific theories can't be absolutely proven, but they can be strongly supported by evidence, making them the best explanation we have for a phenomenon, until they are proven wrong by an experiment.
@williamwalker39 yes I understand and completely agree, but I don't think light being inconsistent is proveable by the same rationale.
Do you have any keywords or authors names that I can google to read up on what experiments your talking about. Fascinating stuff. It would be much appreciated.
Bad acoustics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I put on a pair of noise cancelling headphones which helped. Just some feedback on the feedback. Happy Holidays.