A Critique of Einsteinian Relativity

There is so much mystique, and so much elegant mathematics attached to Dr. Einstein's ideas that for one to even hint in the presence of most physical scientists that there is a flaw in Relativity is like standing on a street in Vatican City and averring, "Jesus was a Zealot leader." Saying that the "no-speed-faster-than-light" dictum has a definite limitation in application is tantamount to heresy. The reader is, therefore, being warned that the following essay will have some comments that are not, as yet, accepted in the "scientific community," so, if they wish to say, "This is just another crank," and sign out now, be my guest....

For over a hundred years, Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity--now called the Special Theory of Relativity, after he generalized his ideas from moving "frames of reference" to accelerated frames of reference--has been treated as "fact" by the scientific establishment. It is long since time that his ideas were reexamined to determine to what extent the conclusions are indeed fact, and to what extent they have been misapplied.

Let us look at statements of Dr. Einstein's two basic premises in a couple of different ways and see what happens.

Premise 1. There is for every observer a frame of reference in which the normal laws of physics hold true. (This is, I am sure, not an exact translation of his original wording, but should carry the original intent.)

Premise 2. There is no possible speed greater than the speed of light. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light. (Again, undoubtedly not an exact translation; but it is the way that the second premise is generally understood.)

Now, looking from a different viewpoint, we can write two statements which make essentially the same point.

Statement 1. All information coming to a receiver from a transmitter which is not in motion with respect to the receiver will not be distorted during transmission. (Things that are in the same frame of reference are not moving with relation to one another.)

Statement 2. No information can be transmitted at a velocity greater than the speed of light. No information nor energy can be transmitted at beyond the speed of light. (The fastest carrier wave of information and energy of which we have any knowledge is electromagnetic radiation.)

What we have done in the above is to restate Dr. Einstein's premises in the form of statements having to do with the transfer of information. Having done this, we can see clearly that the ideas are clearly fact as related to information transfer.

The next stage is wherein the mathematical equations relating "rest values" --that is, the values of any measurement made wherein objects are not moving with relation to one another--and, "relativistic values"--the values that measurements will apparently have when they are transmitted between transmitter/receiver pairs that are in motion with respect to one another. These equations accurately portray the distortion that will occur in such cases; but, can be misinterpreted and misapplied. These equations are all of the following form:.

A*=A/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, where, A* is the "Relativistic Value." A is the "rest" value. "v" is the relative velocity between transmitter and receiver, and "c" is a constant, the speed of light in a vacuum. These equations become meaningless when "v" is equal to or greater than "c." The "Relativistic Value" becomes "Infinite."

The term, "Infinite," is usually interpreted, erroneously, as, "Totally beyond all measurement." What it should be interpreted as is, "Not measurable by the assumptions were are making, or, the tools we are using." The first interpretation leads to such ideas as, "The mass of an object moving at the speed of light is 'Infinite.'" The more correct statement would be, "The mass of an object moving with respect to an observer cannot be measured accurately by any means of which we are aware. " Another correct statement would be. " If an attempt is made to accelerate an object to beyond the speed of light with energy supplied from an external source, the effect of attempting to transmit energy at the speed of light will make the object appear to have 'infinite mass.'" The mass of the object will not have been changed, its "apparent mass" is changed by the problems of information/energy transmission.

Since equations of the form cited above can be generalized by inserting other "carrier wave" velocities in place of the speed of light, the Einsteinian Relativity ideas can be applied to an unlimited number of what could be called "Perceptual Universes" which could be defined by a particular viewpoint and a particular maximum velocity of information transfer. One could use the basic ideas in Sonar Research, in research having to do with nerve impulses, and possibly in many other ways. Einstein's work is totally valid as long as we are talking about information/energy transfer.

There are, however, several misinterpretations which seem to be pervasive in the scientific community. One is that "relativistic values" are taken as having total reality. Relativistic effects at a receiver may be the same as if they were "real." However, if we consider the "real" facts as those measured closest to the origin, we can see that "relativistic values" are distortions.

Another pervasive misuse is the application of the "no-speed-greater-than-light dictum to the relative motion of freely moving bodies, and to the maximum velocity along a predetermined vector which a moving object might attain. A few moments of reflection should show any thinking person that application of the dictum to these cases is almost surely arrant nonsense. However, these two misinterpretations seem to be generally accepted.

Dr. Einstein, himself, does not seem to have realized that his work more properly belonged on the area of information theory than in physics. The extension of "Special Relativity" to accelerated systems resulting in General Relativity, has the same problems related to the misuse of the ideas to systems/situations wherein information/energy transfer is either unnecessary or impossible.

[The Space/Time model can, also, be related to "Information theory." If one wishes to identify exactly a happening, one must tell "where" and "when." In mathematical terms one must identify the happening in three dimensions of space and one dimension of measured sequence. If one is unsure of a location in three-dimensional space, one can "triangulate" it from three known points. Having done this, one would yet have to locate this point with reference to a sequence. Now if you don't have any reference points to start with you can do what Einstein apparently did, he simply set up three dimensions (vectors) for each of his unknown reference points, then added another dimension to each, converting his "3-D vectors into "Tensors." Having done so, he said that he could describe Space/Time with nine tensors. (More recently, Hawkings, et al, in String Theory, talk about a ten-dimensional universe. Presumably, this "10-D-Universe" is based on the same idea, as nine "tensors" would add up to ten dimensions.)]

In summary, Einstein's work is totally valid when applied to cases wherein information or energy is necessarily transmitted/received. It has no apparent validity in cases wherein such transfer cannot take place.

Just because something cannot be readily measured does not mean that it is impossible.

A GUIDE TO THE NEUUTRON: FACTS AND FABLES

Since the discovery of the neutron in the 1930's, the neutron has held a fascinating place in chemical theory. One of the first things that was decided was that the neutron's existence explained the Periodic Chart of the Elements. "The neutrons exist in atomic nuclei, making up the difference between the atomic number and the atomic weight," has been dogma since that time. This idea seems imminently sensible and is an excellent bookkeeping device for keeping track of nuclear changes such as Alpha emission, Beta emission and Positron emission during "nuclear decay" processes. It, also, may be pure fable.

This idea of neutrons, as such, existing in nuclei makes molecular chemistry and nuclear chemistry have little in common, which seems highly unlikely. It necessitates postulates of weak and strong nuclear forces, and has given rise to theories of "Neutron Shells, " including the interesting concept of "Magic Shells." The worst criticism may be that it assumes that the tiny, dense, fast-moving electrons completely lose their identities in the nucleus. It seems far more likely that--considering the charge density, mass density and size of the proton and electron-- neutrons do not exist, per se, in nuclei; but that, instead, nuclei are made up of protons held together by electrons existing in bonding orbitals somewhat analogous to the orbitals that are assumed to exist in molecules. Although the proton, and the neutron, have over 1800 times the mass of the electron, they have some 1,000,000,000 the volume of the electron. It can be seen that the electron is relatively far more dense and there is definitely space for electrons to move quite freely through protons or within them.

Electrons moving within the "outer skin" of protons leads to a possible explanation of the difference between the neutron--which decays in space to an electron and a proton, and, is, therefore, the simplest "Beta emitter--" and, its "Iso-1,1-set" isomer, the Hydrogen isotope of mass one, "H-1." In the neutron the electron may be confined to orbits, within the proton, while in the H-1 atom the electron can move in orbits both within and outside of the proton. The extra freedom of the electron allows it to be less energetic and the H-1 is the more stable entity.

[In "Motion in a Matrix " discussion one would say that in the "neutron" the small electron vortex has changed some of its linear motion to point-centered motion and remains within the confines of the huge proton vortex. Some disturbance of this vortex set will allow the electron vortex to convert some of its point-centered motion to linear motion and escape the vortex completely. The Hydrogen one atom would entail a discussion of coordinated motions of the two vortexes with the smaller passing in and out of the larger.]

If electronic charge is essentially a "skin effect" the presence of the electron within the proton can account of the smaller size of the neutron and the difference in charge density of the electron and the proton seems a logical explanation for the small magnetic moment noted for the neutron. Additionally, both the neutron and the H1 atom are said to have a "spin number of 1/2." A spin number of 1/2 is associated with an "unpaired" electron. If the electron had totally lost its identity one might expect a spin of zero.

There are mentions in the literature of "Polyneutrons" such as the "Tetraneutron." These are generally dismissed as, "Error," "Fantasy," or "Kook Science," by the scientific community in general, yet they may perfect sense in light of the above discussion. The "Tetraneutron" would be a member of "Iso-4,4-set" along with Helium isotope of mass four, "He4," and would differ from He4 in essentially the same way that the neutron differs for H1. That is, it would be made up of a four proton array--presumably tetrahedral in shape--held together by four electrons.

[Perhaps a short explanation of the useful "Iso-set" notation would not be too amiss. This is a notation used by this writer to describe sets of atoms and molecules having a certain number of electrons and protons. (It is not found in the literature.) Here's how it works: The "Iso-1,0-set would be the electron--one electron, zero proton--which we can abbreviate, {1,0}, obviously the proton would abbreviate as {0,1}. The next set would abbreviate as {1,1; n; H1} that is, one electron, one proton; neutron; and Hydrogen 1 atom. Deuterium and molecular Hydrogen would be members of the Iso-2,2-set, etc. As one can see, this groups together units and structures that might not otherwise appear to be related. Therefore, it points out some possible transformations that one might not think about, and the possibility of existence of otherwise "impossible" entities.]

Another possible myth is that neutrons are very deadly radiation. When the writer was a student at MIT in the summer of 1960, one of his instructors told of the experiment that was apparently the first test for the lethality of a neutron stream. A rabbit was placed in a plastic container and subjected to a stream of neutrons. When the container was opened, the rabbit was found to be dead. It apparently was some time, possibly years, before anyone realized that the container was airtight.... Although extremely penetrating, it is questionable that neutron radiation has the lethal sterilizing effects attributed to it in ideas such as the neutron bomb. It may be that, to this day, the unfortunate rabbit--that probably simply smothered to death--is the only test that has been made of the lethality of neutron beams.

From what has been said before, it is almost redundant to say that the idea that the neutron is the "final form of matter" to which stars will collapse is almost certainly also in realm of fantasy. As noted above. the neutron is unstable with respect to both the proton, electron combination, and the H1 atom. It is heavier than either, hence with more energy content. A neutron star would have much more energy content than one made up of electrons and protons, yet it is supposed to appear when energy content is minimized and "the electrons collapse upon the protons." This can be considered a ridiculous statement if one conceives the electron and proton as in the discussion above. It seems to assume the electron to be some sort of light, fluffy coating to protons where nearly the opposite is probably the truth. Whatever "neutron stars" are composed of they most certainly would not be pure neutrons. (s.a. "Defining a Neutron Star" by this writer. )

It would appear that it might be sensible for the scientific community to reevaluate its thinking about the neutron considering that many of the current "facts" about the neutron may instead be simply fables.

Electronic Orbitals in Atomic Nuclei

One may ask the question, "Do atomic nuclei have internal electron orbitals having similarities to those believed to exist in molecules?

There seems to have been little attention given to the idea of there being atomic orbitals in atomic nuclei. Although the ideas of molecular orbitals is used in both organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry, the ideas apparently have not been extended to nuclear chemistry. There may be at least two reasons for this. The first reason is that apparently no-one has done the math. to compare size/density information about the electron and the proton such as to realize that the much smaller, and far more dense electron should be able to pass quite freely through protons and would have space for movement within a proton. The second reason would be the fixation on the idea that neutrons, as such, exist in nuclei. If neutrons, as such, exist within atomic nuclei, then, electrons, as such, do not; therefore, there would be no need to consider the concept of electron orbitals within nuclei. If there are no electrons, the idea of orbitals does not occur. Instead there has developed a theory of neutron shells, exchange forces, strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces. It seems quite likely that a concept of Nuclear Orbitals for electrons, could account for much of what these forces are said to do.

[As an aside, the writer wonders why the term, "force," is used in this type of argument,

considering that there is the old rule that "each and every force is accompanied by

an equal and opposite force."]

To start looking at the idea of orbitals. let us first look at the ideas of Molecular Orbitals. "MOs", in particular as the ideas are applied to the chemistry of Carbon, Organic Chemistry. Much of the chemistry of Carbon may be correlated to "three kinds of Carbon." These three are, as follows:

1.Tetrahedral Carbon, "single-bonded Carbon," which has four things bonded to a Carbon atom at 120 degree angles, in three-dimensional space, this is called, "sp3," hybridized Carbon. (The terminology will be explained later.) The solid form of Carbon with this structure is diamond.

2, Trigonal Carbon, "double-bonded Carbon," called "sp2," with three bonds at 120 degrees in a plane, has electron orbital(s) above and below the plane. the solid form of carbon with this structure is graphite, which exists in flat, slippery sheets.

3. Linear Carbon, "triple-bonded Carbon, called, "sp1." has a linear, cylindrical structure. This form is not found in solid Carbon, but occurs in many compounds. Some of the best known of these are Acetylene, H-CC-H; Carbon Dioxide, O=C=O, Carbon Monoxide, CO, and Hydrogen Cyanide, HCN, all of which are liner, cylindrical molecules.

It seems logical that, at the level of the nucleus, we would find these same three basic shapes to occur among the simpler atoms. Deuterium, composed of two protons and two electrons, would be expected to have an ovoid, "egg-shaped" nucleus, that is, a cylinder rounded off. Tritium. composed of three protons and three electrons, and its "Iso-3,3-set" partner, Helium, isotope three, He3, would be expected to have nuclei which were either of the tetrahedral form, or of the trigonal form as a flat triangle. In another write up focuslng more on shapes, the writer will try to explain why he feels that a tetrahedral form, analogous to the form of Ammonia, NH3, is probably the usual case for Tritium, while the flat triangle is more likely the case for Helium 3. The normal situation for Helium 4, the common isotope of Helium, would be a tetrahedron. At very low temperatures, the nucleus may change to a flat, square planar structure. (See, A guide to Helium II)

Let us return to the nomenclature and explain the "s," "p." notation used above. These take their names from the lowest electronic orbitals considered to belong to the Hydrogen atom. The "s" orbital, which takes its name from the "sharp" spectral lines of the Hydrogen spectrum, is felt to be a simply sphere, the "p," orbitals, named for the "principal" lines of the Hydrogen spectrum, is thought to consist of three "dumbbell" shaped orbits at 90 degrees to each other, Combining the one "s" orbit with but one of the "p" orbits is considered to give two orbits with principal lobes opposite to one another in a given atom. The remaining "p" orbitals, extending out from the line can combine with other "p" orbitals, if two atoms are joined together to form a set of two "Pi" bonds making a cylinder of electron motions about the line connecting the two atoms. With "sp2, " we have three orbitals at 120 degrees and one possible Pi bond, or set of bonds, which are taking up the space above and below the plane of the other three bonds. In molecules, we consider two electrons in an orbital to comprise a bond. The "sp3" simply has four bonds to the central nucleus, using eight electrons, none of them considered to be free to move other than between/around more than two centers in a "Sigma" bond. In nuclei, it appears that, at least in some cases, only one electron may be necessary to bond two or more centers.

We have been discussing the ideas of electrons moving in various patterns in molecules, concentrating on the three simple shapes found in Carbon chemistry. Of course, there are far more complex patterns possible, and in nuclei, it can be expected that patterns will get complicated very rapidly; however, the point that is trying to be made here is that, if electrons can be considered to be holding together atoms in molecules by their motions about atoms, why is it not reasonable to think that the same thing would not be true for holding protons together in nuclei? The very heavy, but very huge (in comparison to the electron) protons would seem to be easier to be held together by electrons moving about and through them than would be the case for atoms being held together in molecules.

It seems to make more sense to see the difference between the Neutron and the Hydrogen atom to be a case of the electron's motion being within the Neutron.and both within and outside the nucleus of the Hydrogen atom, than to have no real correlation between the two entities which could be considered "stereo-isomers." That is, things made up of the same two basic units arranged differently in space. (See, A guide to the neutron: Facts and Fables) For the Deuterium atom and the Hydrogen molecule to be bonded by electrons perhaps between the two protons in the case of H:H and within the two protons in the Deuterium seems also to be logical.

In molecules, molecular orbitals are considered to involve two or more atoms, that is to say, two or more centers. By the same reasoning, the first unit that one might wish to discuss as possessing true nuclear orbitals would be the Deuterium atom, "the Hydrogen Isotope of mass two." This is generally considered as having a nucleus made up of one proton and one neutron. If we consider it in a nuclear-orbital fashion we would consider it as being composed of two protons bonded by one electron in something analogous to the "Sigma " bond assumed to hold the two atoms together in the Hydrogen molecule. However, one might suggest that considering the difference in geometry and charge distributions, that the case may be much closer to the situation seen in Acetylene where there is possibility of the electrons moving about not only between the carbon atoms but above, below and completely around. In the Deuterium nucleus electrons would be free to move anywhere within the two bonded protons as well as any space between them and around them. Also, as no electron would have a label "valence electron" or "nuclear electron" a very complex electron "dance" can be visualized. [It would be interesting to see if some computer programmer could work up something on this idea. ]
"Spin" data on the Deuterium atom indicate that there are two "unpaired" electrons. ( "Spin" generally correlates to "unpaired electrons" with a spin of "1/2" indicating one unpaired electron, spin of "1'" indicating two, spin 3/2 is three and so on.) Deuterium has a "Spin number of !" indicating two unpaired electrons. By a Nuclear Orbital approach this makes sense, one in the nucleus, one in the "valence shell." The conventional model would have no real explanation. Another support for the idea of "NOs" is magnetic moment data, which is related to electrical asymmetry. The neutron, Hydrogen atom and the Deuterium atom all have magnetic moments. What is interesting in that the neutron and the Deuterium atom have magnetic moments that are listed as being "negative." Hydrogen1 has a positive magnetic moment. In the view we are using, we can correlate a negative magnetic moment to the presence of unpaired electrons within the "nucleus" of the Neutron and the Deuterium atom and the positive magnetic moment to the '"external " valence electron of the H1 atom. This magnetic moment correlation appears again at He3 which also has a negative magnetic moment and, in our reasoning, an unpaired electron bonding three protons together in a flat.triangular nucleus. The fact that Tritium has no magnetic moment despite having one electron in an outer orbit, as opposed to the Helium 3 having two is the reason that the writer feels that the Tritium nucleus would be a vibrating tetrahedron with the three protons changing places among the four possible tetrahedral positions, such an array would not have a net magnetic moment whereas the flat array visualized for He3 would. The two, are, of course, "stereo-isomeric" members of the "Iso-3,3-set," differing in their shape, energy content and electronic distributions.

[The "Iso-x,y-set" notation is the author's own invention as to a way of grouping together molecules, ions, atoms, having the same numbers of electrons, "x" and protons, "y." " Iso-1,0-set" would be the electron. Iso-0,1-set is the proton. Iso-1,1-set would include the electron and proton considered as a pair, the neutron, and H1...]

This article, discussing the possibility of there being Nuclear Orbitals within atomic nuclei has moved somewhat into what probably should be a related article discussing the possible significances of nuclear geometries.

In summary, the possibility of nuclear orbitals and their significance for nuclear chemistry seems to have been overlooked. This author strongly suggests that the idea be seriously examined.

A model for our physical universe considering motions in a matrix as
being fundamental, may be usable to explain most , if not all of or
present knowledge.
That the speed of light is a constant of nature which can be
considered to be the limiting velocity of an information
carrier-wave, and that all information moved by other means, can be
considered as being moved from particle to particle by some sort of
"wave motion," suggests that electromagnetic radiation, light, is a
transverse wave motion in a three-dimensional matrix analogous to a
solid. (A possible suggestion for such a matrix could be neutrinos in
a ground vibrational state.)
Quantization of every known interaction, also implies an underlying,
regular structure, a "Matrix."
"Motion" of some sort is a "given" in all observations/experiences.
The fact that motions can be analyzed in two categories, motions
related to a point or points, and somehow "attached" to the point or
points, and motions along a line, fits well with the known
Mass/Energy duality. Mass is considered as static, i.e. it could
conceptually be related to motion associated with a point, while
Energy is noted when motion along a vector is changed in direction or
impeded. This somewhat reverses the concept of Energy from "That
which moves Mass, " to "That which is observed when Mass is moved."
Mass, then, may be considered to be a characteristic of a point
centered motion in a matrix, a characteristic of the spinning of a
"3D-Vortex." We, therefore, can conceptually consider all matter as
being made up of combinations of two variants on two fundamental,
stable, "Vortex Particles" having opposite spin-tumble
orientations. These would be what we know as the electron and
positron.

[The proton can be considered as a very large vortex formed by
partially inelastic collisions between positrons, resulting in
"Exploded Positrons.; thus explaining the absence of Positrons in our "normal world." They are "hiding" in the guise of the Proton.

Vortexes of opposite spin/tumble can be expected to attract; and, if of the same size, could mutually annihilate. If the vortexes are of very different size/motion characteristics, the attraction will still be there but the destructive potential is not. ]

The neutron can be considered as an electron-proton combination, with the electron spinning within the proton.

The mass/energy interconversion would imply that any given vortex, operating in a "stable orbit" would have a certain amount of motion associated with it, as linear motion increased, point-centered motion would decrease, and vice-versa. Applying this to electron orbitals, the electron at its greatest distance from a nucleus would have it maximum point-centered motion, "mass," and it least linear motion, "energy." At the center of its motion passing near or through the nucleus it would have its minimum mass and maximum energy. The same should apply to physical orbital such as planatary orbitals with a mass difference between perihelion and aphelion.

Space can be considered as an inherent characteristic of the matrix. Time is always measured by
consecutive, changing motion and can be considered as
a measure of consecutive motion, referenced to some reproducible cycle.

What are some of the other results of this view?

The fact that light is considered a "mass-less particle" is no problem in this model. It is a linear disturbance in the matrix.

A positive charge would be associated with one spin/tumble orientation. A negative charge with the reverse orientation. Gravitation would be a result of the strained Matrix trying to readjust.
Motion of the electron vortexes in atoms and molecules would fit best with the "3-D Pendulum" conception of electron orbitals. (The theory of this deserves a separate write-up.)

This whole area needs far more work. What are the "dots" of the matrix? Neutrinos in a ground vibrational state might fit. (This would explain why a neutrino would travel at close to the speed of light. A "freed-up-neutrino" would pass through the matrix in the same way that a pendulum ball hitting a string of like-sized balls will bounce another pendulum ball off the other side. It wouldn't be the same neutrino; but, who could tell the difference?) What is the spacing? Is this spacing implied in some of the constants of nature, just as the constant speed of light implies the existence of the matrix? Can the tremendous amount of physical science data that is now extant be fitted to this model?

This model does nothing to solve the question of existence, but does seem to cut down on the number of unknowns with which one must deal.

It would appear that the ideas of Space/Time and Quantum Mechanics need not be considered as in conflict with this model as the three models are actually different viewpoints of a fact of Existence which we cannot fully understand. Space/Time if carefully analyzed is an approach which can be said to be historical and communication theory based--although it's adherents might not agree. Quantum Mechanics is completely mathematical.

Welcome to The Structure of Everything, etc.

Hi, everybody,

My name, is Dean L (for LeRoy) Sinclair. I am trying to set up a site here on which I can publish some of the ideas that are rattling around in this 1932 model biological computer before it goes down for the last time and 75 years of diffuse programming and 375 semester hours of college credit go totally to waste. I really have no idea what I am doing at this moment. From Google Docs & Spreadsheets, came a reference to this site, so a couple of weeks ago, I signed on. Now, I'm not sure how to get anything on. I'm hoping that the Google site knows what to do. I don't. If this goes through as a post, I shall try to follow up with the posting, a version of which is to be found on Helium.com, of the article which gives the site its name of "About the Structure of Everything, etc. If Motion in a Matrix posts, I shall post some of my other ideas, also.

Hasta mas tarde. Espero....DLS