PHYSICISTS' BIG BLUNDERS.

                                                                Copyright © 2004 2005 2006 2007, 2008 David V Connell.

      I suppose the biggest blunder of all is in not accepting that a postulation is incorrect (as stated or interpreted), when strange consequences result.

      The emergence of Relativity around the turn of the 20th century, in particular Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR [1]), gave physicists a new dimension for research into the fundamental laws of nature, but also created new opportunities for making wrong assumptions and other mistakes.
      The Principle of Relativity is described in various ways, but popularly means that the laws of physics must be the same in all inertial frames of reference, e.g. "Energy = Mass times the speed of light (c) squared", must stay true in any frame of reference moving with constant speed relative to another, where c squared is a constant of proportionality. Similarly, another law, "energy is equal to Planck's constant (denoted h) times frequency", also shows that the mathematical forms of the laws of physics often include a constant of proportionality having appropriate dimensions of Mass, Length and Time for the equation to be valid.
      Relativistic changes to mass, length and resonant frequencies as predicted by STR (c and h assumed constant) create a problem with the above equations:- the same relative change of energy is predicted by both the above equations when mass is increased by applied energy without resulting motion (e.g. a change in height in the same frame of reference), but when unrestricted motion results, then for the same increase in mass, the two equations predict different values!
      For physics to be coherent THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN. Frequency increases in the first case, but decreases in the second, as experiments show, and the only possibility that prevents this anomaly is by c and h changing their values in moving frames according to the changes in their dimensions.
      The blunder, therefore, is that everyone, it seems, (including Einstein) assumes that constants of proportionality have the same value in all frames - that the the words "the laws of physics must be the same" in the Principle of Relativity (wrongly) includes the value of the constant of proportionality.
                   THIS BLUNDER IS STILL BEING MADE, after more than 100 years!
      Because the laws of physics are proportional relationships, represented by equations, then, for any physics equation to be valid in different frames of reference, the value of any dimensioned constant of proportionality needs to be (re)calculated from the new sizes of the units involved.
      When mass is changed by relativity in accelerated (moving) frames, only one (unique) set of changes to Mass, Length, and Time units can exist that produces coherence between all physics equations, and that set requires the values of c and h to change.
      If, instead, the constant had been called "the factor of proportionality", the blunder may not have been made, nor perpetuated, but it is a mathematical term, made before relativity (applied energy) was found to change the size of the standard units of mass, length and time.
      All the areas of criticism, the anomalies and contradictions emanating from STR can be traced back to this blunder, which invalidates STR as that theory is based on the postulation that the measurement of c does not change.
      Correct (coherent) relativity transformations for mass, length, and time units, and the dynamic values for c and h, plus new mass-velocity equations, are given in a manuscript describing Natural Relativity (NR - not yet published [2]), which the Physical Society of America refuses to publish in their appropriate journal (they don't give any valid reasons, but do seem to be protecting STR from being invalidated/replaced).
      It is not surprising, then, to find that STR does not comply with any principles of relativity and also disagrees with some experiments, as is shown in NR, which agrees with all valid experiments and complies with all principles of physics and relativity.
      ANOTHER BLUNDER is somewhat opposite (would you believe it?), to that given above.
      Constants of proportionality must have fixed values in an inertial frame of reference (otherwise they are not constants, so I call this the principle of local constants), yet the known relativistic changes in a chosen frame of reference predict that the universal gravitational constant of proportionality G apparently changes with height (did no one notice?). THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN EITHER, and appears to have been completely overlooked. Physicists have cheerfully accepted from other considerations that it is a universal constant, but when the logic of relativity is applied, it seems to be not a constant, whereas it is widely accepted that it should be. If a set of relativistic changes produces coherence between all undisputed physics equations, then the rare equation that fails to conform must be incorrect. This points to Newton's law of gravity being incorrect, and this surprising fact and the correction to it, are given in the manuscript mentioned above. This news is nearly 100 years late, too.
      Perhaps, the following may not be considered by some to be a BLUNDER, but violation of the principle of Conservation of Total Energy should qualify, in my opinion. That principle, together with the principle of equivalence of mass and energy, demands that applied energy causes mass to increase (decrease) in its own frame of reference. Then, those changes to the mass of electrons in atoms cause changes to emitted frequencies and atomic size (relativistic effects), as shown by the undisputed spectroscopic equations produced by Neils Bohr in 1913 [3]. It has become noticeable, therefore, that some authors (and text books) derive predictions of relativistic effects from empirical manipulations of physics equations and theories without any energy being supplied (or removed) to enable mass to change. No energy supplied (removed) equals no mass change equals no relativistic effects. Also, apparent mass changes in external frames can have no relativistic effects as they are entirely dependent on the state of motion of the observer. And, also, it is long accepted that inertial motion changes nothing (there is no ongoing energy exchange). Unfortunately, STR seems to have set a bad example here.
      "To err is human, to forgive, divine", but to deliberately perpetuate errors is . . . . . . just another error to be forgiven?

References.
1. Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 2nd edition(Dover Publications, New York, 1962).
2. D. V.Connell, "Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion and Gravity on Mass", (not published).
3. Henry Semat, Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics, 4th edition, (Chapman and Hall, London, 1962), p.233.


click here to return to CONTENTS.