Einstein’s Error

Contours of a new, more realistic paradigm in physics
What’s wrong with Classical Mechanics

Anton Biermans

The idea that the universe is an object we may imagine to observe from without To investigate nature, a physicist must choose whether he believes that our universe was created by some outside intervention or that we live in a Self-Creating Universe (SCU). If a universe creates itself out of nothing, then conservation laws say that everything inside of it somehow has to cancel, add to nothing –in which case it cannot have any particular property or be in some particular state as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without, so to say. If there’s nothing outside of it with respect to which it can have properties, then it also cannot have such properties or be in some particular state as a whole as seen from within. A SCU therefore is that unique, paradoxical thing which has no physical reality as a whole, no ‘exterior’, but only exists as seen from within. This is like in a closed economy the sum of all credits and debts always is nil though they certainly do exist to its inside debtors and creditors. Though an outside observer may think about inside objects, imagine them to exist, if it the economy (universe) is closed and all credits and debts cancel, if there’s no free money (photons, gravitons etc.) left over to involve an outsider in a transaction (observation interaction) so he cannot in any way communicate with what’s inside of it, then it has no reality to him. The universe therefore is not something we may imagine to observe from without, as if it is an ordinary object which changes, evolves everywhere at the same pace. This, however, is exactly what Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) does, hypothesizing from an imaginary, but scientifically illegitimate vantage point what happens inside of it: this is only allowed if and when elementary particles (and the objects they form) only are the source, the cause of interactions and forces. If in a SCU particles have to create themselves, each other, so they are as much the product as the source of their interactions, of forces between them so then doing so is out of the question. By imagining to look at it from without like we may imagine God to look at His creation, by speaking about the age of the universe, BBC in fact states that the universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making: that it has been created by some outside intervention, so it represents a religious view on the universe rather than a scientific. As according to BBC the universe expands and according to Classical Mechanics (CM) mass causes galaxies to attract, this should slow down the velocity at which they recede from us.

As a SCU has no physical reality as a whole. independent events. what properties to have: as it has no reality as a whole. so a SCU doesn’t need any mysterious dark energy to explain observations.As this is not observed. as a whole. what is cause of what. BBC had to dream up The idea of dark energy This mysterious energy in BBC is supposed to power the ‘observed’ unrestrained expansion. make it ‘decide’ in what state to be or what ‘animals’ to contain. To be clear. who sees the universe grow old as a whole at the same pace everywhere. as ‘seen’ from without. here an observer should at all times2 see galaxies in all possible evolutionary phases. even if they are at rest with respect to the observer. the universe can be thought of as actually containing an infinitude of ‘animal species’ in an infinitude of evolutionary shapes. so the emission of a photon by atom A cannot causally precede its absorption by atom B –in which case the speed of light cannot be a velocity. it cannot even be assigned a wave function.Wikipedia. in the concept of cosmic time (the time passed since the bang) states that there’s a clock outside the universe the pace of which doesn’t depend on what happens inside of it. Contrary to a Big Bang Universe (BBU). imperturbable pace. Living in a time continuum not of its own making. in all stadia of life. or rather CM in general and Einstein in particular can be blamed for The idea that the speed of light is a velocity BBC. here there’s no such absolute clock so we cannot ask what precedes what in an absolute sense. Whereas in a BBU the emission and absorption are thought of as two separate. no matter when the observer lives to look at it and where he looks from. For more information about this redshift and other subjects here discussed. Here there’s no outside observer who by observing can ‘collapse the wave function’ of the universe. forever proceeding at the same divine. a SCU is something entirely different from Fred Hoyle’s Steady State Universe. as if time is something which comes for free. Instead the cat being dead and alive as long as nobody looks. 2 1 . in a SCU it is a single event effectuating changes at two places at once. so BBC. have any particular property or be in any single particular state.org If when the universe cannot. in a BBU we can determine what precedes what. clocks to run at a slower pace as they are more distant. the pace of events governed by an absolute (cosmic) clock. As in a SCU things are observed to evolve at a slower pace as they are more distant. then this is like Schrödinger's cat. see http://en. a SCU does not live in a time realm not of its own making but contains and produces all time within: here we should see clocks show an earlier time as they are more distant –and time to pass slower. and not because it takes their light time to reach us. A SCU therefore doesn’t have to expand to explain the observed redshift of galaxies1: here we should see a linear relation between the distance of galaxies and their redshift –which we do indeed. In a BBU it is the same cosmic time everywhere so here the speed of light necessarily is a (finite) velocity: cosmic time refers to an imaginary outside observer who can see inside events without any time delay due the finite speed of light which otherwise would show galaxies in an earlier phase of their evolution as they are more distant.

as only in a SCU a space distance is a time distance. In CM it is a mystery why the speed of light is what it is and how the photon can keep its velocity constant –does it have some kind of GPS and cruise control on board? We can only speak about the velocity of a particle if and when it interacts with the objects relative to which it moves. unless we believe that B. there’s no energy liberated so the energy of a photon must be as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next. The photon therefore has no reality to the objects along its supposed path. instantaneous contact In fact. If when a SCU has no clock to determine objectively. However. all objects within the interaction horizon of A and B participate in the transmission as it affects the mass of A and B. then we must conclude that the photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all. their own interactions with A and B. is not a classical object. as in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere. is as far-reaching as it is subtle4. as A changes itself. however. 4 It’s impossible to experimentally prove whether the speed of light is a velocity or not –unless we may take the contradictions a light velocity leads to in physics as criterion.If A emits a photon which is absorbed by B. A and B determine together3 whether and when the photon is transmitted: A cannot send a photon to B if B refuses to absorb it just as B cannot absorb it if A refuses to produce it. start to see B in its new state. though A may find C wanting to absorb it –or perhaps it is D which tells A to produce the photon. a limit to the velocity objects can move at since you obviously cannot cross a space distance between two points in a time shorter than corresponds to their time distance. as it is the same cosmic time everywhere. so according to the photon there’s no distance at all between A and B. here the transmission is instantaneous –in contrast to a BBU where. its position is perfectly indefinite so it cannot interact to give away its position. where it passes when. its value as arbitrary as the choice our forebears made when they chose their units of length and time. so it cannot be attributed a velocity. nor do they exist to the photon. if the source cannot have lost any energy by emitting them and this means that it hasn’t even emitted them. in an absolute sense where it is earlier and where it is later so both A and B are right about the time of the transmission. as of this moment. then the emitting particles must be in direct. a thank-you-note informing A that it can. after absorbing the photon sends back a message to confirm the receipt of the photon. light must move at a finite velocity to have clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant. however. as it changes itself and hence its world. they all add information –which in Quantum Electrodynamics is thought of as picked up by the photon as it interacts with virtual particles on its path (Feynman diagrams). A photon. In a SCU the speed of light therefore is not a velocity but a number which says how many meters space distance correspond to one second time distance. a transmission which changes the state of both atoms. if it has a position to act from and be acted upon: as in a SCU the transmission of a photon is instantaneous. By doing so. a ‘bullet’ flying through space: that its energy is quantized doesn’t mean that it is a particle. then A ‘sees’ B change at the time it emits the photon. Indeed. The difference between a universe where the speed of light is a velocity and a universe where it is just a property of spacetime. It is. whereas B sees A change at the time it absorbs the photon. That is. Experiments show that when two photons annihilate. 3 .

as if the electron goes through both slits and interferes with itself. so to say. one after the other. a randomness in their behavior they lack in a SCU where they dictate each other’s behavior far more strictly. BBC elevates objects to a divine status. once winded. affecting its path. and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause –to end up at some primordial cause which cannot be understood by definition. for example –so here we need the speed of light to be a velocity. as if but for practical difficulties. of BBC and General Relativity (GR) theory. a particle which in turn … 8 as in ‘somewhat pregnant’ 9 which the UP and Schrödinger’s cat refute 5 . In this view the stars and galaxies they form are autonomous objects. In BBC particles. as if they can be inspected objectively. Quantum Mechanics (QM) in fact is only comprehensible in a universe which. in a SCU particle properties are preserved. once created. are thought to stay created without this needing any effort on their part. believing them to be the cause events. is that we confuse causality with reason7. So if you invent Higgs particles to explain the mass of other particles. the fact that when instead of light. as if particles can autonomously decide when to emit light. 6 Though properties are defined not to depend on anything. then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. powered by their interactions. though it cannot be understood causally as it has no cause itself. including ones which may want to absorb a photon or reflect it in directions where it will be absorbed. In regarding particles to only be the cause of forces. i. then. See http://en. objects the properties of which don’t depend on anything6. in CM objects have an absolute kind of existence.e. date 10 July 2012) This is perhaps the experiment which shows best the bewildering weirdness of Quantum Mechanics. worlds which from behind the slits interfere with the electron. finds its environment split into two slightly different worlds. so to say. only can unwind in a preordained manner. here their individual behavior to some extent8 is independent of each other. whereas in CM particles are the private owners of their properties. as they can be observed objectively9. can very well be understood rationally. you’ll eventually find that you need some other particle to explain the Higgs . of what happens elsewhere. The idea that particles only are the source. provided with properties at the Big Bang. what makes it incompatible with QM and prevents us to unify what appear to be different forces. The electron –source and product of its energy exchange with everything within its interaction horizon– on nearing the slits. so we cannot exactly predict when some particular event will happen. The flaw at the heart of CM.org/wiki/Young%27s_Experiment (ref. so here they would keep existing even if they wouldn’t interact at all. so. BBC introduces an anarchy. from without the universe.wikipedia. we can observe them from all sides even from without the universe. in the double-slit experiment5 single electrons are shot at the screen with the slits. In considering objects to be only the cause of events. we similarly find a wave pattern.with all particles within their interaction horizon. Similarly. the cause of forces and interactions As particles in a BBU are thought of as tiny wind-up toys which. 7 If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause.

This isn’t to say that we see the galaxy as it actually is: the word “is” assumes that its properties don’t depend on anything but only are the cause of phenomena. so here the different forces of nature cannot be unified even in principle. here we don’t see a distant galaxy as it was in the past. is the exact same thing to all observers. If particles are cause and effect of the force between them. galaxies in a SCU are source and product of their interactions. each with their own independent source. to the illusion that for objects ‘to exist’ is a static state. In contrast. we in fact regress to a pre-Copernican state of mind. Though they may be equally strong at some very high unification energy. it has an absolute. the less their universes overlap. since its particles have been created by God. at every object it interacts with. then we still haven’t unified them. properties and laws must evolve in some kind of trial-and-error process. If particles in the course of their evolution towards ever-higher energies. autonomous source. . then you’d say that particles. opposite forces. any equilibrium between particles is an equilibrium between different. to the belief that. to us. then we must abandon The idea that a force is either attractive or repulsive Since particles in CM only are the cause of forces. compulsory coupled to what happens at the other. when corrected for the effects of motion and distance on the observation. The properties. then galaxies are machines which at their periphery create the matter they eventually ‘consume’ at their center. By speaking about the galaxy. The concept of the galaxy originates in the idea that we are allowed to imagine to look at it from without the universe. not depending anything. subsequently are part of the gravitational field of a galaxy. So whereas in a BBU the galaxy is the exact same thing to all observers. properties. if nature before it exists cannot calculate anything. the energy and information which in BBC is thought to reside within an object. a reality which therefore can be observed objectively. as particles. each with its own. In BBC all elementary particles. in a SCU already is present everywhere. in contrast to a SCU where ‘to exist’ = ‘to interact’. if they still exist as separate forces. the less what happens at one place is physically related. in a SCU the galaxy doesn’t just look different to different observers. However.Therefore we think that we can speak about the galaxy and the past of the galaxy. Indeed: in a SCU the actual evolution of particles and galaxies is the execution and result of such trial-and-error calculation: which only is possible in a universe where particles cannot causally precede galaxies. physical laws and constants of nature have been created. unambiguous reality at the origin of our observations. In a SCU two observers/interactors don’t share the exact same universe: the farther they’re apart. observer-independent reality: the cosy illusion of CM that there’s a single. but as it is at present. it in fact is a different thing. contract to stars to eventually end up in the black hole at the center of the galaxy. as something which. where the speed of light is not a velocity. then processes in stars and galaxies are part of the creation process of particles and vice versa. If particles in every phase of their evolution are source and product of their interactions. owes its existence to. switched on at the exact right values from one moment to the next –as if there has been a preceding calculation.

velocities with respect to each other –all of which affect their exchange frequency– in such a manner that this ratio stays the same even though their energy changes. requires some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary with the conditions they find themselves in: it is this ratio which protects particle identities as. If in that case we don’t need two different forces. one powered by their mass –the continuous energy exchange by means of which particles express and at the same time preserve each other’s mass– and an opposite force powered by their electric charge. If mass is a relative quantity. BBC and GR. and energy equals mass. then we can as well say that it is their mass which increases. the absolute. So as a star keeps burning. divine quantity it is in CM. there may come a point where electrons. mass and force. by a constant ‘charge’. If according to the Uncertainty Principle (UP). ‘divine’ rest mass from a variable mass.If particles evolve towards ever higher energies. orbits. existing only within interactions between particles. objectively observable. but something which evolves as well. contracting. the greater the mass they have according to each other. Different particle species therefore can coexist within a large but nevertheless limited range of conditions (densities. between the frequencies they exchange energy at. To exist as particles. but for practical difficulties. . then the distance at which they are at equilibrium isn’t the result of two qualitatively different. for example. then charge must refer to the energy sign they have relative to one another. to have a fixed identity. then we can no longer distinguish the rest mass of a particle from the mass associated with its behavior. a constant. then it is not the mass of particles which is a constant quantity. their frequency they exchange at. ambivalent force or ‘charge’ suffices. So instead of saying that their rest mass is a constant. The smaller their equilibrium distance. opposite forces. each powered by its own kind of ‘charge’. a force which at equilibrium is as attractive as it is repulsive. then in a SCU mass is not the conserved. If particles indeed are as much the product as the source of the force between them –and hence the magnitude of the ‘charges’ supposed to power that force– then a single. privately owned quantity. spins. if their mass is source and product of their interactions. but the mass ratio between particle species. indeed. something which can. this is the point where they will combine with protons to form neutrons and the star collapses. If we can no longer distinguish between cause and effect. a sign which alternates at the frequency they exchange energy at. the higher the frequency they exchange energy at. i. temperatures) as long as they can adjust their distances.. they only exist to each other only if and as far as they interact. the mass they have according to each other. say. should move faster than light to satisfy this constant ratio requirement: as this impossible. and it only is the force between particles which increases as they contract. their energy increases as they contract. observe from without the universe.e.

the more stable their equilibrium is. by making time at one place proceed at a slightly different pace than at the other which makes adjacent positions differ physically –so the creation of massenergy is the creation of spacetime. ambivalent force suffices. a universe which is to create itself out of nothing must invent something which has the inclination to increase. date 10 July 2012) chapter 3 13 The misleading thing about causality is that gravity. the frequency they exchange energy at11. the rest mass of particles. either positive or negative From an engineering point of view. so we have a sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that one is the cause of the other.nl (ref. of a constant mass and charge10: here a single. to keep (re)creating itself without violating conservation laws. cause. in the same manner and same circumstances so all electrons are found to be identical.In a SCU an equilibrium between particles therefore isn’t a balance between two different. it is mass which does the trick: gravity. the less definite. have the same mass in different interactions. each with its own independent source. the less definite their distance and motion is. then physical laws become more compulsory to particles as their energy increases.quantumgravity. attractive if we push them together and repulsive if we pull them apart –so we also must discard The idea that charge is a static quantity. the stronger the force. the frequency they exchange energy at. their mass increasing as they do13. As attractive as it is repulsive. the lower. explain one another. isn’t built up from a primeval cause like a BBU is . opposite forces. 11 If particles create. energy is a quantity which is both positive and negative. it isn’t observable as long as we don’t disturb their (evolutionarily achieved) equilibrium energy/distance: the smaller their equilibrium distance is. as they contract. the weaker they interact. become more identical. in powering the contraction of particles to stars. Like Münchhausen lifting himself by his braid out of the marsh. then we don’t need Higgs particles to explain the origin of this ‘constant’ part. the higher their energy is. If energy can be defined12 to be less indefinite if is higher and a distance between particles as less indefinite as it is smaller. If when mass is source and product of interactions we cannot distinguish a constant and a variable part. the greater their mass is. the less strict they obey physical laws or the less restrictive these laws are to the particles (laws which co-evolve with the particles they are to govern) the greater their freedom of behavior is. by slowing down in time events within a gravitational field (as seen from outside of it) favors random events increasing the mass of its source above a decrease –which is why massive particles contract. then circular reasoning evidently is a desired feature of a SCU as it doesn’t refer to. This sounds like energy: as two photons annihilate without liberating any energy. this doesn’t mean that they are identical. their opposition to a change of distance. the weaker the (ambivalent) force between them is. as their universes overlap more. something which is neither positive or negative or both. something which as seen from one place or time looks as positive as it looks negative from the other. the smaller their energy is. The smaller the energy of particles. 12 See www. Only when we disturb their equilibrium it manifests itself as a force. So it is mass. gravity. powers time itself. as if mass can precede gravity. Though as mass is measured according to some protocol. 10 .

if more particles are to contract within a smaller volume. If by radiating away energy in lower frequencies. a black hole similarly seems to withdraw mass from being expressed to ‘later’ observers. then the galaxy indeed creates at its periphery the mass it consumes (or recycles?) at its center. As in a SCU particles are source and product of the force between them. We also don’t have to worry that a finite-sized electron would explode due to the electric repulsion between its parts so we can give up the idea that it must be a dimensionless pointparticle –which anyway was a bad idea as it then would be a tiny black hole. his particles don’t exist. Though a black hole is supposed to have an event horizon behind which nothing. 14 . but is a relative quantity. then it has existed always so has no definite birth date. Though mass keeps being created. As long as the observer. a dynamic quantity. older universe: if stars only exist within a broad but limited range of gravitational field strengths and observers only see a similar universe if they look from a similar gravitational field. then a hole cannot have an event horizon. not even light can escape. low-energy particles. the smaller its own energy is. then nature doesn’t waste space on nothing –the universe is not a piece of Swiss cheese. the frequency its sign alternates at. if the same goes for the gravitons transmitting gravity so the inside mass cannot be expressed outside of it. this on absorption elsewhere adds to the energy of other. then they must shed the lower. they cannot contribute to this ‘earlier’ mass so he shouldn’t be able to establish the existence of such ‘earlier’ mass. forces and interaction energies obviously never can become infinite so in a SCU there are no singularities. One might wonder whether this is what the black holes at the center of galaxies are for: to keep earlier created mass from interacting with later observers?14 Like in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies so it takes increasingly more energy at higher temperatures to raise the temperature of the blackbody with one degree. then electric charge must refer to the energy sign of particles. If according to the UP. Indeed. the lower frequencies associated with the greater freedom of behavior they have in a less dense particle cluster. If to a particle its universe begins as it starts to exist. to interact itself. if a SCU doesn’t exist as a whole. less definite frequencies from the (blackbody) spectrum of frequencies they exchange energy at with their environment. the smaller the energy is of the objects within its interaction horizon is. then later observers will. then its universe is as old as it is itself: the earlier the evolutionary phase it is in. their relative phase. all points within the horizon are exactly identical physically. then its radius must be zero: if the point of space is that different positions differ physically. then its mass obviously cannot increase in time . If as seen from without. so their charge isn’t either positive or negative.If energy is a quantity which is greater as its rate of change is greater. the blackbody serving as heat sink. that doesn’t mean that later observers see a different. and the energy it is observed to have also depends on the observing particle and it would have a birth date. If it becomes more real as it evolves to higher and higher energies. see about the same universe we do. then this date also would depend on the observer. After all. in similar conditions. a particle popping up with an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime.

17 http://en. perhaps. so all observers at all times see a comparable universe as long as they and the conditions they look from are similar.org/wiki/Einstein#Modern_quantum_theory (ref. can be observed. despite his famous declaration. in believing in causality. date 10 July 2012) Nietzsche. the definition of relativity as only here particles are seen for what they are: being the source and product of their interactions.wikipedia. one must remain silent” http://en. if in a SCU the mass of objects is a relative quantity. If like a SCU. when God was declared dead16. having no beginning nor end.Indeed.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus (ref. Clearly. but for practical difficulties. then He. of its central hole. its energy content. he’d have rejected Classical Mechanics in favor of Quantum Mechanics and wouldn’t have said things like “God doesn't play dice”. in all kinds of life. like a SCU. in a primal cause in fact did believe in God. even in its most humble particles. one must remain silent”15 So Einstein’s error.wikipedia. we should follow the philosophers’ advice: “About what one cannot see. equate the Self-Creating Universe with God. had Einstein read his Nietzsche. though he thought himself to be a non-believer. date 10 July 2012) 16 http://en.org/wiki/God_is_dead (ref. interaction-dependent. depending on the observer. we might. if He lives in every particle and interaction.17 He (Wittgenstein) actually said: “About what one cannot speak. 15 . on his mass or the gravitational field he looks from. what’s wrong with Relativity theory is that it isn’t relative enough –in contrast to Quantum Mechanics which is the embodiment.wikipedia. just like religions say He/She/It is: the universe is coming to be aware of itself in humans. date 10 July 2012) Speaking about God. indeed is omnipresent and eternal. His creation of course vanished as well. on the distance he looks from. As it isn’t scientifically legitimate to imagine the universe from without. a space counterpart of cosmic time: as if it lives in a spacetime realm not of its own making. temperature and entropy are quantities which. as if its size and age. they have a relative reality as they only exist to each other only if and as far as they interact. then so is the mass of the galaxy. quantified from without. be it unwittingly. only God can create Himself out of nothing (so there’s nothing outside of Him with respect to which He can exist so cannot be observed from without) and only has reality as seen from within. The assumption in CM and GR that the rest mass of an object is an absolute quantity in fact comes down to the introduction of a frame of reference outside of it to compare inside lengths with. actually did believe in God –just like Einstein who. Though a universe which doesn’t exist as a whole seems too weird to even consider. to not even have existed after all.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful