Can a Relativistic Coordinate-Transformation be Covariant?

Johan F Prins
CATHODIXX
8 Portland Place, Northcliff Ext. 15 Gauteng 2195
South Africa
johanprins@cathodixx.com

Abstract
The Principle of Relativity is based on Galileo Galilei’s impeccable logic for which
his inquisition-peers wanted to burn him at the stake. Here it is argued that subsequent
physicists, already starting with Sir Isaac Newton, still formulated theories which are
counter to Galileo’s logic. It is concluded that these theories, especially Einstein’s
interpretation of relativity, have destroyed the cohesion that should have existed in
our understanding of physics. Aspects of these theories and the experiments on which
they are supposedly based, are tested against Galileo’s Principle of Relativity These
analyses point to better interpretations of physics which do not need fudges like “dark
matter”, “dark energy”, “time-dilation”, “length-contraction” “four-dimensional
space-time”, singularities” “point particles”, and “renornalization”.
1. Introduction
The guiding principle, which will be used here, is that physics must be the
result of a quest to find the immutable laws that are responsible for the rational and
self-consistent existence and behavior of Nature. This principle is obviously based on
the belief that such laws must exist: But this is more than faith, since, without such
laws, physics-research would be a futile pursuit.
Any physics-theory which incorporates, or leads to contradictions and/or
paradoxes must be rejected as wrong, even when the theory reproduces experimental
data. Friar William of Ockham realized (already during the 14 th century) that a wrong
theory can model experimental results and that one should therefore be careful when
deciding whether a theory is correct. Merely fitting experimental data is only a
provisional test of the validity of a theory. Ockham proposed a rule which became
known as “Occam’s Razor”. But even this rule is not definite. Therefore, accepted
physics-theories, no matter how well they seem to be vindicated by experimental
results, could be wrong and must be continuously tested for possible failure. A
scientist who does not accept the latter approach, but believe in a theory as holy
dogma, should not be doing research at all.
Owing to Newton’s formulation of his first law of dynamics [1], reference-
frames that move with constant velocities relative to one another, became known as
“inertial reference-frames” (IRF’s). Galileo Galilei laid the foundation for the validity
of physics-laws in his book “Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences” [2]. The
dialogue of Salviatus on the motion of an IRF is fundamental: By invoking an
enclosed cabin without portholes below the deck of a ship, Salviatus used thought-
experiments to prove to Simplicius that physics is determined by laws which manifest
as if this cabin is uniquely stationary; even when this cabin is observed from outside
the cabin to be moving relative to other matter-objects in the Universe.
A self-aware observer, existing within such an enclosed IRF, experiences
physics-laws as if his/her reference frame is uniquely stationary. Therefore Cartesian
coordinate-positions (x,y,z) (or any other type of coordinate-positions) measured from
any origin O within any reference frame, must also be stationary in the same sense. It
is this experience of reality that compelled Aristotle to argue that Earth must be the
stationary center of the Universe. This was a logical deduction from the experimental
data known at that time: But it turned out to be wrong! This is a dire warning that,
even when a postulate fits experimentally-known results, the resultant theory might be
incomplete, and could even be dead-wrong.
Any observer anywhere in the Universe must experience the laws of physics
as if he/she is living within a uniquely-stationary reference-frame. This fundamental
insight by Galileo might be an indication that the Universe does not only exist for
self-aware beings on Earth.
According to Galileo, a law can only be a law of physics, if it is separately
valid within all possible IRF’s, as if each of these reference-frames is the only
stationary reference-frame in the Universe. This means that when a physics-
experiment is separately done within different “enclosed” IRF’s, the exact same
physics-result must be obtained in each case. When a physics-theory is based on
postulates which do not conform to the latter principle, such a theory must be wrong:
This is the litmus-test that should have become known as the “Principle of
Relativity”; and which must be used to test the validity of any physics-theory.
An experiment which could not have been imagined in the time of Galileo, is
the measurement of the speed of a wavefront of light from a coordinate-position
within an IRF, at which it is emitted by a source that is stationary at that position
within this IRF, until it is detected by a detector (for example a mirror, diffraction-
slits, a light-absorber, etc.) which is co-stationary at any other coordinate-position
within the same IRF. According to Galileo’s Principle of Relativity, this speed of light
must be the same speed when separately measured within any and all IRF’s; even
though these IRF’s are moving relative to one another.
That this is a law of physics has been confirmed by the Michelson-Morley
experiment [3]: This experiment was performed for illogical reasons which are
contrary to Galileo’s Principle of Relativity. This is so since Michelson tried to detect
the motion of an “enclosed” IRF by measuring the speed of light along different
directions within such an IRF. If he had known and understood Galileo’s logic, which
he should have at that time in history, he would not have wasted time to attempt this
futile experiment. Nonetheless, it won Michelson the 1907 Nobel Prize! The Nobel
Prize Committee obviously also did not understand Galileo; and it seems possible that
this committee still does not understand Galileo!
It is just as futile to launch a matter-object with mass m, along different
directions within an enclosed IRF=K’ in an attempt to measure the speed of this IRF
relative to another IRF=K: When an observer, within his/her IRF=K’, launches a
matter-object, the speed and trajectory of this object, relative to any other IRF=K, will
betray whether relative motion is occurring between these IRF’s. For consistency this
must also be so when a wave-front of light is emitted from a source which is
stationary within an IRF=K’: The motion of this wavefront, relative to another
IRF=K, must also betray (in the same manner) that the IRF=K’ (in which the source is
stationary) is moving relative to the other IRF=K: Einstein [4] claimed in his second
postulate that this is not so. It will be argued in section 4 that he was wrong and is still
wrong in this regard.
Einstein [4] formulated his own version of the “Principle of Relativity” as his
first postulate: “The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state are referred to the one or the other of two
systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.” At first glance this seems to
conform to Galileo’s logic: But Einstein’s formulation is blatantly opposite: Einstein
included physics which is observed when “looking out” from an IRF into other IRF’s.
He did not postulate that a physics-law must be separately valid within different
“enclosed” IRF’s as required by the correct Principle of Relativity.
Einstein’s physics-theories violate Galileo’s Principle of Relativity outright:
He modeled physics which is being imported by relativistic coordinate-
transformations from other IRF’s, as if this physics is occurring (according to the laws
of physics) within the IRF into which it is being imported: However, such imported
physics cannot follow the laws of physics within the IRF into which it is being
imported, since it is following these laws of physics within the IRF in which this
physics is actually occurring.
Physics which is imported into an IRF=K, can never be observed to be
identical to the actual physics within the IRF=K’ in which this physics is occurring.
This means that physics-equations, based on the actual laws of physics, can never be
invariant under a relativistic coordinate-transformation from the IRF, within which
these laws of physics are determining this physics, into another IRF.
Not one of the “great physicists” after Galileo has grasped Galileo’s Principle
of Relativity. The problem already started with Sir Isaac Newton when he formulated
his Principia (see section 3) [1], and it has been exacerbated by Einstein [4] and
others who followed in his footsteps: For example, more recently, by Hawking [5],
Penrose [6], etc.
 It is thus urgent that all physics-theories must be tested against Galileo’s
Principle of Relativity. If the equations of such a theory violate this principle, they
must be rejected as invalid physics no matter how well they seem to model
experimental data. Owing to length-restrictions, a more inclusive analysis will be
published in a book entitled: Towards Unifying Physics.
2. Relative Motion
2.1 Observing Motion
Although the mathematics of coordinate-geometry was not known in the time
of Galileo, a Galilean-Relativistic Coordinate-Transformation (GRCT) has since been
mathematically formulated which models matter-objects and physics-events that are
moving with constant velocities relative to an observer. As will be seen in section 3.5,
one can also have observers who are living within accelerating reference-frames
(ARF’s), who experience their ARF’s as if they are stationary: But in this case
reaction-forces betray that this reference-frame is accelerating. This is so even though
the observer will not know the speed with which his/her ARF is moving.
Einstein argued that the force of gravity, which keeps objects attached to the
surface of Earth, must be such a reaction-force relative to Earth. Although this is a
brilliant idea, it has misled Einstein when he formulated his “Principle of
Equivalence” (see section 3.7 below).
Since any observer within his/her IRF (or ARF) experiences his/her reference-
frame to be uniquely stationary, he/she will observe the rest of the Universe to be
moving relative to his/her reference frame when “looking outside” his/her reference-
frame. Like Aristotle, such an observer will conclude that he/she is living at the centre
of the Universe.
A stationary matter-object within an IRF=K’, will not be observed as
stationary when viewed from any other IRF=K. The physics of being stationary
within an IRF=K’ is changed into “moving-physics” by a relativistic coordinate-
transformation from this IRF=K’ into another IRF=K. This must change the physics-
equations: Being stationary can hardly be the same physics as being in motion! Thus
there was wisdom in Zeno’s conclusion that the motion of a matter-object is an
illusion.
Ptolemy did not understand this aspect of physics when he used epicycles to
model the motion of the planets: Galileo had not yet published his logic at that time:
Ptolemy assumed that the relativistic coordinate-transformations, which are observed
as epicycles from Earth, are physics-laws within the stationary reference-frame of
Earth. The correct paths are actually determined by the law of gravity within the IRF
of the Sun. Ptolemy’s model does fit experimental data well, but it is not based on
valid laws of physics; and must therefore be rejected. His equations are merely curve-
fitting exercises, which have nothing to do with any law of physics relative to Earth.
This is a prime example of how the interpretation of experimental data can be totally
misleading!
2.2 Coincident Positions and Times
When a matter-object with mass m is stationary at a coordinate-position
p’=(x’,y’,z’) at time t’ within an IRF=K’, a relativistic coordinate-transformation into
another IRF=K will change it into a matter-object which is moving through a
coincident position p=(x,y,z) within IRF=K. For these two positions to be coincident,
the time t’ within IRF=K’ and time t within IRF=K must be simultaneously the same
identical time tt’.
 This is the definition of being coincident, which can never have any other
meaning ever: Not even Einstein could change this fact: Although he tried his best to
do so and succeeded to confuse physicists for more than 100 years right up to the
present: For this he was declared “Man of the 20th Century” by Time Magazine!
It is, however, sad that all the physicists (and there are many) who, for more
than 100 years, have argued against Einstein’s confusion, are at present labeled as
crackpots and prevented by peer-reviewed physics-journals from publishing. Two
brilliant physicists who suffered this ignominy were Herbert Dingle [7] and Louis
Essen [8]. They are not the only ones: This is damning proof that mainstream
physicists in control of physics-knowledge are not as open-minded to criticism as they
claim that they are!
2.3 Synchronizing Clocks
To measure time at any instant in time within IRF=K’ and IRF=K, and
compare these times, one must (at least in principle) have synchronized perfect-clocks
within IRF=K’ and IRF=K.
Einstein assumed that there are identical clocks at the coordinate-origins O’
and O within IRF=K’ and IRF=K respectively, which are synchronized so that t=t’=0
when O and O’ coincide: This, however, does not mean that the actual times at these
positions are different times when the clocks are not synchronized.
In fact, the reason why these clocks can be synchronized at arbitrarily chosen
coincident origins O’ and O, at any arbitrary instant in time, is that time, at all
positions within IRF=K’ and IRF=K, must always be the same time at every instant
in time; no matter what any clocks display. This is so since, at any instant in time, all
the coordinate-positions in the Universe attached to IRF=K’, must one-to-one
coincide with all the coordinate-positions in the Universe attached to IRF=K.
Einstein tediously and unnecessarily described an obvious method, using light
signals, to synchronize clocks at different positions within IRF=K’ and within IRF=K
respectively [4]. Although this procedure is valid, Einstein could not fathom that it is
not necessary to synchronize clocks to have that tt’, at all coinciding coordinate-
positions, at any arbitrary instant in time. Newton understood this well: He was
therefore able to develop Calculus: Calculus demands that time must change at a
constant, dimensionless rate, given by dt/dt=+1, everywhere within all reference
frames; independent of the-unit used to measure time!
Clocks must thus always keep the same time-rate within IRF=K’ and IRF=K.
If this were not so, it would be a violation of Galileo’s Principle of Relativity;
according to which the same measurement, by identical apparatuses (in this case
synchronized clocks using the same time-unit) within different inertial reference-
frames, must always give the same physics-result!
Synchronized clocks, using the same unit for time within IRF=K’ and IRF=K,
must thus always display the SAME time at every instant in time forever after
synchronization. And even if they do not use the same unit, the times at their
respective positions must be the same time, no matter what the clocks display. This
also means that time must have been simultaneously the same time within IRF=K’
and IRF=K “forever before” synchronization.
Synchronization of clocks to simultaneously display zero, only serves to
define an arbitrarily chosen reference instant-in-time from which time-intervals can be
simultaneously measured within all IRF’s towards the future and towards the past.
Any convenient instant can be chosen as zero. There exists no reason why an absolute
starting point for time must exist. It is more likely that time has always existed and
will always exist, ready to be invoked when modeling physics-processes.
2.4 Relativistic Transformation
The standard orientations used in text books for the Cartesian coordinates
(x’,y’,z’) of IRF=K’ and (x,y,z) of IRF=K, when the origin O’ of the coordinates
(x’,y’,z’) within IRF=K’ moves (as seen from within IRF=K) along the stationary x-
axis within IRF=K, will be used. The relativistic coordinate-transformation from
IRF=K’ into IRF=K, is given by the following equations, which we will call the
Galilean Relativistic Coordinate Transformation (GRCT):
x=xG=x’+vt’
(1a)
t=t’=tG
(1b)

y=y’ and z=z’; or ’= x '2  y'2  x 2  y 2  

(1c)
Eq. 1a can also be written as:
xG=x’+v(tG)
(1d)
The time-instants t’ and t must be simultaneously equal to tG: This is so since p’ and
p must be coincident for a relativistic transformation to be valid.
If t’t is not valid for a coordinate-transformation, such a transformation can
never be purely a relativistic coordinate-transformation: The latter is the case for the
Lorentz Coordinate Transformation (LCT), which, even though modeling the relative
motion of wavefronts emitted by a moving light-source, is not only itself a relativistic-
transformation (see section 4.5) but adds the Doppler-Effect to the Galilean
relativistic transformation.
When a physics-event occurs at a coordinate-position p’ within IRF=K’, the
coordinate x’ of this position is not changing with time t’ on the clock at O’, but the
coincident-coordinate x for the same-event observed within IRF=K does change with
time t on the clock at O: So that when differentiating Eq. 1(a) with this time t, one
obtains:
dx dx ' dt ' dx ' dt '
 v  v 0v  v (2a)
dt dt dt dt ' dt '
This is what the motion of a physics-event or a matter-object at a stationary
coordinate-position p’ (measured from O’ within IRF=K’) must always be relative to
O within another IRF=K.
When a physics-event occurs at a stationary coordinate-position p, with
coordinates (x,y,z) at the instant in time t on the clock O within IRF=K, this event is
stationary relative to O, but must now be moving relative to O’: Re-arranging the
terms of Eq. 1a, and differentiating with t’ on the clock at O’ gives:
dx ' dx dt ' dx
 v   v  0  v  v (2b)
dt ' dt ' dt ' dt
Thus, for the transformation of a stationary point-position p’ from IRF=K’ into a
coincident, moving point-position p in IRF=K, there are formulas for the
transformation from a stationary-position p within IRF=K into the coincident moving
point-position p’ within IRF=K’.
But the latter transformation from IRF=K into IRF=K’, cannot be used as an
inverse GRCT which transforms the already-transformed physics from IRF=K’ into
IRF=K, back into this same physics within IRF=K’. The observer within IRF=K’ does
not have to “look outside” IRF=K’ to see physics which is occurring (subject to the
laws of physics) within his/her own IRF=K’.
It is, however, possible to have a GRCT for a different physics-event,
occurring subject to the laws of physics within IRF=K at a coordinate-position p
within IRF=K, into a coincident, moving position p’ within IRF=K’; but this event
cannot be observed as an event which occurs at p’ within IRF=K’ subject to the laws
of physics within IRF=K’.
Tensor-algebra (which includes vectors that transform as tensors of rank 1), as
well as group-algebra, require inverse-transformations for the coordinates of physics-
equations: Therefore, tensors and group-mathematics must never be used when
relativistically transforming physics-equations: When the latter is done, Galileo’s
Principle of Relativity is violated, so that the resultant physics-equations obtained in
this manner must be invalid physics.
Einstein did not realize this, and based his theories of relativity on tensors [9].
In terms of Galileo’s Principle of Relativity, Einstein’s theories of relativity must thus
be rejected outright! A similar argument can be raised against the use of group-
mathematics when modeling particle physics.
2.5 Relative velocities
Consider an observer at O’ within IRF=K’, who launches a matter-object
along the x’-axis at time t’=t=0, so that this object moves with a speed u’ along this
axis.
After the launch, this matter object is moving freely along a straight line
within IRF=K’. This motion has been caused by a physics-action within IRF=K’ on a
matter object which was stationary within IRF=K’, and can therefore not betray any
motion of IRF=K’ relative to any other IRF: Nevertheless, this motion within
IRF=K’, is mathematically a GRCT of a stationary matter-object within another
IRF=K’’, which is moving with speed u’ relative to the x’-axis of IRF=K’.
Mathematically the launching force can be treated as changing IRF=K’, in which the
object was stationary before it was launched, into an IRF=K’’ in which it is stationary
after the launch.
This motion with speed u’ within IRF=K’, can be seen by any observer from
within any other IRF=K which is moving with speed v relative to IRF=K’. This
observer will, however, not measure the same speed u’, which is caused by the laws
of physics within IRF=K’. If IRF=K’ moves with speed v relative to IRF=K, the
speed u which will be observed from within IRF=K, must be u given by:
u=u’+v (3a)
This is the Galilean Relativistic Speed Transformation (GRST) for a speed u’ (which
was generated by a physics-action within IRF=K’) from IRF=K’ into any other
IRF=K. To obtain the actual physics, determined by the laws of physics within IRF-
K’, one has to set v=0.
 But how will the observer within IRF=K know that he is not looking at the
speed u of IRF=K’’? This requires additional observers with synchronized clocks
within IRF=K: In addition to an observer in IRF=K who coincides with the launch-
event within IRF=K’ at time t=0 on his/her clock, there must be two other observers
who coincide simultaneously at time t with the position of the passing matter-object
and passing launcher-person respectively.
During the synchronized time-interval from t=0 to t=t, the matter object will
move a distance d’=u’t within IRF=K’ away from the launching position; and, in
addition, the launching-position will move a distance d=vt from the first observer at O
within IRF=K. Thus, the launched-object will be a distance D=d+d’ from this
observer within IRF=K at time t, so that:
D=d’+d=u’t+vt=(u’+v)t (3b)
Since D must represent a speed u within IRF=K during the time-interval t, this
equation confirms the validity of Eq. 3a.
3. Reinterpreting Newton
3.1 Force of Gravity
Newton [1] concluded that the motions of the planets occur subject to the
action of a universal force of gravity according to which each matter-object (even
when it is not a planet) exerts an attractive force on all other matter-objects in the
Universe. He concluded that this force is caused by “gravitational-masses”, so that
between the centers-of-mass of two gravitational-masses m g and Mg, which are a
distance r apart, there will be a force of magnitude F g with which each object
separately attracts the other object towards it: He postulated that the magnitude of F g
at the positions of mg and Mg must be:
mgMg
Fg  G (4)
r2
G became known as the gravitational constant.
When mg is at a radial position r from Mg within the IRF=K(M) (in which Mg
is stationary at the origin O), this force F g attracts mg towards this stationary position
of Mg within IRF=K(M). The reaction of m g thus occurs within IRF=K(M).
Alternatively, one has that for mg stationary at the origin O of an IRF=K(m), so that
Mg is at the identical radial-distance r from mg, this force will attract Mg towards the
stationary mass mg. The reaction of Mg occurs within another IRF=K(m). Note that
this demands that the distance r must be identical within IRF=K(M) and IRF=K(m):
No length-contraction is caused by the relative motion of IRF=K(m) and IRF=K(M).
If there is length-contraction, Newton’s law of gravity will be invalid.
All experiments to date have proved that these gravitational masses do not
change in magnitude when the distance r between them changes. This can only be so
when this force acts at the same instant in time on both M g and mg across any
distance; even at a distance so large that the force is negligibly small! Newton was not
happy with this “instantaneous action” and therefore left a message to posterity: “That
Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act
upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else,
by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another,
is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters
a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an
Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material
or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.”
It will be proposed in section 4 that instantaneous action could be possible
between different positions within the volume of a single electromagnetic-field; and
that the force of gravity might thus be able to act instantaneously through such an
agent (see sections 3.11 and 4.10). This possibility is also invoked in section 5 to
examine the so-called “weirdness” attributed to “quantum-waves”.
Newton ignored Galileo and claimed that his laws of motion are valid in
“absolute space”: He justified the existence of “absolute space” by considering a
spinning-bucket with water; and argued that the concave shape that the water’s
surface forms and maintains for a while after the bucket stops spinning, is only
possible for rotational motion of the water relative to “absolute space”: This is a
clever argument which is difficult to refute; and has therefore led to controversy
which has not yet been resolved: It will be argued here that it should have been
obvious from the start that Newton’s “absolute space” violates Galileo’s Principle of
Relativity outright!
According to Galileo, the fundamental laws of physics must be separately the
same laws within all inertial reference frames (IRF’s), as if each IRF is absolutely
stationary. Thus, a spinning bucket with water must give the same physics-result
when it is rotating around an axis which is stationary within any inertial reference-
frame. Therefore, the water in identical buckets must react in the same manner when
the rotation-axes of these buckets are moving with constant velocities relative to one
another.
3.2 Amount of Motion
Newton quantified “motion” of a matter-object in terms of momentum p=mv:
“The quantity of motion (p) is the measure of the same, arising from the velocity (v)
and quantity of matter (m) conjunctly”.
The concept “quantity of matter” is vague: It is at present accepted that this
“quantity of matter” can be determined on the surface of Earth by measuring the force
of gravity (by Earth) on a stationary-held matter-object: By “weighing” the object!
But this is misleading; since a matter-object is not stationary relative to Earth when it
is falling towards Earth.
Newton’s first law reads: “Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of
uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces
impressed thereon”. The part “or of uniform motion in a right line”, became known as
the “law of inertia”: But this is not a law of physics in the sense that Galileo has
argued. As already pointed out above, such motion is modeled by a GRCT of the
physics-law which demands that a matter-object must be stationary within an IRF
when there is no force acting on this object.
It is probably more rational to frame Newton’s first law as follows: “Every
body will persevere in its state of rest within an inertial reference-frame (IRF), unless
it is compelled to change that state of rest by forces impressed thereon”.
Newton postulated his second law by starting off with a matter-object which is
already moving with momentum p=mv relative to a stationary observer within an
IRF. Newton’s formulation must thus be simultaneously valid for the same object
within any IRF: Newton should rather have framed it as follows: “The alteration of
motion is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of
the right line in which that force is impressed”. But as will be seen below the second
part of this formulation is also wrong: The alteration in motion is not in all cases
along the direction of the applied force.
Since the “measure of motion” is momentum, this “alteration in motion” must
be a change in the total momentum p=mv (as measured within any IRF): In terms of
Calculus this means that such a force F must be given by the time-derivative of the
total momentum p=mv within an IRF: i.e.
d d
F= p= (mv)
dt dt
(5)
At the instant in time t=0, when a force is applied, it acts on the matter-object at all
the coincident-positions of its center-of mass within all IRF’s: This demands that time
must be the same within all IRF’s; including the IRF=K’ in which the object was
stationary before the force acted. This is only possible when any instant in time is
always identically the same time within all IRF’s (as already concluded that it must be
in section 2.3).
When the force stops acting after a time-interval t, this time-interval must have
simultaneously lapsed within all IRF’s. The motion of the matter-object with speed u’
relative to IRF=K’, in which the object was stationary before the force acted, is now
mathematically modeled by a GRCT from an IRF=K’’, in which the matter-object is
now stationary. The relative speed of this motion is seen from within all other IRF’s
can also be modeled as GRCT’s of the speed u’ of the object relative to IRF=K’, into
these IRF’s (see Eq. 3a).
Newton, however, interpreted his second law to be a law of acceleration of the
object within “absolute space”. He concluded that:
d
F=m v=ma
dt
(6)
According to this equation, the mass m remains unchanged within all IRF’s: If this is
correct this equation demands that the exact-same vector-acceleration, a, must
manifest within all IRF’s for the same force F: In textbooks the corresponding,
supposedly constant mass is called the inertial mass m.
If Newton’s assumption would have been correct, the vectors F and a in Eq, 6
need not be defined in terms of any specific inertial coordinate-system; since they
would be covariant tensors (a scalar of rank zero and a vector-tensor of rank 1). But,
as already argued above, such covariance is impossible across different coordinate-
systems which move relative to one another! Covariance is only possible across
different coordinate-systems that are not moving relative to one another!
In the IRF=K’, a stationary matter-object offers no resistance when this force
is initially applied, and it thus immediately starts to move from rest: This demands
that the matter-object must at a later time t move relative to the IRF=K’ in which it
had been stationary before the force acted. This, in turn, means that this matter-object
(at any subsequent instant in time t>0 while the force acts) must be stationary within
another reference frame, but in this case a reference frame ARF=K’ that is
accelerating
3.3 Mass and Speed
 Newton jumped to a conclusion for which he had no experimental evidence:
He should have first examined all possibilities! He should have differentiated Eq. 5 in
such a manner that all different possibilities within different reference-frames: To do
this he should also have differentiated the mass m to obtain that:
dm
F=ma+v
dt
(7)
In Eq. 7, the velocity v need not be in the same direction as the acceleration a: This
will be the case when the observer is living within an IRF=K relative to which the
matter-object has already been moving with a velocity v in another direction than the
direction in which the force is being applied. In this case the force has two non-
coincident components: One along the direction of the velocity v and the other along
the direction of the acceleration a. As will be shown in the book entitled Towards
Unifying Physics, this means that the orbit of a planet cannot be a perfect ellipse as
Kepler had concluded.
3.4 Work and Energy
The concepts of “work” and “energy” were not well understood in the time of
Newton; and are still not well-explained in most modern textbooks. A thoughtful
review of this aspect has recently been published by Hecht [10]: Unfortunately it is
claimed in this manuscript that: “The fact that the zero of potential energy floats,
underscores the fact that potential energy is not a real physically measurable
quantity”. As will be seen below, this is wrong. Potential energy is a physically
measurable mass-quantity.
When a force moves the center-of-mass of a matter-object (without deforming
the object) through a linear-distance s, it does an amount of work W, which, in
turn, affects the energy of the matter-object on which the force is acting. In terms of
infinitesimal mathematics, the work dW is given by the scalar product of F with ds; so
that in the case of Eq. 7, it follows that:
dW=Fds=mvdv+(vv)dm=mvdv+v2dm (8a)
It is not clearly pointed out in textbooks that the resultant change in energy, generated
by the work dW, depends on the type of force which is acting on the matter-object:
There are the following possibilities:
1: A non-conservative force: This force increases the total energy E of the moving
matter-object by an amount dE which is equal to the work dW (see section 3.5).
2: A conservative force: This force does not increase, nor decrease the total energy E
of the moving object, but it changes the velocity v of the object (see section 3.6).
3. An electric force: This force acts on an electric-charge and is a conservative force
with a difference, since an accelerating electric-charge emits electromagnetic-
radiation.
3.5 Non-conservative force
If the force is generated by an engine that converts energy into force (for
example a rocket-engine), the energy E of an initially-stationary matter-object within
an IRF=K’, on which such a force acts, increases proportionally to the work done on
the object: i.e. dW=dE.
Within the IRF=K’ (in which the matter-object is stationary before such a
force acts) one will have that v and dv must, at all subsequent times, point in the same
direction at every position along the path that the matter-object is forced to follow by
this force within this IRF=K’. One has in this case that vdv=vdv in Eq, 8a, so that:
dE=mvdv+v2dm (8b)
This equation demands that the total energy E of the object at any instant in time
within IRF=K’, must be a function of both its speed v and of its total mass m at that
instant: This would mean that the mass m need not remain a constant inertial-mass as
Newton had assumed and Einstein incorrectly accepted to be correct.
The relationship between the total mass m and total energy E only became
apparent during the 19th century, and early 20th century: This relationship is a
proportionality, with a constant c2, where c is the speed of the wavefronts of a light-
wave in free space; so that
E=mc2
(8c)
Although this equation had been alluded to by other physicists before Einstein
appeared on the scene, Einstein is honored for having “discovered” it in 1905 [11];
even though he never gave a convincing derivation for it [12]!
In 1989 Okun [13] argued that Eq. 8c is not valid for all types of energy. He
claimed that this equation is only valid for a special type of energy E 0 called “rest-
energy”: Quoting from his manuscript: “According to (this) rational terminology the
terms “rest mass” and “relativistic mass” are redundant and misleading. There is
only one mass in physics m, which does not depend on the reference frame ”. He
thus endorsed Newton’s concept of an invariant inertial-mass.
All “particle”-physicists embraced this concept with enthusiasm, since, if this
is not so, their “Standard Model for Particle Physics” collapses. Here it will be
postulated that, contrary to Okun’s arguments, Eq. 8c is valid for any energy of any
type; and that therefore the mass m of a matter-object is not simultaneously the same
in all IRF’s.
Newton would not have known about the role that the speed of light plays in
physics. Nonetheless, we now know this, and can therefore explore this information
by substituting dE=c2dm in Eq. 8b; so that:
dm vdv
 2
m c  v2
(9a)
This equation demands that the total mass m must increase with an increase in speed
from v=0, at which the object has a rest-mass m 0 when held stationary (v=0) at a
coordinate position within an IRF=K: Thus, when the matter=object moves through
any position in an IRF=K with speed v, m 0 must “become” m>m0 for v>0: Integrating
both sides of Eq. 9a, by using corresponding gauges m=m 0 to m>m0 and v=0 to v0,
gives that:
m v
dm vdv
  2
m 0 (c  v 2 )
m0

(9b)
 m0
m  m 0
So that: v2
1 2
c
(9c)
Contrary to the claim by Okun, the latter equation demands that the mass m 0 must
change relativistically by the factor “”, and therefore must have different values
when a matter-object is moving with different speeds relative to an IRF; provided the
object will have the same rest-mass m 0 when it is stationary at any position within
this IRF. As will be seen below, m0 is not the same constant at all positions within an
IRF for a conservative force; like the force of gravity.
The factor  is also part of the Lorentz coordinate-transformation (LCT) for
electromagnetic wavefronts emitted by a moving light-source. This suggests that the
increase in mass of a matter-object must be an increase in electromagnetic-energy of
the matter-object. And as will be seen in section 4.10, this is indeed the case. Mass is
purely electromagnetic-energy (even stationary mass) and vice versa. In terms of the
binomial expansion Eq. 9c can be written as:

 v2 3v 4 
m  m0 1  2  3 4  ....etc.

 2c 2 c 
(9d)
For v<<c, the higher order terms can be neglected, so that:

2 p2
E= mc  m0c  ½m0v = m 0 c 
2 2 2
2m 0
(9e)
This “classical” equation, is an approximation for the total energy E, and should
therefore be avoided whenever possible.
When not using this approximation, the magnitude v of the velocity v with
which the matter-object is moving relative to any IRF=K, provided that m 0 has the
same value at all positions within this IRF, follows from Eq. 9c, as:
2
m 
v  v  c 1   0 
 m 
(10)
The direction of the velocity is not specified by this equation and can thus be along
any direction for a total energy E=mc2 of the matter-object.
Thus, if m0 is a constant everywhere, which (as will be seen below) is
impossible in our Universe, the magnitude v of this Galilean-velocity v can only
approach the speed of light c within an IRF if the engine, which generates this non-
conservative force within this IRF, can transfer an infinite amount of energy
E=mc2 to the matter-object. Such an engine is “not yet” possible: Not even from
Space-X. A matter-object can, however, reach the speed of light when a conservative
force is acting on it (see section 3.6).
 Eq. 9c can be algebraically manipulated to display the actual total energy
E=mc in terms of the square of this energy E 2 and the square of the momentum
2

p2=(mv)2.

 2 2 
1  v  v 
[m0c 2 ]2 2 2   2v2 
E 2  [mc2 ]2   [m 0c 2 ]2  c 2 c   [m 0c 2 ]2 1  2   [m0c 2 ]2  ( mv) 2 c 2
 v2    v   c 
1  2   1  2   
 c 
    c  
So that: E 2  [ m0c 2 ]2  (mv) 2 c 2  [m0c 2 ]2  p 2c 2
(11)
Eq. 11 can be found in modern textbooks: It is, however, claimed in these books that
it derives from the Lorentz Coordinate-Transformation (LCT), which is interpreted to
model physics within a four-dimensional “space-time” manifold which had been
proposed by Minkowski [14]. But Minkowski’s mathematical-construct violates the
fundamental rules of multidimensional vector-spaces: This is so since time is not
linearly-independent of x, y and z, as it must be for such a four-dimensional manifold
to be mathematically and physically possible (see also section 4.5).
According to Okun [13], Eq. 11 is only valid when Emc2 and m0=m. Dirac
[15] made this same assumption when he used Eq. 11, as a template to formulate his
“relativistic” wave-equation for a solitary electron. But Eq. 11 is a consequence of the
correct application of Newton’s second law in Galilean-space (which has been done
just above): Eq. 11 is only valid when the mass m changes with speed (see Eq. 9c),
and it is thus not a relativistically-invariant equation for mass as Dirac had, and now
Okun has argued.
Alarm bells should already have gone off when it was found that Dirac’s
equation cannot model the Lamb shift [16]. Hans Bethe invoked the idea of mass
renormalization to calculate this shift in energy-levels [17]. This entailed dropping
terms from the equations. This process has since been formalized to include replacing
infinities with finite values: It became an inherent part of Quantum Field Theory.
Obviously, a mass correction is required for the Lamb shift since the problem has
been caused by the assumption (emphasized by Okun) that mass must be invariant
under a relativistic coordinate-transformation: It is thus questionable whether this
violation of Galileo’s Principle of Relativity can be fixed by renormalization.
When applying a brake-force, to stop the motion with speed v of a matter-
object within an IRF, a portion T of its dynamic-energy E=mc 2 dissipates, until the
object becomes stationary within this IRF. This portion of motion-energy is given for
a non-conservative force by:

T= mc2  m0c 2 (12a)

After dissipation of this energy, only stationary energy V 0 remains within IRF=K,
which is given by:

V0  mc2  T  m0c 2 (12b)

Lord Kelvin [18] called T “kinetic-energy of the matter-object”, even though

the whole energy E=mc2 is moving and must thus be “kinetic-energy”. But not all this
energy can be transferred to other objects. One should rather call E 0=m0c2=V0 “latent
stationary-energy”.
It does not matter how the velocity v, of a matter-object, relative to a
stationary observer, has come about: Once it is there, one has that the mass relative to
the observer must have a magnitude m derived in terms of a stationary rest mass by
Eq. 9c. Therefore, one has that for a constant m0, the object’s total mass must change
in magnitude when a non-conservative force acts on it. Using Eq. 9c, this change with
time is given by:
dm d
 m0
dt dt
(13a)
For which:
1

 v2  2
d1  2  
3
d c   v 2  2  v  dv  av  3
   1  2   2    2  
dt dt  c   c  dt  c 
(13b)
Where dv/dt=a=a, is the magnitude of the acceleration a: Combining Eq. 13a with
Eq. 13b, and inserting into Eq. 7, gives:

3  av 
F=m0a+  m0  2  v (14a)
c 
This is the physics observed from within an IRF=K when a force is acting on a
stationary matter-object within an ARF=K’, which is instantaneously moving with a
velocity v relative to IRF=K. The actual physics observed by an observer within
ARF=K’ is found by setting v=0: i.e.
F=m0a (14b)
Extrapolating Galileo’s logic, it can be argued that the physics of this equation (for
constant m0) is observed within ARF=K’ as if ARF=K’ is stationary. Therefore, this
acceleration a within ARF=K’ cannot be experienced by an observer within ARF=K’
as motion of the reference-frame ARF=K’ relative to any other IRF=K; but only as a
reaction-force on a stationary object within ARF=K’ (see also section 2.1). It will be
shown in the book Towards Unifying Physics that it is this reaction-force that bends
light within an accelerating reference frame ARF: Not an absurd curvature of space.
3.6 Conservative force
When a matter-object moves under the action of a conservative force, the term
m0c2 in the approximate Eq. 9e is replaced in text books by potential energy V(x.y.z)
without specifying an absolute value for this energy; thus causing the actual value of
the total energy E to also become a floating value. Large swathes of physics involving
such a potential energy, like Lagrange’s equations, Hamilton’s equations and
Schrödinger’s wave-equation [19], are based on such floating potential energies. But
as will be seen below, it does not make physics-sense to conclude that potential
energy does not have an absolute magnitude.
 When a conservative force acts on a matter-object which is moving with a
total energy E=mc2, it does not increase this total energy E: This means that the total
mass m must also not change while such a force is acting (except when the force is
caused by an electric-potential on a charged matter-object). Within any IRF=K such a
conservative force is a function of the coordinate-position r=(x,y,z) of the matter-
object within that IRF=K, and is modeled in terms of the negative gradient of a
potential-energy V(x,y,z): i.e.
F   V(x.y.z)
(15a)
The work dW, done on such a matter-object when this force moves it through a
distance ds, is:
dW=Fds=   V(r)ds=  dV
(15b)
This work does not increase the total energy E=mc 2, but manifests as a difference in
potential energy: This difference when the object moves from r0 to r is given by:
r

[V(r0,r)]=   dV =V(r )  V(r0)

r0

(15c)
To be at rest at a position within an IRF within which a conservative force is acting,
another equal force must be applied opposite to the conservative force at that position:
This requires that the rest mass must become a function of position in space. It is thus
not at rest owing to the conservative force being zero, but owing to a resultant-force
being zero when an opposite force is applied to that of the conservative force at that
position.
A conservative force decreases the rest-energy that will be measured at
position (x,y,z) when the matter-object is held stationary at this position (by an equal
and opposite force to the conservative force): Therefore absolute rest-energy V(x,y,z)
latently exists at every coordinate position (x,y,z): Furthermore this is not the
invariant rest-energy postulated by Okun [13]; but an energy that changes with
coordinate position (x,y,z) within an IRF=K; and which must thus be given by a rest-
mass m(x,y,z)0; so that:
V(x,y,z)=[m(x,y,z)0]c2 (16a)
By analogy to Eq. 12a, one has for the total energy E=mc 2, a latent amount of kinetic-
energy T(x,y,z) given for any value of m by:

T(x,y,z)= mc2  V(x,y,z)= mc2  [m(x,y,z)0]c2

(16b)
According to Eq. 9c, one has for the total-mass m=E/c2, that:
m( x, y, z) 0
m  m( x , y, z) 0
v2
1 2
c
(16c)
The speed v of the object at the coordinate-position (x,y,z) thus follows as:
2 2
v(x,y,z)  c 1  
m( x , y, z)0   V( x , y, z) 
  c 1  2 
 m   mc 
(16d)
The constant mass m is determined by the previous history of the matter-
object, which can include actions by non-conservative forces (for example collisions)
or radiation of electromagnetic-energy when the matter-object is charged and moving
under the action of an electric potential. It can thus have any value for m at a position
(x,y,z): But this is not the case for its rest-mass energy m(x,y,z) 0.
3.7 Principle of Equivalence
It has already been mentioned that all experiments to date have proved that the
gravitational masses mg and Mg of two matter-objects do not change when the
distance r between them changes. This must mean that when extrapolating Eq. 4 to
very large values for r (even to the limit r for which Fg0) these masses must
remain invariant. This can only be so when m g and Mg are equal to their “free” rest
masses m0 and M0 respectively, when no forces whatsoever are acting on them. These
masses thus act as unipolar “attraction-charges” at all distances r between Mg and mg.
When Einstein formulated his Principle of Equivalence [20], he postulated that
the inertial mass m in Eq. 6 must be equal to the gravitational-mass m g, on which the
force of gravity acts according to Newton’s law of gravity (as given by Eq, 4). He
therefore concluded that within IRF=K(M) at any radial-position r from Mg, one must
have an acceleration of the mass mg which is given by combining Eq. 6 with Eq. 4:
GM g GM 0
g 2
 (17)
r r2
Einstein was so enchanted with this insight that he argued: “we ... assume the
complete physical equivalence of a gravitational-field and a corresponding
acceleration of the reference system.” He did mot say relative to what the acceleration
of this reference-system is occurring: He only argued that the inertial mass m is such
that “being on the surface of the Earth must be the same as being inside a capsule
(outside a field of gravity) which is being accelerated by an engine to have the
acceleration g given by Eq. 17”.
Good try Einstein! But Eq. 17 does not give the acceleration at all positions
for a matter-object with energy E=mc 2 within the reference-frame IRF=K(M) in
which Mg=M0 is stationary.
3.8 Falling
While falling towards M0 within IRF=K(M), m0 loses potential energy. Since
at r its potential energy must approach m0c2, the total potential energy V(r) at any
radial distance r from M0 can be calculated from Eq. 4 to be:
r
m0M 0 mM
V ( r )  m 0c   G
2
2
dr  m0c 2  G 0 0

r r

(18a)
Thus, the rest-energy V(r)=[m(r)0]c2 at position r must be:

 GM 
[m(r )0 ]c 2  [m 0 ]c 2 1  2 0 
 c r 
(18b)

Since the total energy E=mc 2 must remain constant at all positions r, the instantaneous
speed v at a position r through which this matter-object with total mass m falls,
follows analogous to Eq. 16d, as:
2 2 2
v  c 1  
m( r ) 0  m   GM 0 
  c 1  0  1  2  (18c)
 m   m  c r 

The acceleration g towards M0 along the radial direction r thus follows as:
2
dv  dv  dr   m0   GM 0  GM 0 
g        1  2  2 
dt  dr  dt   m   c r  r 
(18d)
This is obviously not the same as Eq. 17: Einstein’s interpretation of his Principle of
Equivalence, on which he based his theory of gravity, must thus be rejected.
3.9 Curved paths
Instead of m falling along the radius r towards M0 with constant energy mc2,
matter-objects with different masses m can move along different directions and thus
follow different paths curving into or around M0. Modeling this behavior falls outside
the length restrictions of this manuscript: These calculations will be published in the
book Towards Unifying Physics.
Such curved paths can be orbits of planets around the Sun. Although the mass
m remains invariant at all positions (r,,) of a planetary orbit, as measured from the
center of the Sun, the rest mass m(r,,)0 does not: This is so since the force has
components along both the acceleration a. and the velocity v (see also section
3.3).which cause the orbit of a planet to precess around the Sun. Note that this
precession follows from the corrected Galilean-Newtonian mechanics above, which is
not based on “time-dilation” and “space-time curvature”: The precession of
Mercury’s orbit [21] can thus not be used as proof that Einstein’s Theory of General
Relativity is correct: This theory is not required to explain this precession.
3.10 Black holes
It is clear that, independent of the value of m, there exists a critical radius r BH
around the center-of-mass of M0 at which m(r BH)0=0 (see Eq. 18b), g=0 (see Eq. 30c)
and v=c (see Eq. 18d): This radius is given by:
GM 0
rBH 
c2
(19)
If the center-of-mass of a matter-object with total energy E=mc 2, encounters a
spherical interface with this radius outside and around M0, this object must have zero
rest-mass; and move with the speed of light c: This demands that such a matter-object
must become a light-wave which enters a spherical volume with radius rBH from
which it cannot escape. Although these equations demand that this must be so, they do
not provide a mechanism for this change from a moving matter-object to a light-wave;
and what happens to such a light-wave when it becomes trapped within this volume
with radius rBH.
3.11 Trapping light
Using the LCT, it will be deduced in section 4.10 that any matter-object
moving with a high enough speed v<c is an electromagnetic matter-wave: It must thus
become a light-wave when the speed v of the center-of-mass of the matter-object
reaches the speed of light c. Thus, if the matter-object can reach a horizon with radius
rBH around stationary matter-object M0, it must become a light-wave. Since it is a
macro light-wave, its fate within this volume must be modeled by Maxwell’s
differential wave-equations for a single light-wave (see section 4.3).
There is only one type of solution for a trapped electromagnetic wave within a
trapping-volume: Since a light-wave does not move through a medium in which it can
cause vibration by exchanging potential-energy with kinetic-energy, it cannot form a
stationary-wave which vibrates like a violin string does: According to Maxwell’s
wave-equations (see section 4.3), such a trapped, non-vibrating wave can be modeled
in terms of an imaginary-amplitude. The wave-intensity is observed in real space as
an energy-density which is proportional to the product of this wave’s imaginary
amplitude with its complex-conjugate amplitude. This intensity is static when the
dimensions of the trapping volume do not change with time.
Maxwell’s equations only allow a light wave to be in a trapping volume when
this wave resonates with the dimensions of the trapping volume to form a stationary-
wave that fills the whole volume with time-independent electromagnetic-energy. Thus
even though the wave does not harmonically vibrate in real space with this frequency,
this frequency determines whether this wave can be trapped or not trapped. This
frequency is thus still latently present in the wave.
It will be postulated (for reasons that will become clear below) that the
transition from a de Broglie matter-wave to a light-wave can occur near-
instantaneously, if not actually instantaneously: One can venture to call such a
transition a macro “quantum jump”! Since such a wave cannot have kinetic-energy
after it is trapped, its trapped-energy must be stationary mass-energy, which adds to
the rest-mass M0 of the black hole.
3.12 Entropy of a Black Hole
The average mass-density BH of stationary-light within the volume VBH of a
black hole when it emits no radiation, should thus be:

M0 3c6
BH   (20)
VBH 4G 3 (M 0 ) 2

Since, according to this logic, the content of a black hole is continuously distributed
rest-mass, this content has no kinetic energy, and must thus be at absolute zero
temperature. This should mean that a black hole cannot have any entropy.
This possibility raises questions about the many studies, initiated by Jacob
Bekenstein [22], in which it has been claimed that a black hole does have entropy.
And about Stephen Hawking’s epitaph in Westminster Abby which gives an equation
for this entropy!
4. Reinterpreting Einstein
4.1 A moving light source
Consider a stationary light source at O’ within IRF=K’ which emits the
leading-front of a light-wave when this source passes through O of IRF=K at time
t=t’=0 on the synchronized clocks at O’ and O: Assume that this wavefront moves
with speed c towards a mirror which is stationary at position x’=d m from O’ within
IRF=K’.
This light will reach the mirror after a time t’=x’/c=d m/c on the synchronized
clock at O’, and then reflects back at this instant in time. During the same time-
interval t=t’, but measured on the clock at O, O’ must move a distance x=d=vt’ from
O. An observer MG within IRF=K, who is stationary at the coordinate-position
xG=x’+d=dm+d from O, will coincide with this reflection-event when it occurs, and
must thus see this happening at time t=t’ on his/her clock, which is synchronized with
the clock at O.
But MG cannot measure the time at which, and position from where this
wavefront had been emitted towards his/her position within IRF=K: This is so since
he/she has not been coincident with this emission-event. But he/she can walk through
the distance xG (it will be a long walk if the distance is light years) to the observer at
O, who can tell him/her that the light was emitted at t=t’=0. Thus, jointly these
observers must calculate that the speed of light from O to x=x G=x’+d along the x-axis
within IRF=K, must have been c+=xG/t’. Therefore, this speed is:
x ' vt' ct ' vt '
c   cv
t' t'
(21)
Exactly as demanded by the GRCT (see Eq. 3a.).
These observers will thus have no reason to question the identical relativistic-
result for a wavefront: It must be self-consistent that the GRCT also transforms the
position of a wavefront from the IRF=K’ into a coincident position within another
IRF=K; exactly as it transforms the position of a matter-object. Even Einstein used
this argument when he misinterpreted the LCT to reach the conclusion that “clock-
time can dilate”.
4.2 Einstein’s second postulate
These observers will, however, not be complacent if they blindly admire
Einstein, and thus believe his second postulate: i.e. “Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray is
emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.” Their joint measurement proves
impeccably that this postulate must be false, since the speed of light relative to the x-
coordinate of IRF=K is c+v when the source is moving along the x-axis with speed v
towards the observer MG.
It will be argued here that Einstein should have framed this “postulate” as
follows: “Any ray of light moves with an instantaneous speed c relative to any
stationary observer within any IRF, whether the ray is emitted by a body that is
stationary or moving relative to such an observer”. This formulation still seems to
contradict the experimental result and thus the general validity of the GRCT. But this
is not the case when invoking Maxwell’s differential wave-equations.
4.3 Maxwell’s Equations
 Maxwell [23] published his famous equations in 1864. They are now
ubiquitous in simpler format in textbooks on Classical Electrodynamics. The
differential wave-equation for the electric vector-amplitude =(x,y,z,t) for a light-
wave moving outside matter, is given in terms of coordinates x,y,z and time t, within
any and all IRF’s, to be the same equation: i.e.

2 1  2Ε
 Ε 2 2
c t
(22a)
An identical equation is valid for the magnetic-field component =(x,y,z,t) of this
same wavefront.
These two complementary differential wave-equations in free space are
derived by algebraic manipulation of Maxwell’s equations which model the physics-
laws of electrodynamics outside a material: These laws were discovered during the
19th century from experiments which had been done within “enclosed” IRF’s.
According to Galileo, these equations must be separately valid within all IRF’s. And
this is so! If a person is a retard, such a person might want to claim that these
separately-valid, identical equations are covariant under a relativistic coordinate-
transformation. This is not so!
The wave-speed c (in empty-space) of a wavefront is given by the product of
the electric-permittivity 0 and magnetic-permeability 0 of empty space: i.e.
1
c
0 0
(22b)
These parameters remain the same when measured within any IRF outside a material;
as they must according to Galileo’s Principle of Relativity. If this were not the case,
the speed measured between a stationary light-source and a stationary detector within
any IRF would not be the same along all directions: And if the latter is not so, this
would violate Galileo’s Principle of Relativity.
Einstein overlooked the fact that the speed c of such a wavefront, when it
passes through any coordinate-position (x,y,z) within any IRF, is the product of the
wavelength  and frequency f of this wave at that position: i.e.

   
c=f=  2f    k
  2 
(22c)
In most textbooks the angular-frequency  and the magnitude k of the wave-vector
along a ray of light, are used.
Since Maxwell’s differential wave-equations are mathematically derived from
the electromagnetic-laws of physics, they are also electromagnetic laws of physics:
They do not directly model an electromagnetic-wave within an IRF: To model the
latter, the differential wave-equations must be solved subject to the correct boundary-
conditions. The latter are different for the same wave within different IRF’s.
Therefore the physics of such a wave is not invariant, or covariant under a relativistic
coordinate-transformation.
 It only seems as if Eq. 22a leads to a wave-solution which must be invariant
under a relativistic coordinate-transformation: This is not so, since the solution for an
actual wave does change when transformed from the IRF in which the light-source is
stationary, into another IRF relative to which the light source is moving. These
changes, at the position of an observer, are demanded by the Doppler-Effect: The
wavelength  and frequency f of such a wave must be different at the position of an
observer when the light-source moves relative to the observer; than when the source is
not moving.
According to Eq. 22c, the wavelength and frequency change in unison, so that
the speed c remains unchanged: But this does not prevent the wave-solution from
changing relativistically when it is transformed. This change (which must manifest for
Galileo’s Principle of Relativity to be valid) is a tandem-increase or tandem-decrease
in the wavelength () and the concomitant phase-time interval ().
These changes are hidden in a differential wave-equation, like Eq. 22a, owing
to the invariant value of c: This invariant value ensures that the electrodynamic-laws
of physics remain separately the same within all IRF’s, as demanded by Galileo’s
Principle of Relativity: In turn the hidden changes of  and  ensure that the physics-
solutions for these waves are not invariant under a relativistic coordinate
transformation: Also as required by Galileo’s Principle of Relativity.
4.4 Clock-time and phase-time
Assume that an observer in IRF=K’ and an observer in IRF=K respectively,
has each, in addition to their respective hypothetical clocks, a hypothetical (what will
be called here) maxellometer; which has the ability to record the speed at which
consecutive wavefronts pass through the coordinate-position of an observer.
Such an instrument can only do this when it resonates with these consecutive
wavefronts. If it does not resonate, an observer will not be aware of these wavefronts
passing by. With their respective maxellometers, each observer will measure the same
speed c for each passing wavefront, as demanded by Maxwell’s differential wave-
equations that they must.
If the observers O and MG have this information, in addition to their
synchronized clock-times, they will accuse one another of lying: Observer O will
claim that the actual time at which the wavefront must reach the mirror is at a later
time tL>t’, after the mirror had moved past M G. MG will counter by claiming that this
wavefront must have left the light-source at a time on the clock at O which is earlier
than t=0: i.e. before the source has actually reached O at time t=0.
This is the conundrum which Einstein should have solved to correctly interpret
his “Theory of Special Relativity”: His explanation was (and still is) to claim that
identical synchronized-clocks measure time at different rates within IRF=K’ and
IRF=K and that a matter-object contracts in length along the direction it is moving. As
already argued in section 2.2, the “explanation” of time-rates being different on
identical clocks moving relative to one another violates Galileo’s Principle of
Relativity! And as will be seen in section 4.10, length-contraction does the same.
The reality is that the wavefront emitted by the source in IRF=K’ does, and
must coincide with MG at the simultaneous instant in time t=t’ within IRF=K, despite
MG’s maxellometer measuring the speed to be c.
If the observer at O is not told that this is so by the observer M G, he/she will
deduce when and where this reflection had occurred, by measuring the time when this
reflected wavefront returns to his/her position O: Since his maxellometer measured a
speed c for this wavefront, this wavefront must move, as referenced at the position O,
with this speed c away from O. Therefore, relative to O this wavefront must arrive
back at O, as if the reflection had occurred when this wavefront coincided with the
mirror within IRF=K’ at a later time t L. From O’s perspective the mirror must have
coincided with another stationary observer ML within IRF=K at a farther distance
x=xL>xG from O. But this is an optical-distance caused by the frequency-shift at the
position of O owing to the Doppler-Effect. The observer is effectively “looking”
through an inverted telescope.
The fact is that MG correctly recorded that the reflection occurred at the
Galilean-time t’=tG (see Eq. 1b) at the Galilean-coincident position x=xG (see Eq. 1d)
within IRF=K. ML will not see this reflection-event at his/her position when the
mirror coincides with him/her at a later time tL.
The optical reflection-distance xL inferred at the position of O is longer than
the actual reflection-distance xG. This is so since by the time it returned to O the
source is not at xG anymore. Since the time tL for this apparent reflection, as
referenced at the position O, is also longer than t G, the time at which this wavefront
will be observed at O, after it has left O at t=0 and returned, must be TO, given by:
xL
TO  t L 
c
(23)
Einstein claimed that tG and tL are “coincident”, and must thus be
“simultaneous”, times: He argued that time is “relative”, since the time-interval t G
should, according to his logic, “dilate” in order to become the same as the longer
time-interval tL. But two different times on synchronized clocks can never be
simultaneous: The definition of “simultaneous” in all dictionaries is “the same time”.
Nothing else!
4.5 The Lorentz transformation (LCT)
The mirror need not be situated on the x’-axis of IRF=K’: It can be situated at
a perpendicular distance, equal to ’, from the x’-axis, to be at the radial distance r’
from O’: The wavefront emitted at O’ will then reach the mirror at time t’=r’/c within
IRF=K’. The relationship between r’=ct’, x’ and ’, can be written in terms of the
Theorem of Pythagoras as:

(ct ' ) 2  x '2 '2 (24a)

This same wavefront, as referenced from O within IRF=K, apparently coincides with
the coordinates (x’,’) of the mirror within IRF=K’ at a later time t L=rL/tL, at a longer
radial distance rL from O. The corresponding coordinates xL and L within IRF=K
similarly relate to rL=(ctL) in terms of the Theorem of Pythagoras: i.e.

(ct L ) 2  ( x L ) 2  (L ) 2 (24b)

In these equations one has that L=’; so that they can be combined to give the
following template equation:

(ct L ) 2  ( x L ) 2  (ct ' ) 2  ( x ' ) 2 (24c)

In text books, following Minkowski’s irrational space-time construct, it is claimed

that this equation defines, by means of the Theorem of Pythagoras, a coordinate-
position (xL,tL) which is coincident with a coordinate position (x’,t’) on a flat surface
in four-dimensions. But this can only be so if the relationship in Eq. 24c is given by a
plus operator; as in the cases for Eq. 24a and Eq. 24b: Not by the minus-operator.
The “flat plane” for Eq. 24c is that of an abstract mathematical-diagram,
which cannot physically be a flat surface perpendicular to a fourth dimension. To
wipe the latter embarrassing problem under the carpet, it is claimed in textbooks that
one can define a metric in terms of Riemann-geometry which makes it a flat plane in
four-dimensional “space-time”. This is nonsense! This template equation is solely
valid owing to the fact that L=’ in three-dimensional (x,y,z) space.
The Lorentz Coordinate Transformation (LCT) from x’ at time t’ into x L at a
different time tL is obtained from this template equation without having to invoke a
“space-time” manifold: These LCT-equations are derived in detail within Towards
Unifying Physics and are the following:
x ' vt '
x L   ( x ' vt' ) 
v2
1 2
c
(24d)

 vx' 
t ' 2 
  v  x '  
t L    t '     
c 
  c  c   v2
1 2
c
(24e)
yL=y’ and zL=z’; or L=’
(24f)
There are different derivations in the mainstream literature for these same equations
which, unfortunately, are based on impossible assumptions: Namely that t’=t G and
tL>tG are “simultaneous times”, and that a relativistic coordinate transformation of
physics has an inverse transformation for the same physics. Even though these
assumptions are impossible, they fortuitously lead to the correct transformation-
equations, albeit only when allowing division by zero: This has derailed modern
physics from 1905 onwards. “Annus Mirabilis” is largely “Annus Miserabilis”.
A better way to write these LCT equations is to use the expressions for x G and
tG of the GRCT given by Eqs. 1: i.e.
xL=(xG)
(25a)

  v  x '  
t L   t G     
  c  c  
(25b)
L=’
(25c)
These equations mathematically approach the Galilean equations, (given by
Eqs. 1) in the limit when v becomes far smaller than c.
 Owing to the latter mathematical-“unfortuity”, Einstein concluded that the
GRCT is an approximation of the LCT at low speeds. He missed the obvious fact that
Eqs. 25 are not a relativistic-transformation from x’ at time t’=t G within IRF=K’ into
xL at time tL within IRF=K, but are a coordinate-transformation which transforms the
already Galilean-transformed coordinate xG (in IRF=K at time t’=tG) into a different
coordinate xL which is also within IRF=K, but at a later time t L>tG. Thus, the times tG
and tL are different non-simultaneous times measured on the same clock at O: Not
simultaneously on the clocks at O’ and O, as Einstein’s acolytes are still blindly
parroting after more than 100 years!
4.6 Optical Distances
I. Receding light-source
The light need not come from a mirror but can be emitted by a light source
which moves through x=xG with speed v along the x-axis of IRF=K: And one is free
to choose the time, at which this light emits to be tG=0, so that Eq. 1a becomes xG=x’:
In this case Eq. 25b becomes:

 vx   v  x 
t L     2G      G 
 c   c  c 
(26a)
Thus, the time at which this emitted wavefront will reach O, as recorded at O, is
obtained by substitution into Eq. 23:

vx G x G  v  x G   v 
TO   2
   1     1  TG
c c  c  c   c 
(26b)
Since an observer MG at xG can confirm that the light was emitted from x G at time t=0,
this light must move within IRF=K from xG to O during this time interval TO with a
speed u, which must be given by:
u=xG/TO
(27a)
During this same time-interval the source moved through a distance vT O from xG, so
that it is situated at a distance d from O given by:
d=xG+vTO=uTO+vTO
(27b)
But within IRF-K’, the wavefront has moved with speed c along the distance d, so
that d=cTO. Replacing d in Eq. 27b) above gives that:
u cv
(27c)
Exactly as demanded by the GRCT.
The time-interval TG which would have been measured if the source were not
moving when passing through xG, is “optically dilated” to become TO, since the phase-
time intervals are longer at the position of the observer: And the distance x G is also
“optically dilated” to become XL=cTO, since the wavelengths are also longer at the
position of the observer. In terms of distances, Eq. 26b thus becomes:
  v
X L   1   x G
 c
(27d)
This contradicts Einstein’s claim that distances become “contracted”. The
distance xG becomes a longer optical distance XL since the wavelengths become
longer (see also section 4.10 for a moving matter-rod).
II. Approaching light-source
It is possible that a light-source could move through x=  x G towards O while
it emits at time tG=0. In this case Eq. 25a becomes:

 vx 
t L     2G 
 c 
(28a)
Thus, as referenced at O, this wavefront starts to move before it emits at time t G=0 at
position x=  x G . If this were not an optical-effect at the position of O, it would be a
violation of causality. But since it is caused by phase-time-intervals and wavelengths
which change owing to the Doppler-Effect, this is not a violation of causality!
According to Eq. 23, this wavefront will reach O at time TO’, given by:

vx G x G  v  x 
TO '   2
   1   G 
c c  c  c 
(28b)
During this same time-interval the source moved through a distance vT O’ from x’=-xG,
so that it is situated at a distance d from O given by:
d=xG  v TO’=uTO’  v TO’
(28c)
But within IRF-K’, the wavefront has moved with speed c along the distance d, so
that d=cTO” Replacing d in Eq. 28c) above gives that:
u  cv
(28d)
As demanded by the GRCT.
If two sources at x=xG and x=  x G are stationary, the arrival-times measured
on the same clock at O will be identically the same. But if they both simultaneously
move with speed v through these positions, T O’ will be less than T O. Thus, owing to
the Doppler-Effect, as modeled by the LCT, the arrival time from a source moving
towards O will be less than for a source moving with the same speed away from O.
Einstein invoked a thought-experiment (of a train and two lightning strikes) to
argue that the arrival times are also different when using the GRCT. This is correct
but it is only for the LCT that the wavefronts start to move towards O (as referenced
at O) at different non-simultaneous times and different optical distances. Although
Einstein claimed that his thought experiment also proves that the initial emission-
times must be different, it is not the case: For the GRCT the wavefronts start to move
simultaneously at the time t=0!
 A single-wave with total energy E which has n-wavefronts after it had been
emitted by a source which approaches O, will have a shorter total-length when
moving past O than a single wave emitted by an identical source which moves away
from the observer O with the same speed: The energy-densities of these waves with
identical total energies E are thus different and their frequencies with which they
arrive at O are also different.
4.7 Dark energy
As recorded at the position of O, light is observed from a receding source as if
it starts to move from an optical distance x L=xG from O, even though it actually starts
to move from the closer distance xG. Since xL is a longer distance from O, the intensity
of the light reaching O will be less than it is for a source which is stationary at the
distance xG. Thus, the faster a light-source moves through a position xG away from O,
the lower this light-intensity will be when it arrives at O.
This has led to confusion in physics when the intensities measured for type Ia
supernovas have been used as “standard candles” in Astronomy and Cosmology. The
purpose of these studies was to see whether the expansion-rate of the Universe is
slowing down owing to gravitational attraction.
In 1998 the conclusion was reached by two international study-groups (the
Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team) that the
galaxies in the Universe are accelerating away from one another. They concluded that
there must be “dark”-energy which is pushing the galaxies apart.
The 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded for these studies. The motivation for this
award was as follows: “By comparing the brightness of distant, far-away supernovae
with the brightness of nearby supernovae, these scientists discovered that the far-
away supernovae were about 25 percent too faint. They were too far away”.
But if these scientists had not blindly believed in Einstein’s “time-dilation”,
this would be exactly what they should have expected. The faster a supernova moves
through its emission-position xG, the larger the optical distance xL will become, and
the fainter such emitted light will be when observed from O; even though the light has
actually been emitted from a closer distance x G: And this discrepancy will be most for
the far-away supernovae which are moving with higher speeds.
It is thus possible that there is no acceleration of these galaxies, and no need to
invoke “dark energy” or Einstein’s fudge-factor called the “cosmological constant”.
Evidence has since been found that the “accelerated” expansion of the
Universe is not as simple as was assumed in 1998. See, for example, reference [24]
for a summary-overview by Natalie Wolchover.
Adam Riess one of the Nobel Prize winners of 2011, remarked that: “If the
late and early universe don’t agree, we have to be open to the possibility of new
physics.” But we only have to interpret the physics-equations for the Doppler Effect
correctly: This requires a rejection of Einstein’s interpretations based on “time-
dilation” and “space-time”-curvature.
The correct explanation has been right in front of our eyes and given by Eq.
26c. I pointed this out to Riess in an e-mail, but he was not willing to question
Einstein’s Cosmology! It is hard to break with dogma once the mob is following it
blindly and want to lynch persons who do not agree!

4.8 Doppler-shifts
 That the LCT is solely required to model the Doppler-Effect can be more
clearly seen when two consecutive wavefronts are emitted by a light-source which is
moving away from the observer at O. The first one is emitted at t=0 at the Galilean-
distance xG from O. The time TO at which it reaches O is thus given by Eq. 26b.
The next wavefront is emitted at time t=S where S is the phase-time-interval
that is equal to the inverse of the frequency of the source 1/f S. The source is, at this
instant, a distance x=xG+vS away from O: So that the time T OS at which this
wavefront reaches O is obtained from Eq. 26b, by simply replacing x G with xG+vS; so
that:

vx G x G  v  x  vS 
TOS   2
   1   G 
c c  c  c 
(29a)
The phase-time interval O between the two consecutive wavefronts arriving at O is
obtained by subtracting Eq. 26b from Eq. 29a; so that:

 v
O  1  S
 c
(29b)
By using the relationship between the wavelength and phase-time interval given by
Eq. 22c, one obtains a change in wavelength S of the source to become O at the
position of the observer:

 v
 O   1   S
 c
(QC29c)
This is the experimentally confirmed expression for the radial Doppler-shift which
Einstein fortuitously also obtained by invoking “time-dilation” in order to “paste” 
into the classical formula for a Doppler-shift.
Einstein also derived a lateral Doppler-shift when a light-source passes an
observer along a path which is at a normal-distance  from the observer’s x-axis:
According to Einstein’s time-dilation, this Doppler-shift for the source, does not
depend on the distance  and is given by:
S
O 

(30)
In this case Einstein was not so fortunate to get the correct answer for the wrong
logic.
Consider again a light-source passing through x=xG from O, which is at a
cylindrical radius equal to  from the x-axis of IRF=K. When it emits a wavefront at
time t=0 towards O, one has that the time tL at which the wavefront starts to move to
O is given by Eq. 26a. Also as referenced at O, the time-interval T, required for this
wavefront to arrive at O after starting to move at time t L, is now given by RG/c; where
RG is given by:
 R G  ( x G ) 2  2
(31a)
The actual time TO, after emission at time t=0, at which this wavefront reaches O is
thus given by analogy with Eq. 23:

RG  v  x 
TO  ΔT  t L     G 
c  c  c 
(31b)
The subsequent wavefront is emitted after the next phase-time interval S=1/fS,
where fS is the frequency of the light-source: During this time-interval a receding
source moves through a distance vs along the x-direction from O. The x-distance of
the emission of this second wavefront from O is now x GS=xG+vS, so that the radial
distance RGS from O, at which the concomitant wavefront optically starts to move
towards O must be:

R GS  ( x GS ) 2  2  [  ( x G  vS )]2  2
(32a)
Therefore, the time-interval TGS required to reach O after optical emission is
TGS=RGS/c. Furthermore, the time tLS at which it optically starts to move can be
obtained from Eq. 25b:

  v  x 
t LS   s    G 
  c  c 
(32b)
The actual time TOS at which this second wavefront will reach O is thus given by
analogy with Eq. 23:

R GS v
TOS  TGS  t LS    T0  s
c c
(32c)
The time-interval O between the arrival times of the first wavefront and the second
wavefront at O is given by the difference between Eq. 32c and Eq. 31b:
R GS R G
O  TOS  TO    s
c c
(33a)
When =0, one has that RG=xG and RGS=(xG+vs) so that Eq. 33a becomes:

 v
 O   1    s
 c
(33b)
Not surprisingly this is the equation for the Doppler-shift when a light-source moves
radially away from O. When  is not zero, this Doppler-equation becomes:
 [  ( x G  vs )]2  2 ( x G ) 2  2
O    s
c c
(34)
For xG=0 the Doppler-shift is not independent of the transverse distance “” as
Einstein had claimed: This is only approximately correct for xG=0 when  is very
large, so that both square-roots can be assumed to cancel one another.
For other types of waves, like a sound wave, which moves within a carrier-
medium, the Doppler-formulas do not have the factor “”. The reason why this factor
plays a role for light-waves is proof that light-waves do not move in aether; and that
therefore a Doppler-shift is not caused by a relativistic-transformation from a
stationary material through which the wave moves.
It is ironic that experiments, like the ones that had been done by Ives and
Stillwell [25], who measured the Doppler-Effect for light-waves and found that 
plays a role, are claimed as proof that Einstein was, and still is, correct about
simultaneous “time-dilation”. It is another example of how an experimental result can
be used to claim the validity of wrong physics.
4.9 Dark Matter
The transverse distance  in Eq. 34, plays a role for values of x G which are not
zero. A full analysis has been submitted for publication; but has been consistently
rejected by the inquisitors of the physics-Vatican in charge of “peer-reviewed”
journals. It will thus be incorporated in the book: Towards Unifying Physics.
Suffice to say that it is possible (for a non-zero value of x G) that an increase in
 gives an increase in the Doppler-shift for the same speed of the light-source along
the x-axis, and this could be so even when the speed decreases within limits as
demanded by, for example, Newton’s law of gravity along the distance . If these
larger shifts in wavelength are used to calculate the speed in terms of Eq. 29b, it will
be concluded that these speeds are substantially higher than what they actually are.
This was recorded from Earth for stars which orbit the center of the
Andromeda galaxy [26]: The speeds were calculated by not taking the effect of  into
consideration, and it was found that these calculated speeds do not decrease with
distance  (from the centre of the galaxy) in the manner that one expects that they
must from Newton’s law of gravity.
Therefore, it was concluded that there must be “dark-matter” in the Universe
which causes these supposed increase in speed. When, however, using Eq. 34 “dark
matter” is not needed.
4.10 Einstein’s Rod
Einstein used the LCT to derive that a rod moving along its longitudinal
direction must contract in length. But the LCT is not a relativistic coordinate-
transformation of the coincident positions along a matter-object (see section 3.4):
Only the GRCT is such a transformation.
Furthermore, Einstein transformed from the IRF=K, relative to which the rod
is moving, into the IRF=K’, within which the rod is stationary. Such an inverse
relativistic transformation is invalid (see section 2.3). The transformation can only be
done from the stationary object in IRF=K’ into IRF=K relative to which the object is
moving: When using the GRCT to do this, the length of the rod remains invariant.
 When the LCT is applied to transform the stationary nose and stationary tail of
such a rod from IRF=K’ into IRF=K [27], it is found that there is an increase in the
stationary length L0 to become L; given by:
L0
L  L 0 
v2 (35a)
1
c2

This is obviously not a contraction of the rod as Einstein had claimed. It lengthens in
proportion to its concomitant increase in mass from m0 to m (see Eq. 9c).
There is an important aspect which Einstein flatly ignored: The LCT, in
addition to a length-transformation, gives a time-interval T across this increased
length L: i.e.

 vL   v 
ΔT    20    2 L (35b)
 c  c 
To be physically meaningful, Eq. 35a and Eq. 35b must relate to the wavelength and
phase-time interval of an electromagnetic wave; so that one must then have that:
L/T=/: This defines a phase speed c* which, according to Eq. 35b and Eq. 22c,
can be written as:

c 2 mc2 E
c*  f    (36)
v mv p

The dynamic mass of the rod m has been used to multiply and divide: One thus
obtains E=mc2 divided by p=mv. E is the total energy of the moving rod and p its
momentum along the x-axis.
This equation is also valid for a light-wave with wavefronts that are moving
along a single direction, but in this case c*=c. Thus, if the rod could reach a speed v=c
it must change into a light-wave. This has already been discussed in sections 3.10 and
3.11.
One is compelled to conclude that any moving matter-object, of any mass and
size, with any total energy E=mc2, has an electromagnetic wave-frequency f so that:
E=mc2=hf
(37a)
Where h is a constant.
Thus, the frequency f is proportional to the total mass m of the matter object
no matter how large this mass is or with what speed it is moving relative to any IRF.
Substituting E=hf into Eq. 36 and canceling f, gives:
h

p
(37b)
This is the de Broglie wavelength [28] when h is Planck’s constant. The latter result
must mean that the de Broglie wavelength is not only valid for an “elementary matter-
particle”, like an electron, but for any matter-object which moves with a linear
momentum p=mv and thus has a total energy E=mc2.
 Furthermore, since such a wave is a result of Maxwell’s wave-equations, it
must consist of a continuous electromagnetic-field, even when the stationary matter-
object is composed of chemically-bonded atoms. This conclusion is supported by
recent experimental evidence that diffraction is possible for a molecule, even though
this matter-object consists of many atoms [29]. The latter can only be possible if the
de Broglie wave of this object is an actual electromagnetic-wave which consists of
continuous electromagnetic-energy. Only such a wave will be able to move
simultaneously through different diffraction-slits while remaining a single wave
which is in instantaneous contact with itself throughout its whole volume.
4.11 Energy of a light-wave
The energy-density U=U(x,y,z,t) of an electromagnetic-wave at position
(x,y,z) and time t, which is moving with speed c, was derived by Poynting nearly 20
years after Maxwell formulated his equations [30]; and is given by:
2 2
U=½ 0Ε  Ε +½  0 Η  Η = 0 Ε = 
(38)
If one is not interested in the vector-characteristics of the wave (polarization or
magnetic-moment) but only its energy-distribution, one can solve for  by using Eq.
22a, which becomes:

2 1  2
  2 2
c t
(39a)
The total energy E of the wave is then obtained from the following integral over the
volume of the wave:
2
E  mc 2   dV
wave
volume
(39b)
This means that the wave has a mass-density distribution, which cannot be derived
from rest-mass as in the case of a de Broglie wave: In the case of a light wave it is
solely determined by the amount of energy which the source (from which the light-
wave emanated) was able to emit; and thus given by:
2
dm 
 
dV c 2
(39c)
This light-wave can be of macro-size and its mass-density can be used to
calculate a center-of-mass for the wave: But in this case the motion of this center of
mass is determined by the motion of the wavefronts of the wave: The latter are
originally determined by the light-source until the wave interacts with other matter-
objects or other light-waves.
For a spherical-wave the wavefronts are spreading out around the center-of-
mass which remains stationary at the source of the wave. For a coherent, single laser-
wave, the center-of-mass moves with momentum p=mc, similar to the linear motion
of the center-of-mass of a matter-object: Such a laser-wave can either resonate or
collide with other objects.
5. Speculations
5.1 Evanescent wave-tails
When the speed v of a matter-object decreases and approaches zero, the
wavelength of its de Broglie wave must at a critical speed vC become equal to the total
length of the wave L, and with further decreasing v exceed this length of the wave.
This requires that the length (volume) of the wave should now increase in order to
“contain” this longer wavelength. But, owing to Eq. 9c, the total energy of the wave
does not increase in concert: It keeps on decreasing with decreasing speed v.
This could, nonetheless, mean that this longer wavelength still exists as part of
the wave. One can speculate that a stationary matter-object should therefore be
surrounded along all directions by an evanescent wave. Although such an evanescent
halo may not have an electromagnetic energy-density, it could still be an integral part
of the wave, which, as already argued above, should be in instantaneous contact with
itself across its total volume.
Such a stationary wave should be aware of a change in boundary-conditions
also when its evanescent part encounters such a change: For example, another matter-
object. It will therefore be tentatively proposed here that evanescent wave-tails around
a stationary matter-object constitute the gravity-field through which the force of
gravity can act instantaneously on other matter-objects. It will also be argued in
Towards Unifying Physics that it could also mean that there cannot be a stationary
electric-energy field around a solitary stationary charge like the charge on an electron.
5.2 The measurement problem
For a moving rod, the measuring apparatus (clocks or maxellometer)
determines what is measured: i.e. whether the rod is observed as a solid matter-object
with a simultaneous unique position and momentum in space, or as a single, coherent
electromagnetic-wave with wavefronts which are moving with a phase speed c*=c2/v.
A similar situation is found in textbooks on Quantum Physics when doing
measurements on freely moving single electrons or photons. In these cases this effect
is called the “measurement problem”: The reason why it is considered to be a
problem, results from the knee-jerk assumption that such an electron or photon is
“represented” by an abstract wave-amplitude, which is not that of an electromagnetic
wave; but given by Schrödinger’s or Dirac’s wave-equations when setting the
potential-energy V(x,y,z) in these equations equal to zero.
Such a wave-amplitude is believed to consist of a superposition of amplitudes,
each of which models a different outcome when making a measurement on the wave.
Thus, before any measurement is made, all possible outcomes of the measurement
supposedly already exist simultaneously within the wave. Schrödinger sarcastically
denounced this concept with his dead-alive cat argument [31].
The mainstream physicists did not catch his joke: Therefore it is claimed that
when doing a measurement on such a hypothetical “wave-packet”, it supposedly
“collapses” to become only one of these superposed amplitudes, which in this manner
reveals the “position” of an “electron-particle” or a “photon-particle”. The latter
assumption is called the “Born Rule”, since it was proposed by Max Born [32].
Note that for this scenario the boundary-conditions, presented by the
measuring apparatus, are completely ignored. The “wave-packet” (on its own)
supposedly consists of all the possible outcomes (dead-alive cats) before making a
measurement. When thus doing a measurement, only one outcome is found, while all
the other possibilities disappear in thin air. It is even argued that they manifest in
“parallel universes” [33].
But when there is no measuring apparatus, there will be no observation: The
probability will then be consistently zero to find the position of the “particle”.
Furthermore different types of apparatuses can be used to obtain different results: For
this reason, the apparatus must determine the outcome, or possible outcomes of a
measurement: Not the abstract-wave-function (on its own) before the measurement is
made.
It will be postulated here that the wave-amplitude  of a solitary electron
moving with speed v through free space, is not a solution of either Schrödinger’s or
Dirac’s wave-equations. It is a solution of Maxwell’s differential wave-equations,
when substituting c*=c2/v for c. Not a wave-packet of superposed amplitudes, but a
single electromagnetic-wave with continuously distributed energy equal to E=m ec2,
for which me=[m0e] where m0e is the electron’s rest-mass at the instantaneous position
of its center-of mass. This means that for this wave one must have (similar to Eq. 39b)
that:
2
  dV  [m e ]c
2

volume
(40)
This integral is not unity as assumed for the Born Rule.
The boundary-conditions that such a single electromagnetic-wave encounters
change the shape, size and/or energy of the wave: When a wave adapts to new
boundary- conditions without being absorbed or being decomposed into more waves
or superpose with other waves, such a wave must remain a single, non-superposed,
coherent electromagnetic-wave with continuous electromagnetic-energy within its
volume. Its essence is determined by its history: First by the boundary-conditions of
the source which emitted it, and then by subsequent boundary-conditions that the
wave encounters.
Thus, the emitted wave cannot be observed in its emitted form, unless the
measuring apparatus does not cause a change its boundary-conditions; which in
essence mean that no measurement is being made.
It is thus possible that a wave can be emitted as a spherical wave but observed
as a linearly-moving coherent-wave by a detector which forced the wave to morph
into the latter form. Thus, the fact that alpha-particles are observed within a cloud-
chamber to move away from their source in random directions [34], does not mean
that each one of them has been emitted in a random direction. Each alpha-particle
wave could have been emitted as a spherical-wave which collapses into a linear-
moving wave when its wavefronts encounter a gas-molecule in the cloud chamber.
The random positions of the gas molecules cause the random paths being observed in
the cloud-chamber. The statistics involved is purely classical.
It is more rational to argue that identical waves can only give different results
for the same measurement-apparatus when the boundary-conditions presented by the
measuring apparatus allow different outcomes. The wave itself cannot be a
superposition of these different outcomes, since it cannot “know” ahead of time about
these different possibilities presented by the measuring apparatus: This conclusion
contradicts the argument by Wheeler that the wave can “sniff” out these possibilities
before encountering the relevant boundary-conditions [35].
 If a measurement requires the wave to instantaneously change its shape and
size, the wave must do this: In principle it should be able to collapse from a size that
stretches across parsecs into a localized wave that only stretches across a small
volume and then moves further as if it is a matter-object with a center-of-mass.
Alternatively, a localized wave should be able to inflate instantaneously to become a
wave which stretches across parsecs. Such a collapse or inflation should not be
inhibited by the speed with which its wavefronts can normally travel outside a
material: As already argued above, this demands that such a wave must be
instantaneously aware of itself within the volume that it occupies.
That the latter could be so seems to follow logically from the fact that such a
single wave does not need another wave to travel within, and through its volume to
send information from one position to another position within the wave. The wave is
its own continuously-distributed messenger-fabric with no gaps within it through
which information can only move when another wave moves through these gaps.
5.3 “Particle”-diffraction
Consider a single electron-wave (or a photon-wave) impinging into a double-
slit diffractometer. The size and shape of such a wave is determined by the previous
history of the wave: If the size of the impinging wavefronts is larger than the spacing
between the slits, so that these wavefronts overlap both slits, the wave should resonate
with the dimensions of the slits and move through both slits simultaneously. This is
possible since the wave consists of continuous electromagnetic-energy which is in
instantaneous contact with itself. Therefore, the wave need not break-up into two
separate waves to move through both slits.
The two contiguous parts remain a single wave which, owing to its new shape,
causes these two parts to interfere with one another on the other side of the slits: The
wavefronts formed by this interference inflate into larger wavefronts which move
towards the detection screen.
When such a wave reaches this detection-screen, the surface-areas of its
wavefronts could be as large as the area of the screen. But the screen cannot record
this intensity-distribution in one go: The wave had been originally emitted by an
atomic-sized source; and should be detected by another atomic-sized entity.
Such atomic-sized detectors are randomly distributed within the screen. Thus,
when the wave resonates with one of them it collapses and leaves a spot on the screen
when the screen is a photographic plate. Many identical waves will leave many
distributed spots behind which will eventually represent the identical intensity-
distributions of these separately diffracted-waves. The latter result is to be logically
expected and is therefore not “one real mystery of quantum mechanics” as had been
concluded by Richard Feynman in his famous Lectures.
When one places detectors at the slits, one of these detectors will change the
volume and size of the wave before, or after this wave has reached the slits. If the
wave is collapsed before it reaches the slits, its wavefronts become too small to
overlap the slits and resonate with them in order to simultaneously pass through both
of them. If the detector collapses the wave after it has moved through both slits
simultaneously, there can be no interference between its contiguous parts to cause
diffracted wavefronts. In both cases a digital diffraction- pattern will not form on the
detection-screen.
The diffraction of single photons and single electrons, including the correct
explanation for the Aharanov-Bohm Effect [36] has been treated in detail elsewhere
[37].
5.4 Spooky action
Although Einstein claimed that a single light-wave must consist of separate
photon-“particles” and therefore set the stage for the statistical interpretation of
Quantum Physics, he refused to accept the interpretation (by Bohr and his
Copenhagen School) that the intensity of a wave-function must, therefore, be a
probability-distribution of where a photon-particle will be found when making a
measurement.
He and his students Podolsky and Rosen [38] devised a thought-experiment
invoking a wave-amplitude, which represents two photons. Schrödinger [31] later
claimed that these two photons are “entangled”: A totally meaningless word since it
does not explain what “entanglement” of two “particles” actually entails.
Einstein Podolsky and Rosen pointed out that it is possible to obtain the
simultaneous-instantaneous positions of both photons by only measuring the position
of one of them, no matter how far apart the photons are found to be: The position of
the other photon is known from classical-physics. This must mean that, if the photons
are separate entities as is claimed to be the case by the Copenhagen School, the
measured photon must be able to communicate instantaneously with the second
photon. Einstein claimed that this is not possible owing to his Theory of Special
Relativity; since the speed of communication between separate entities cannot be
faster that the speed of light c: Einstein therefore concluded that the Copenhagen-
interpretation must be incomplete. This argument became known as the EPR paradox.
The history of this paradox is long and convoluted but well documented in the
literature; and will thus not be repeated here. Suffice to point out that in terms of the
arguments in the present manuscript, two “entangled photons” are actually a
superposed single electromagnetic-wave, which must be in instantaneous contact with
itself, so that a measurement on the wave must instantaneously change the wave to
conform to the new boundary-conditions of the measurement.
If a measurement requires a single wave with continuous-energy 2hf, to
devolve into two waves, each of energy hf, it should be able to do so instantaneously.
Einstein’s “hidden variable” could simply be the fact that the wave is (before making
the measurement) a single electromagnetic-wave: Not two separate “particles”.
Therefore, after devolving into two separate photon-waves, the properties of these
waves must correlate. Another subsequent measurement on one of these photons
should destroy this correlation.
5.5 Hydrogen atom
Eq. 35a demands that a solitary electron cannot be a “point-particle” as is
assumed for the Standard Model of Particle Physics. It must have a stationary
diameter L0=2re; where re is the radius of the electron which encloses the
electromagnetic energy of the electron when it is stationary within an IRF.
An electron which circles a proton with speed v at a radius r must thus have a
de Broglie wave which has a length L, given by L=(gamma)(2r e), along the circular
path of the electron. When L becomes equal to the circumference C n=2[aBn], where
aBn is the radius of the path at which the two ends of a de Broglie wave (with n
wavelengths) meet up, these wavelengths will coherently resonate with this length C n
and become trapped b y it. It must then morph into a stationary-wave without kinetic-
energy. Just before it morphs into such a stationary wave, this de Broglie wave must
have a circular length Cn such that:
 C n  n n  2[a Bn ]  ( 2re )  n
(41a)
h
With a de Broglie wavelength n 
( m ne v n )
(41b)
nh
So that: m ne 
2[a Bn ]v n
(41c)
When an electron with energy m nec2 reaches a resonating radius a Bn around a
proton, it will, by analogy to Eq. 18b, have a rest-mass energy E 0n=[m(aBn)0e]c2,
determined by the charges  e on the electron and +e on the proton, as well as the
electron’s free rest mass m0e and the proton’s free rest mass M0p: i.e.

 e2 GM 
[ m(a Bn )0 e ]c 2  [ m 0e ]c 2 1  2
 2 0 p 
 40 [ m 0e ]c a Bn c a Bn 
(42a)

The last gravitational term is neglected in text books. The stationary energy formed by
the de Broglie wave with n wavelengths which forms at radius a Bn, is given by
analogy to Eq. 9c and Eq. 37a, by:

E n  [ m ne ]c 2   n [ m(a Bn )0e ]c 2  hf ne
(42b)
If there is no proton, one can set +e=0 and M 0p=0 in Eq. 4a, so that the free
stationary-energy of the electron at position aBn follows from Eq. 42b, as
E0=[m0e]c2=hf0e. Therefore the binding-energy of the nth energy-level must be En:

ΔE n  E 0  E n  [ m 0e ]c 2  [ m ne ]c 2  hf 0e  hf ne  hf ph
(43a)
Where fph is the frequency of the light required to ionize this energy-level. This
quantum of energy hfph is not inherent to a light-wave which has this frequency fph, but
is determined by the two stationary frequency-states of the electron-wave. The
electron-wave only bites off what it can chew! Thus:

ΔE n  [ m 0e ]c 2   n [ m(a Bn )0e ]c 2
43b)
It is clear that this formula is different from the original formula derived by Bohr
when he used the approximate equation with kinetic energy equal to ½mv 2: No
approximations have been made here to obtain Eq. 43b. Thus Eq. 43b is correct for all
speeds v<c. In terms of Einstein’s incorrect semantics one can call this equation
“relativistic”.
Eq. 43b is only correct if there is no field of gravity (other than that of the
proton) at the position of the electron. If there is a gravitational potential-difference
 for the electron when the proton is not there, this position has rest-mass energy
me given by:

 ΔΦ   ΔΦ 
m Φe  m 0 e  m 0 e  2   m 0 e  1  2 
 c   c 
(43c)
When replacing m0e in Eq. 43a with me the frequency fph is lowered and the radiation
that can be absorbed or emitted by this atom is red-shifted. The higher the gravity, the
larger  becomes and the lower the light-frequency becomes.
This means that the frequency of an atomic clock will decrease when the
gravity at which the clock finds itself increases. This has been experimentally verified
[39]. But as explained in section 2.3 this does not mean that time itself is slowing
down when gravity increases. It is the frequency of the clock which changes. If a
pendulum clock were to be used, the frequency would increase when the force of
gravity increases.
5.6 Radius of a Solitary Electron
The average electron radius re follows in terms of the radius aBn from Eq. 41a:
2
a v 
re  Bn  ( a Bn ) 1   n 
n  c 
(44a)
In order for re to be zero, as is assumed by the particle physicists, one must have that
aBn=0, which the atomic physicists know is impossible: This is another blow to the
Standard Model of Particle Physics.
5.7 Photons
When Einstein modeled the Photo-Electric Effect [40], he conjectured that a
single light-wave must consist of separate “particles”: Therefore, it is at present
believed that a light-wave with frequency f must consist of a gas of separate photons,
each with an energy hf where h is Planck’s constant.
Although Max Planck conclusively proved in 1900 that the amount of
radiation within a black-body cavity increases with temperature by means of discrete
energy-units called quanta (at present called photons) [41], this does not prove that
the equilibrium-radiation trapped within this cavity must consist of a gas of separate
photons. Photons do not have rest-masses which can cause such a “gas” to have a
center-of-gravity and thus add to the weight as is the case for molecules in a vessel. It
is, however, known that the radiation within a black-body cavity does add to the
weight that such a cavity has when there is no trapped radiation: This compels one to
conclude that the radiation within a black-body cavity cannot consist of a “gas” of
“light-particles”, each with zero rest-mass.
According to Maxwell’s wave equations, light-waves trapped within a black-
body cavity must be stationary, time-independent waves. Maxwell’s equations only
allow a wave with frequency f to exist in the cavity if it can resonate with the
dimensions of the cavity; so that it morphs into a stationary wave which fills the
whole cavity. Since, as argued above, a photon is a single coherent-wave, this must
also be the case for a photon: Many photons (say N) with the same frequency f ph can,
in the same manner, coherently superpose to form a single stationary-wave with the
same frequency fph but having a larger energy E=Nh(fph). By doing this, these photons
lose their separate identities and form a single stationary-wave with rest-mass
M=[Nh(fph)]/c2.
It is most probably for this reason why the “statistical” behavior of photons
within a black-body cavity, modeled by the Bose-method [43], requires the
assumption that these photons cannot be individually identified: This is contrary to
what would be the case if they were identical molecules, each with rest-mass, trapped
in a vessel. The argument in textbooks that they cannot be individually identified
since they are “indistinguishable” is misleading. It is more logical to argue that they
cannot be individually distinguished since, after coherent superposition, they are not
separate entities anymore.
When there is a hole through the wall of a black-body cavity, light can escape
by morphing into traveling waves which have kinetic energy outside the cavity.
Although this radiation can be detected by a suitable apparatus as photons, this does
not mean that they emitted through the hole as separate photons: This is so since a
measurement on a wave changes its properties (see section 5.2): The measurement
can thus decouple a single running-wave with frequency f into separate single
photons. The measurement causally determines what one observes.
5.8 Cosmic Background Radiation
It is now well established that Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has the
same frequency distribution as black-body radiation. This could mean that CBR
actually consists of stationary waves, each filling the whole Universe. This could
imply that our Universe initiated by the rapid inflation of an ultra-high energy
electromagnetic-wave, instead of “particles” spewing forth from a “singularity” at
“high temperature”. This inflation could thus have happened at zero temperature and
entropy; since this wave is stationary within its inflating volume.
This could be the real reason for Guth’s postulate that the Universe initially
inflated faster than the speed of light. It could also give an estimate of the present size
of our Universe if the spacing between adjacent frequencies of the background
radiation is measured.
It is plausible that matter only formed when neutrons “precipitated” from
continuous electromagnetic wave-energy, when this energy reached a suitable density
during inflation of this wave. The neutrons then decayed into protons and electrons!
Only then did kinetic-energy and temperature come into play. The “fundamental”
particles generated in accelerators could thus be excited states of the actual building
blocks of matter: i.e. the electron, proton, and neutrino. This mechanism might also
explain the Cosmological Principle: i.e. why the spatial distribution of matter in the
Universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale.
6. Conclusion
Any matter object is stationary within its own reference-frame which can be
mathematically modeled in terms of a coordinate-system attached to the matter-
object. For this reason, the Principle of Relativity must be formulated as follows:
“Each law by which the states of physical systems undergo change is separately valid
within the reference frame of each matter-object as if this object is uniquely
stationary in the Universe, even when it is observed to be moving relative to another
matter-object in the Universe. This means that a relativistic coordinate-transformation
of physics-equations cannot leave these equations invariant or covariant. Most physics
is based on the assumption that a relativistic coordinate-transformation leaves
physics-equations covariant. Therefore all physics formulated from the time of
Newton needs to be reinterpreted.
Corrections to Newton’s Physics and the so-called Pillars of Modern Physics
(Einstein’s Relativity and Quantum Physics, including the Standard Model for
Particles) have been proposed above. A more detailed analysis will be published in
the book: Towards Unifying Physics.
REFRENCES
[1] I Newton: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687).
[2] G Galilei: Dialogues Concerning Two Sciences (1638).
[3] A A Michelson & E W. Morley, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the
Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science 34 333–345 (1887)..
[4] A Einstein: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Annalen der Physik 17
801-921 (1905).
[5] S W Hawking: Singularities in the Universe, Physical Review Letters. 17 444-445
(1966).
[6] R Penrose: Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Physical Review
Letters 14 57-59 (1965).
[7] H Dingle: Science at the Crossroads. (GogiLib 2018: ISBN 9788897527442)
(1972)/
[8] L Essen: The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis, (Oxford science
research papers, 5) (1971).
[9] A Einstein: The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Annalen der
Physik 49 769-822 (1916).
[10] E Hecht: Understanding energy as a subtle concept: A model for teaching and
learning energy, American Journal of Physics 87 495-503 (2019).
[11] A Einstein: Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content? Annalen
der Physik, 18 639- (1905).
[12] T Rothman: Did Einstein Really Invent E = mc2? Scientific American 313, 3,
(September 2015).
[13] L B Okun: The concept of Mass. Physics Today 42 31- (1989).
[14] H Minkowski: Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in
bewegten Körpern. Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,
Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse: 53–111 (1908).
[15] P A M Dirac: The Quantum Theory of the Electron. Proceedings of the Royal
Society A117 610-624 (1928). Part II: A118 351-361 (1928).
[16] W E Lamb & R C Retherford: Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a
Microwave Method. Physical Review 72 241-243 (1947).
[17] H A Bethe: The Electromagnetic Shift of Energy Levels. Phys. Rev. 72 339–341
(1947)
[18] William Thompson (Lord Kelvin): The Kinetic Theory of the Dissipation of
Energy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 8 325-334 (1874).
[19] E Schrödinger: An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and
Molecules, Physical Review 28 1049-1070 (1926).
[20] A Einstein: On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions drawn from It.
Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik 4 111-462 (1907).
[21] A Einstein: Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from the General
Theory of Relativity, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte,
(part 2), 831–839 (1915).
[22] J D Bekenstein: Black Holes and Entropy, Physical Review D 7 2333-2346
(1973).
[23] J C Maxwell: A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London 155 459-512 (1865).
[24] N Wolchover: Cosmologists Debate How Fast the Universe is Expanding.
Quanta Magazine August 8, (2019).
[25] H. E, Ives, & G. R. Stilwell. An experimental study of the rate of a moving
atomic clock II, Journal of the Optical Society of America 31 369- (1941). H. E, Ives,
& G. R. Stilwell. An experimental study of the rate of a moving atomic clock, Journal
of the Optical Society of America 28 215- (1938).
[26] Vera C. Rubin & W. Kent Ford Jr., Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a
Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions, Astrophysical Journal 159 379- (1970).
[27] J F Prins: The Length of a Longitudinally Moving Rod. Physics Essays 26 599-
603 (2013).
[28] L de Broglie: Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Researches on the quantum
theory), Thesis, Paris, 1924: Ann. de Physique 3 22- (1925).
[29] C Brand, F Kialka, S Troyer, C Knobloch, K Simonović, B A Stickler, K
Hornberger, M Arndt: Bragg Diffraction of Large Organic Molecules. Physical
Review Letters 125 1-5 (2020).
[30] J H Poynting: On the Transfer of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 175 343-361 (1886).
[31] E Schrödinger: Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems.
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31 555–563 (1935).
[32] M Born: The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Nobel Lecture
(1954).
[33] H Everett: Relative State Formation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern
Physics 29 454-462 (1957).
[34] N F Mott: The Wave-Mechanics of -Ray Tracks. Proceedings of the Royal
Society A126 78-84 (1929).
[35] J A Wheeler: The 'Past and the Delayed-Choice Double-Slit Experiment'.
Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory. (Academic Press 1978) pp 9–48).
Editor A.R. Marlow.
[36] Y Aharonov & D Bohm, D: (1959). Significance of electromagnetic potentials in
quantum theory. Physical Review. 115 485–491 (1959).
[37] J F Prins: The Physics Delusion chapter 35 (www.cathodixx.com 2011) ISBN
14663 77437.
[38] A Einstein, B Podolsky & N Rosen: Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review 47 777-780 (1935).
[39] J Grotti, S Koller, S Vogt, S Häfner, U Sterr, C Lisdat, H Denker, C Voigt, L
Timmen, A Rolland, F N Baynes, H S Margolis, M Zampaolo, P Thoumany, M
Pizzocaro, B Rauf, F Bregolin, A Tampellini, P Barbieri, M ucco, G A Costanzo, C
Clivati, F Levi & D Calonico: Geodesy and metrology with a transportable optical
clock. Nature Physics 14 437-441 (2018).
[40] A Einstein: Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes
betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt. Annalen der Physik 17 132-148 (1905).
[41] M Planck: On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum.
Annalen der Physik 4 55- (1901).
[42] A H Guth: The Inflationary Universe (Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books,
1997) ISBN 0-201-14942-7.