See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368882412

The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing

Chapter · March 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.110070

CITATION READS

1 156

1 author:

Jorma Jormakka
Aalto University
135 PUBLICATIONS   206 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mathematics and applied mathematics 1986-2021 View project

Teletraffic issues 1993-1999 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorma Jormakka on 01 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of
Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

6,300
Open access books available
170,000
International authors and editors
185M
Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

The Relativity Theory Needs Some

Fixing
Jorma Jormakka

Abstract

The article presents a critical analysis of the Special and General Relativity Theo-
ries. Both theories are found incomplete and need a revision. The general relativity
principle is currently understood as meaning that there is no preferred frame of
reference and equations of motion must be Lorentz invariant. These interpretations
should be modified to the form that there is no global preferred frame of reference,
but there is a local preferred frame of reference given by the local gravitation field,
and the equations of motion should be invariant in conformal mappings. The reason
why there is a local preferred frame of reference is that the Lorentz transform does not
define a valid time for a moving frame and therefore cannot give a set of frames of
reference where there is no preferred local frame of reference. As light travels along
geodesics of the gravitational field, this local preferred frame is given by the local
gravitation field. Much of relativity theory remains after this revision, including the
geometric interpretation of gravity, the equivalence principle, time and length
dilation in gravitational fields and accelerating frames, time and length dilation
between frames in constant relative motion if the local gravitation field is
strong enough.

Keywords: relativity principles, special relativity theory, general relativity theory,

energy = mass equation

1. Introduction

The article presents a critical analysis of some aspects of the two relativity theories
by Einstein, the Special Relativity Theory (SRT) and the General Relativity Theory
(GRT). Both theories are found to be incomplete, and they require changes.
The main principles of the Special Relativity Theory are that (1) the speed of light
in vacuum has the same value c in all frames of reference that move with a constant
speed with respect to each other and (2) that there is no preferred frame of reference.
The principle (2) implies that the laws of physics are independent of the chosen
inertial frame of reference, which is understood to mean that laws of physics must be
invariant under the Lorentz transform.
It is shown in this article that the principle (1) must be reformulated. Section 2 of
the article proves that the Lorentz transform does not give a constant speed of light in
vacuum to every direction for a moving frame of reference. A direct calculation from
the Lorentz transform does give the constant speed c in the moving frame of reference
1
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

to every direction, but it gives a different time for every direction. A moving frame
can only have one time, and for any such valid (i.e., proper) time the speed of light is
not constant c in all frames of reference that move with a constant speed with respect
to each other.
Section 3 proves that the Michelson-Morley experiment, claimed to have shown
that the speed of light is constant in every frame of reference moving with a constant
speed, is invalid. This is so because in this experiment a light beam is split into two
beams that travel along a different path and at the end of the path these beams are
taken to the same place, and it is checked if the beams produce an interference
picture. They cannot because the frequency of both beans is the same all the time and
the beams are always in the same phase. This would be so even if one path went
through air and another through glass, though the speed of light is c. 300,000 km/s in
the air and c. 200,000 km/s in the glass.
Though the Michelson-Morley experiment does not correctly prove it, many later
measurements do show that the speed of light in vacuum is constant c to every
direction in a local environment where the measurement was made. This result does
not imply that the speed of light in vacuum is constant in a fixed coordinate system in
the whole space. The result only applies to a local environment: there is a preferred
local frame of reference, though there is no preferred global frame of reference. The
ether where light undulates in the Michelson-Morley experiment is the gravitation
field of the Earth, and this ether is at rest in the Earth even though the Earth is not in
any special position in the universe.
In order to see what this interpretation implies, consider two masses having a
constant relative speed. Close to either mass the speed of light in vacuum is constant c
to every direction, but in the space between these masses the gravitational field is
changing and as at each point the momentary speed of light is always c, and the speed
of light is also changing when the field changes. The consequences of the observations
in Section 3 are that there can be time and length dilation also between frames of
reference moving with a constant speed with respect to each other, but it is not the
time and length dilation that Einstein gave. Einstein’s time and length dilation depend
only on the relative speed, but the formulae should also include the strengths of the
gravitation fields.
Section 4 addresses the general principle of relativity, that is, laws of physics
are the same in every frame of reference, whether inertial or non-inertial. This
principle is already used in the moving mass formula and the proof of E ¼ mc2 in
Einstein’s 1905 papers. The general relativity principle is understood as saying
that there is no preferred frame of reference, equations of motion must be Lorentz
invariant, and the equivalence principle holds. The results of Sections 2 and 3 suggest
that the general relativity principle should be reformulated as: there is no preferred
global frame of reference, but there is a preferred local frame of reference given by the
local gravitational field, and that equations of motion should be invariant with respect
to conformal mappings from R4 to R4 . Section 4 points out some questions concerning
Einstein’s moving mass formula, and Section 5 proposes replacing the moving mass
formula by adding to the force the second component that guarantees that the speed
of a moving mass does not exceed the speed of light in the local environment. The
second term can be understood as friction: the space-time slowing down a mass that
without this term would exceed the speed of light. Dropping the moving mass
formula ruins the proof Einstein gave to E ¼ mc2 (see e.g., [1]). A very simple proof of
the E ¼ mc2 for a special case of a simple discrete theory is added to the article in

2
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

Section 6 just to demonstrate that this equation can be derived also without Einstein’s
version of the relativity theory and the Lorentz transform.
The main principles of the General Relativity Theory are the general principle of
relativity, the geometric interpretation of gravity, the equivalence principle, and
constant speed of light in vacuum. Section 7 makes the following remarks of the
General Relativity Theory: the geometric approach itself is usable, but most solutions
of GRT do not have a constant speed of light in vacuum to all directions at all time
moments; the equivalence principle is also good, but it is not limited to GRT, it is
satisfied also by Nordström’s scalar gravitation theory. It is also mentioned that GRT
fails two tests that Einstein gave for his field theory of gravitation, but Nordström’s
scalar gravitation theory does not fail any tests.

2. On Einstein’s usage of the Lorentz transform

The problem in Einstein’s usage of the Lorentz transform is that though the
transform does give the constant speed of light in any frame of reference R0
moving with a constant speed v with respect to a fixed frame of reference R, it uses a
time concept for R0 which is not a valid scalar time (a proper time). The time in the
Lorentz transform is a scalar variable, but it is not valid as a scalar time because it
demands that there is a different time in R0 for sending light to different directions. In
fact, the Lorentz transform only describes how the Doppler effect shows in new
coordinates. Therefore, the Lorentz transform cannot be applied in the situation that
Einstein had.
Consider the following experiment. A square box with each side having the length L is
moving with a constant speed v ¼ vev with respect to a rest frame of reference R.
From the midpoint, one of the sides of the square light is emitted. It shines on the
opposite side and reflects from it and returns to the starting point. In the frame R, this
roundtrip time is T ¼ T 1 þ T 2 where T 1 is the time for the light beam to reach the
mirror and T 2 is the time for the light beam to travel from the mirror back to the starting
point. The velocity v is in the direction of the positive x-axis. We assume that light travels
with a constant speed c to each direction in R (so, we assume that the experiment is made
in vacuum). The Special Relativity Theory light has always the speed c in vacuum;
therefore, the assumption is fulfilled in that theory. In the Ether Hypothesis, which was
the hypothesis Michelson and Morley tested, we select R so that the ether is at rest in R.
The left side of the box is in x1 at the time t1 . Light is sent from this point, and it
arrives in the time T 1 ¼ t2 t1 to the right side of the box. The right side has moved in
this time to x2 ¼ x1 þ L þ vT 1 . The velocity of light is c in R, thus

x2 x1 L þ vT 1 L
c¼ ¼ , we get T 1 ¼ : (1)
t2 t1 T1 c v

The return trip of the light is from the right side of the box in x2 to the left side
of the box in x3 . Light arrives to x3 at the time t3 . Then, x3 ¼ x1 þ vðt3 t1 Þ. Let
T 2 ¼ t3 t2 . Thus, x2 x3 ¼ L vT 2 and the speed of the light in R is c for the
return trip:

x2 x3 L vT 2 L
c¼ ¼ , we get T 2 ¼ : (2)
t3 t2 T2 cþv

3
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

Next, we make the Lorentz transform x0 ¼ γ ðx vtÞ, t0 ¼ γ ðt ðv=c2 ÞxÞ. Let us

define

L01  x02 x01 ¼ γ ððx2 x1 Þ vðt2 t1 ÞÞ ¼ γ ðL þ vT 1 vT 1 Þ ¼ γL (3)

L02  x02 x03 ¼ γ ððx2 x3 Þ vðt2 t3 Þ Þ ¼ γ ð L vT 2 þ vT 2 Þ ¼ γL: (4)

We notice that the length of the box in R0 is the same to both the positive and the
negative x-direction and that it is L multiplied by a scaling factor γ. However, let us
calculate the time intervals in R0 :

2 c v
T 01  t02 t01 ¼ γ ðt2 v=c2 ðL þ vT 1 Þ ¼ γ



 
t1 Þ v=c ðx2 x1 Þ ¼ γ T 1 T1
c
(5)
cþv
T 02  t03 t021 ¼ γ ðt3 v=c2 ðx3 x2 Þ ¼ γ T 2 þ v=c2 ðL


 

 
t2 Þ vT 2 Þ ¼ γ T2,
c
(6)

where we eliminated L by using L ¼ ðc vÞT 1 ¼ ðc þ vÞT 2 . Inserting T 1 and T 2 , we

get T 01 ¼ T 02 ¼ γ Lc; thus, we get the speed of light in R0 as c0i ¼ L0i =T 0i ¼ c, i ¼ 1, 2.
For the roundtrip, we get directly from the Lorentz transform:

x03 x01 ¼ γ ðx3 x1 vðt3 t1 ÞÞ (7)

v=c2 ðx3 x1 Þ ¼ γ T

2 
2 2 
T 0 ¼ t03 t01 ¼ γ t3


 


t1 v=c vT ¼ γ 1 v =c T
(8)

The length of the roundtrip in R0 is not x03 x01 , it is L0 ¼ L01 þ L02 ¼ γ2L. The time in
R is

L L c
T ¼ T1 þ T2 ¼ þ ¼ 2L 2 (9)
c v cþv c v2

The speed of light for the roundtrip in R0 is L0 =T 0 ¼ c. The Lorenz transform does
give the same constant speed of light in all frames of reference, but (5) is highly
problematic. What are the two different times in (5)? They are not the times experi-
enced by a photon moving to either direction. As a photon is moving with the speed of
light c, in the Lorentz transform the time does not move at all for a photon. They are
two times for R0 : there is a different time in R0 for sending light to the positive x-
direction and to the negative x-direction. We can see what these times are in reality by
a simple thought experiment. Split light from a single oscillator to both directions, and
let some information be sent as bits in the light beam. If the sending times in R0 are
different to the two directions, the transmission time of the signal is different because
the frequency depends on the time unit. Bits get buffered to some invisible buffer in
the direction where the transmission speed is lower. Obviously, this does not happen:
bits leave R0 with the same transmission speed. Let us have two receivers in the fixed
frame of reference R. If the transmission times were different to the two directions,
these receivers would receive signal with two different frequencies. They of course do
receive the signal with two different frequencies: it is caused by the Doppler effect.
The Doppler effect is all we see. It perfectly matches the effect that we should see with

4
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

the times in (5). This shows that what (5) describes is simply the Doppler effect as it
appears in the coordinate system x0 , t0 . The whole reason why the Lorentz transform
makes the speed of light constant in all moving frames R0 is in the formulas in (5). As it
in reality is a description of the Doppler effect, the times T 0i are not anything real. The
Doppler effect does not require changing the absolute Newtonian time concept. By
directly calculating T 0 from the Lorentz transform we do not get the real time in R0 , we
get purely mathematical constructs that describe the Doppler effect. There must be a
single time in R0 , not several different times as in (5) an (8).
Is the time T 0 calculated from the Lorentz transform as in (3) and (5) the time T 0 for
R0 in the Special Relativity Theory? It is not, we can show it by examples. Let us consider
a muon and speed it to the velocity of 0.9 c. The moving frame R0 is the rest frame of the
muon, and the fixed frame R is the rest frame of the laboratory. Muon is unstable and has
a half-time T in the laboratory. We ask, what is the half-time of the moving muon? Or we
can consider a spaceship speeded to a velocity v close to the speed of light c. The moving
frame R0 is the rest frame of the spaceship, and the fixed frame R is the rest frame of the
Earth. The time T is 1 year. What is the time T 0 in the spaceship? How much slower does
the astronaut age than the people on the Earth? Is the answer by the Special Relativity
Theory to the second question perhaps that the time T 0 depends on what the spaceship is
doing? Is the answer that if the spaceship is sending light to the direction of movement,
then T 0 ¼ γ ð1 v=cÞT, while if it is sending light to the backward direction, then the
time T 0 is T 0 ¼ γ ð1 þ v=cÞT (from (5)), and if the light makes a roundtrip, then the time
is T 0 ¼ γ ð1 v2 =c2 ÞT (from (8))? Clearly, this is not how the Special Relativity Theory
would answer the second question. The theory answers that the time in R0 is always a
proper time. The half-time of the muon in R0 is Einstein’s proper time T 0 ¼ γT and the
astronaut ages by Einstein’s proper time T 0 ¼ γT. This is because Einstein did understand
that there cannot be multiple different times in R0 . This shows clearly that Einstein did
not calculate T 0 directly from the Lorentz transform. Had he done so, he would have got
times T 0 that too obviously show that T 0 is not a valid scalar time, it is a mathematical
construct that describes the Doppler effect in the coordinates x0 , t0 . Therefore, Einstein
cheated: on the one hand, he claimed that he is using the Lorentz transform and this
transform guarantees that the speed of light is always constant c in all moving frames R0 ,
but he in reality used the proper time τ ¼ γt for calculating the time in R0 because the
time T 0 from the Lorentz transform is different in different situations.
Thus, in the Special Relativity Theory, the intended time is the proper time.
Therefore, the length and time intervals transform as:

L0 ¼ γL, T 0 ¼ γT: (10)

Let us apply this transform of intervals to the roundtrip delay in Figure 1. The total
time in R is
L L c
T ¼ T1 þ T2 ¼ þ ¼ 2L 2 : (11)
c v cþv c v2
The roundtrip length in R0 is 2L0 ¼ γ2L. The roundtrip time in R0 is T 0 ¼ γT; thus,
the speed of light for the roundtrip in R0 is

γL c c
c0 ¼ ¼ 6¼ c: (12)
γL c2 v2 c2 v2

5
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

Figure 1.
The scenario of the experiment.

We can get the roundtrip speed to the value c by defining T 0 ¼ γ 1 T, which is also
a proper time definition for R0 . However, Einstein’s proper time and length transfor-
mation formulae do not give c as the roundtrip speed of light in Figure 1 for R0 , and in
fact, no definition of the type T 0i ¼ γ 1 T i (for any γ 1 depending only on v) can make the
speed of light in R0 the same to the positive and negative x-axis in Figure 1, in one way
it will be smaller than c, in one way higher than c.
Notice that not only the times T 0i in (5) and (8) are nothing real, Einstein’s proper
time is also nothing real assuming that we accept the relativity principle that there is
no preferred frame of reference. This is shown by the twin paradox. This paradox can
be presented as the muon laboratory paradox to avoid the de-acceleration/acceleration
issue with a spaceship that needs to turn: there is no sense to say that the time in the
muon’s rest frame goes slower than the time in the laboratory’s rest frame because
equally well we can say that the muon’s rest frame is the fixed frame and the labora-
tory is moving.
Einstein never admitted to have got his ideas from the Michelson-Morley experi-
ment, nor having analyzed this experiment, but Hendrik Lorentz did study the
experiment and found a coordinate transform, which explained how the Michelson-
Morley experiment could give the speed of light in vacuum as c for both the Earth’s
rest frame and the moving frame. There is such a transform but is not exactly the
transform which is today called the Lorentz transform. For the simplified Michelson-
Morley experiment in Figure 1, this transform is L0 ¼ γL and T 0 ¼ γ 1 T. Inserting
these functions to (12) gives c0 ¼ c. The more complete version of this transform is in
Ref. [2] in Eq. (13):

0 0 1
 vx
x ¼ γ ðx vtÞ, t ¼ γ t (13)
c2

It is very much like the Lorentz transform, but the equation of t0 has γ 1 , not γ. The
transform that Lorentz derived was written with different notations than what we
use, but the Wikipedia says of this transform is nearly complete Lorentz transform,
only that t0 has an additional γ. Apparently, it was (13) or very similar. It should have
been a clear warning that if Lorentz did not derive the same Lorentz transform in his
explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, then probably the modern Lorentz
6
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

transform does not give the speed c for the moving frame in this experiment, which
indeed is the case. The transforms that Lorentz found, or (13), are not the most
natural solution to the Michelson-Morley experiment. The next section discusses this
experiment and what the natural interpretation of it is.

3. The error in Michelson-Morley experiment

Michelson and Morley divided one light beam into two light beams with a mirror
arrangement, had each of the two light beams make a roundtrip of the same length. At
the end of the roundtrip, the light beams were taken to the same place, and it was
checked if they produce an interference picture. In order to produce an interference
picture, the beams had to travel after they completed their separate roundtrips some
short distance in the same media, else the waves could not interfere. An interference
picture could appear only if the two beams had a phase or frequency difference. The
beams could not have a frequency difference because they came from a same light
source with a constant frequency. They could not have a phase difference because at
every time moment, the beams were at the same phase. This is because the beams had
the same finishing time but a different starting time. As the two beams had the same
frequency and they were in the same phase at any chosen time, there could not be any
interference picture when the beams were combined.
In order to see this with simple equations, let the roundtrip times on the two paths
be denoted by T i , i ¼ 1, 2. The roundtrip times are different if the speed of light is
different in the two paths. But the frequency is the same on both paths and only the
wavelength is different on each path; thus, a frequency component f has the same
oscillation time T f ¼ 1=f on both paths. In order to interfere, the two beams must be
taken to the same place (the end of the roundtrip) at the same time T F . In order to be at
the end of the roundtrip at the time T f , the beam i must have left the splitter at the time
T F T i . That is, the beams have a different starting time. Before the beam left the
splitter, it had made ðT F T i Þ=T f wavelengths on the frequency f . On the roundtrip,
the beam i made T i =T f oscillations. Thus, at the time T F , both beams made in total
ðT F T i Þ=T f þ T i =T f ¼ T F =T f oscillations in the frequency f . The situation is the same
for every frequency, and we notice that both beams are in exactly the same phase when
the researchers try to make them interfere. Naturally, there is no interference picture.
Michelson and Morley could have had one beam travel through glass and another beam
through air, and they still would not have got an interference picture.
Though the Michelson-Morley experiment does not prove that light in a uniform
medium does have the same speed to every direction in their measurement setup,
other experiments confirm that light does have the same speed to each direction in
vacuum. However, the explanation is not the one Einstein proposed in SRT. It is closer
to the explanation Einstein proposed in GRT. According to GRT, light travels along
geodesics of the gravitational field. In an experiment made on the Earth, like the
Michelson-Morley experiment, the gravitational field is mainly caused by the Earth,
and this field is (practically) the same regardless of what horizontal direction the
measurement equipment is turned. The speed of light in any uniform medium, like in
the air, is measured as the same to all directions within the precision of time mea-
surement.
Let us extend this analysis by a thought experiment. If we have two large masses
that create a sufficiently large gravitational field to dominate the combined
7
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

gravitational field in the vicinity of the mass, and these masses have a constant relative
velocity, then close to either of the masses, the combined gravitational field is essen-
tially the gravitational field of the closest mass. The speed of light in vacuum is
measured as constant c to all directions in the vicinity each of these masses. If we
extend the local inertial frame of the first mass to an extended frame R that reaches to
the whole space, the second mass is moving with respect to the first mass in R. In the
local inertial frame R0 of the second mass, the speed of light is c to every direction. The
speed of light close to the second mass in the extended frame R cannot be c. The speed
of light is changing in every fixed coordinate system that is extended to the whole
space of the universe. Next, consider the space between these two masses. The total
gravitational field is changing all the time because the masses have relative motion.
The speed of light in vacuum is constant c to every direction at every point and every
time moment, but the gravitational field geometry is changing at every point at every
moment. Therefore, in the extended frame R, the speed of light is changing at every
point and every moment, until we are in the vicinity of one of the masses and in the
local frame the light has the speed c. In R, the space-time geometry is changing when
going from the first mass to the second mass; thus, the local time is not the same close
to the first mass as what it is close to the second mass.
We notice that there is time dilation and length dilation, but these dilations are not
given by the formulas of SRT. This is because in SRT, these dilations are determined
solely by the relative velocity, but it is not only the relative velocity, the formulas must
contain the strength of the gravitational fields. This is seen by considering a situation
where a bus is moving on the Earth. A bus creates a very weak gravitational field, and
the field inside the bus is essentially the gravitational field of the Earth. In this case, the
inertial frame of the bus is moving in a gravitational field that is fixed on the inertial
frame of the Earth. The speed of light is not the same to all directions in the rest frame
of a moving bus, and the time in the bus is the same as the time on the Earth.
The experiment of a muon in a laboratory illustrates this observation. If muons are
speeded to velocities close to c, then it is observed that the half-time of a muon is
longer when it is faster. This experiment is given as a proof of SRT’s time dilation, but
actually it is a refutation of SRT. In SRT, there is the relativity principle stating that
there is no preferred frame of reference. We can choose the muon as moving and the
laboratory as fixed, or we can choose the laboratory as moving and the muon as fixed.
The time must be the same in both frames of reference as either one can be considered
as the moving frame. Interestingly, the result is the same also if we discard this
relativity principle and assume there is a local preferred frame of reference in a small
environment given by the local gravitation field. In a local frame of the Earth, the
laboratory is fixed and the muon is moving. The time of the muon must be the same as
the time of the laboratory, because the gravitational field is essentially the gravita-
tional field of the Earth. In both explanations, the time of the muon is the same as the
time of the Earth. Then, why is the half-time of the muon longer when it is faster?
This can be explained by time dilation in accelerating motion. Muons are not
eternal. They must be created for the experiment. When they are created in the rest
frame of the Earth, they have a certain half-time. When a muon is accelerated, it is in
an accelerated movement and that causes time dilation. All muons are accelerated as
long time (or this acceleration time is taken into account when calculating the half-
time). Thus, muons that have been accelerated to a higher speed are younger when
they enter the bubble chamber. Therefore, they live longer in the bubble chamber.
Whether this understanding gives a correct prediction for the half-time should be
checked.
8
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

Reginald T. Cahill [3, 4] re-analyzed the original data from the Michelson-Morley
experiment of 1887 and found an absolute speed that exceed 300,000 km/h. Six other
analyses of the data confirm the results of Ref. [3]. The result accepts the Fitzgerald-
Lorentz physical contraction (the first equation in Ref. [3]), refutes the principle of
SRT that there is no preferred frame of reference, and confirms the existence of a local
frame of reference, agreeing with the second explanation given above.
It may initially appear that Cahill’s result is in contradiction with the statements in
this section that the Michelson-Morley experiment could not detect a speed difference
in light even if there was one, and that there was no measurable speed difference
because light travels along geodesics of the gravitational field, and this field in the
experiment is mainly created by the Earth; therefore, there was no moving frame in
the experiment. This contradiction is only apparent: Ref. [3] informs that the absolute
speed can only be obtained if the measurement is made in gas and vacuum measure-
ments give a null result. The experiment in Figure 1 where the speed of light is c
cannot detect the speed, but including a consideration of the speed of light in gas the
interferometer can detect speeds. There are many reasons how this can be so, for
instance, if the light source is frequency-modulated, then the method detects speed
differences. The mechanism [3] identifies the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction of one
arm of the measurement equipment. It is also not quite correct to say that there is no
speed difference that can be measured. The gravitational field around the Earth is not
totally created by the Earth, and there are small contributions from the Moon and the
Sun. A very precise measurement can detect speed differences. Measurement of
absolute speeds exceeding the speed of light in vacuum is not in contradiction with the
light moving along geodesics of the gravitational field and having the speed c to each
direction at each point and time moment. The speed of light in vacuum is variable in a
global coordinate system and can exceed c in a global frame of reference.
Yet, Refs. [3, 4] are analyses based on empirical tests. Numerous experiments have
proven that both SRT and GRT are correct, though the simple mathematical argu-
ments in the presented article show that these theories cannot be correct. Adding
empirical tests that prove that SRT and GRT are incorrect only proves that empirical
results can be interpreted in many ways, and that they cannot prove some theory
correct or incorrect. Concerning [3] I am not convinced that the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
physical contraction of the arm of the measurement equipment is the only possible
reason causing the result, or that there even is a physical contraction in Earth’s
gravitation field. Therefore, I will remain undecided about empirical results, including
the reanalysis of the 1887 experiment in Ref. [3], and also of the new gravitation
theory that is outlined in Ref. [3], I want to keep this article on a very simple
mathematical level only addressing some problems in Einstein’s relativity theory.
Though this article suggests that a scalar gravitational field is a good starting point,
there may be astronomical phenomena that favor a vortex model of gravity, like in the
theory outlined in Ref. [3]. Time will tell.
Mine seems to be the typical approach: empirical results are accepted and new
gravitation theories can be proposed, but strong conclusions from them are not
drawn. As an example, Ref. [5] acknowledges that NASA has observed that there is
absolute space but still calculates that a GPS satellite has a small time delay from the
time dilation of SRT and a larger from GRT, thus considering the proper time formula
from SRT and the gravitational time dilation GRT both as correct.
I think only very simple mathematical arguments can actually prove that some
theory or principle needs revision. The principle that there is no preferred local frame
of reference can be rejected because a simple mathematical argument can show that it
9
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

is impossible to construct a sound theory where there is no local preferred frame of

reference. Such an argument needs only to show that a linear transform (like any form
of the Lorentz transform) cannot make such a theory work: the moving system must
have a proper time because all frames must have a single time. Therefore, a moving
frame cannot have equal speed of light to all directions, and one frame is in a preferred
position.

4. Invariant equations of motion

Maxwell equations are invariant in the Lorentz transform (but only if E and B are
required to transform in a special way to make the equations Lorentz invariant) and
Einstein proceeded to require that all equations of motion must be invariant in the
Lorentz transform. Later, the equations were required to be covariant, but this con-
cept only applies to tensor equations. There is no difference between these concepts in
ordinary partial differential equations. What is meant is that if (x0 , t0 ) of the moving
frame of reference is inserted to the equations of (x, t) for the rest frame of reference,
then the equation of motion for (x0 , t0 ) has the same form as for (x, t).
The basic equation of movement in Newtonian mechanics is F ¼ ma. Let the frame
R0 move with a constant speed v and let the mass m move in the same direction as v.
Initially, the velocity of the mass in the frame R seems to be

dx
w¼ , (14)
dt

but this is not so for the following reason. In the Lorentz transform, x and t are
independent coordinates in R. In R0 , the coordinates x0 and t0 are independent. Thus,

dx
x ¼ γ ðx0 þ vt0 Þ gives ¼ γv, (15)
dt0
vx0
 
0 dt
t ¼ γ t þ 2 yields 0 ¼ γ (16)
c dt

and

x0 ¼ γ ðxvtÞ leads to the velocity in the frame R0 (17)

dx0
 
0 dx dt
w ¼ 0 ¼γ v 0 ¼ γ ðγv vγ Þ ¼ 0: (18)
dt dt0 dt

This is not correct: the mass is not at rest in R0 . The velocity of the mass is not
obtained by derivation from the Lorentz transform. Again, the Special Relativity
Theory does not calculate directly from the Lorentz transform but uses the proper
time. The velocity is actually

Δx
w ¼ lim , (19)
Δt

and both Δx and Δt are intervals. Therefore, they transfer as (10), that is, by the
proper time equations:
10
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

Δx0 ¼ γΔx and Δt0 ¼ γΔt: (20)

We get the velocity as:

Δx0 γΔx
w0 ¼ lim 0
¼ lim ¼ w: (21)
Δt γΔt

Notice that β ¼ v=c is constant as the velocity v is constant. Only the mass m can
accelerate in this case, not the frame R0 . In R, the equation of motion (allowing the
mass to change) is
 
d dx
F¼ m : (22)
dt dt

In R0 , following the transform (20), we get

0
   
0 d 0 dx 1 d 0 dx
F ¼ 0 m 0 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi m : (23)
dt dt 1 β2 dt dt

Assuming that the force F 0 equals force F, we notice that there is a solution for (23)
where m and m0 do not depend on the time t. For

d2 x
F¼m 2 (24)
dt
m0 d2 x
F ¼ F0 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 : (25)
1 β2 dt

The Eqs. (22) and (23) are identical (the equation is invariant in the Lorentz
transform) if

m0
m ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : (26)
1 β2

This is enough for the equation of motion to be invariant, but Einstein went
further and decided that the mass changes in the frame R as and in a frame that is
accelerating with the mass he defined m0 ¼ m0:
m0
m ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (27)
1 β2

Notice that it is essential for Einstein’s proof of E = mc2 that the mass changes in R.
The proof fails if the mass change is in R0 .
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
From Ref. [1], we see that Einstein derived his formula m ¼ m0 = 1 β2 from the
equation F ¼ ðd=dtÞmðtÞðds=dtÞ basically in the way we did it in (24)–(27). This deri-
vation raises some questions. What is the sense of requiring invariance of F ¼ ma
under the Lorentz transform, especially in the form F ¼ ðd=dtÞmðtÞðds=dtÞ? Why F
should transfer to itself in the Lorentz transform, as it does in (24), since force is not a
conserved quantity. If, for example, E ¼ mv2 =2 or W ¼ Fs ¼ mas is required to be
11
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

Lorentz invariant, then m is not changing. Compare this to the situation where two
masses m1 and m2 with relative velocity v collide so that the total impulse is preserved,
then in the rest frames of both masses the same amount of energy turns to heat:

1 m1 m2 2
ΔE ¼ v (28)
2 m1 þ m2

and the total energy is conserved. Conserved quantities remain when the frame is
changed.
The equation for the moving mass (27) is derived in the situation of an accelerated
frame of reference, not when a frame of reference has a constant velocity. What is the
justification of extending the Lorentz transform to accelerating situations? In fact, as the
Lorentz transformation does not define a valid time for the moving system, there is no
justification in demanding that equations of motion should be Lorentz invariant. The
next section shows how the moving mass formula can be removed from the theory.

5. A test mass falling in the gravitational field of a point mass

Instead of having a moving mass, the same observable behavior in the case of a
mass falling in the gravitational field is obtained by adding a friction type force that
prevents a mass from exceeding the speed of light. The end of the calculation demon-
strates how easily this idea can be realized: the scalar gravitational field φ satisfies the
known geometric Eq. (84) of a scalar field, while the force induced by this scalar field
includes a friction force, seen as the second term in (86).
Einstein’s moving mass formula gives the same trajectory for the falling mass as the
modified gravitational field, but it has unintuitive behavior: the falling test mass first
reaches the speed of light (the mass grows to infinity, but also the force grows to
infinity), but after this point the mass of the falling test object decreases without any
logical explanation as it is still falling toward a large point mass. The modified field
behavior is quite natural: there is a force from the gradient of the Newtonian field and
a friction type force from the geometry not allowing exceeding the speed of light.
Consider a mass m falling freely in a gravitational field created by a point mass M
in Newton’s gravitation theory. The movement of the test mass m is in the radial
direction: the test mass falls from the initial place r0 toward the origin set to the
position of the mass M. The equation of the motion is

2 d2 ðr0 rÞ
F ¼ GmM=r ¼ ma ¼ m : (29)
dt2

Writing this with the Newtonian gravitational potential field φ ¼ GM=r, we get

d2 r
 
d GM d
m ¼m φ¼ m 2: (30)
dr r dr dt

The equation of motion of the test mass m is

d d2 r d d2 r
m φ¼ m 2
, simplifying to φ¼ (31)
dr dt dr dt2

12
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

that is, the mass cancels out. Inserting the Newtonian potential φ ¼ GM=r, we
can solve the equation of motion. The solution in the rest frame of the mass M is
 1
9 32
r ¼ GM t3 (32)
2
1 2
GM 92 3 t3 at the time t.


implying that the mass m is in the place r0 r ¼ r0
The solution is easily checked:
1    1 31  32
d2 r

9 32 1 4 2
1 4 2 1 4
¼ GM t 3 ¼ ðGMÞ 3 t 3 ¼ ðGMÞ 3 t 3 (33)
dt2 2 3 3 9 9
  2  32
d 1 9 3 4 2 14
φ ¼ GM 2 ¼ GM GM t 3 ¼ ðGMÞ t 3:
3 (34)
dr r 2 9

If we want the solution to be in a familiar form, then a change of parameters is

needed. The solution can be expressed with the radius R of the Earth and as:
  1
1 2 2g 3 3 9 2 GM
r¼R gτ ∓ τ þ ⋯where and T ¼ R2 GM ,g ¼ 2 : (35)
2 9T 2 R

If T is large, the trajectory of the falling mass in (35) (mass falls to a deep well from
the surface of the Earth) is what we expect it to be.
In the Newtonian gravitation theory, the test mass m does not change size. In
Einstein’s relativity theory, a mass becomes larger if it is moving with a velocity close
to the speed of light. Einstein wrote the Newtonian equation of motion F ¼ ma in the
form:
 
d dxðtÞ
F¼ mðtÞ : (36)
dt dt

This form allows the mass m to increase as a function of the time. We find this
formula, for example, as the equation before the Eq. (58) in Einstein’s The Meaning of
Relativity (1922) [1], the lectures he gave in Princeton. In Einstein’s proof of E ¼ mc2 ,
the mass m increases in the rest frame of the mass M; see Section 6. Let us investigate
if this is possible: we assume that the test mass m can change in the rest frame of M. As
the mass is moving in the radial direction toward the origin, the Eq. (33) has the form:
 
d drðtÞ
F¼ mð t Þ : (37)
dt dt

As m is a function of time in (37), the equivalence principle requires that mðrÞ ¼

mðrðtÞÞ ¼ mðtÞ is a function of r. Consequently, we have to write the gravitational
force as:

d
F¼ ðmðrÞφðrÞÞ: (38)
dr

The equation of motion (31) gets the form:

13
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

d d dr
ðmðrÞφÞ ¼ mð t Þ : (39)
dr dt dt

This yields

dmðrÞ d dmðtÞ dr d2 r
φ þ mðrÞ φ ¼ mðtÞ : (40)
dr dr dt dt dt2
As mðrÞ ¼ mðrðtÞÞ ¼ mðtÞ we can write
!
dφ d2 r dmðtÞ dr dmðrÞ
m þ ¼ φ (41)
dr dt2 dt dt dr

and since in this case r ¼ rðtÞ, we have

!
dφ d2 r dr dmðrÞ dr dmðrÞ
m þ ¼ φ (42)
dr dt2 dt dr dt dr

which is simplified to
!  2 !
dφ d2 r dm dr
m þ ¼ þφ (43)
dr dt2 dr dt

and finally to the form

!   ! 1
dm dφ d2 r dr 2
m 1 ¼ þ þφ : (44)
dr dr dt2 dt

Let us denote
 2
dr
f ¼ þφ (45)
dt

then
 2 !
df d dr dφ d2 r
¼ þφ ¼ þ2 2: (46)
dr dr dt dr dt

We can write the equation of motion (39) as:

!   ! 1 ! 1
dr 2
 2
dm dφ d2 r d2 r dr
m 1 ¼ þ2 2 þφ þ 2 þφ (47)
dr dr dt dt dt dt

and if dm=dr is not zero, we can write (47) in the form:

d d2 r 1
logðmf Þ ¼ 2 f : (48)
dr dt

14
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

Let jdr=dtj and d2 r=dt2 be so small that the mass m does not move with a speed

close to the speed of light and the increase of the mass m can be ignored. This does not
imply that jdr=dtj and d2 r=dt2 are very small. They are not infinitesimally small, and

they are only small compared to c. We say that they are sufficiently small. According
to Einstein’s relativity theory, the increase of mass m must be very small, thus
!  2 !
dφ d2 r dm dr
m þ ¼ þ φ ≈0 (49)
dr dt2 dr dt

and the solution must be very close to the solution in the Newtonian gravitation
theory:
 1
9 32
r ≈ GM t3 : (50)
2

However, if jdr=dtj and d2 r=dt2 are sufficiently small, the value of the mass m

cannot have any effect to the right side in the Eq. (48) because mass m cancels out in
the Newtonian gravitation theory: in Newtonian mechanisms, all masses fall in a
gravitation field with the same speed. Integrating (48) with respect to r

ðr 2  2  2
dr 1 dr dr GM
logðmf Þ ¼ f dr, f ¼ þφ¼ : (51)
dt2 dt dt r

We see that f does not depend on m. We also see that the total energy is
 2  2
1 dr 1 dr
E ¼ Ek þ Ep ¼ m þ mφ ¼ mf m : (52)
2 dt 2 dt

If the total energy is constant, mf depends linearly on m, so logðmf Þ depends on

mass. The right side (47) does not depend on mass. This is not because there is no
parameter m in the right side. It is because Galileo showed that all masses fall in the
same way: the equation of r in the field φ does not depend on the mass m of the test
particle. This mass cancels out in (31). In order to make it clear that the right side of
(48) does depend on m, compose the mass m from N small parts Δm, m ¼ NΔm and
let N depend on r so that mðrÞ ¼ N ðrÞΔm. Every small mass Δm falls in the same way,
so they all give the same function in the right side of (48). The dependence of mðrÞ on
r means that ðd=drÞ logðmÞ is not zero and it depends on mðrÞ.
We assume that dm=dr 6¼ 0. One way to remove the dependency of the left side of
(48) from mass is to set f ¼ 0 exactly (and not approximately) if jdr=dtj and d2 r=dt2

are sufficiently small. This is because even a small nonzero value of f lets a large value
of m influence the right side. We notice that
 2
dr
f ¼ þφ¼0 (53)
dt

has a solution that is similar to the previous exact solution, but not the same

1 2
r ¼ ðGMÞ3 t3 for φ ¼ GM=r: (54)

15
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

Inserting this solution, we get

!
dφ d2 r 1 4 1 2 4 7 1 4
þ 2 ¼ ðGMÞ3 t 3 ðGMÞ3 t 3 ¼ ðGMÞ3 t 3 (55)
dr dt 9 9

Thus (49)
!
dφ d2 r
m þ ≈0 (56)
dr dt2

is not satisfied. This way of solving the problem in (48) is not possible.
Let us now assume that dm=dr 6¼ 0 and f 6¼ 0. There is still one way to try to satisfy
(48), and this way does work. If

ðr
0 1
m ¼ exp@ hðrÞdrA ¼ eHðrÞ e HðaÞ
(57)
a

for some smooth function hðrÞ ¼ dHðrÞ=dr, then

d H ð aÞ
logðmÞ ¼ hðrÞ and we can set m0 ¼ e : (58)
dr

The HðrÞ can depend only on the trajectory that is the same for all masses. Explic-
itly, we can demand that
 ! α
1 dr 2
m ¼ m0 1 : (59)
c2 dt

For α ¼ 1=2, we have Einstein’s formula for moving mass. So, setting α ¼ 1=2 gives
the same trajectory as if the mass is growing according to Einstein’s moving mass
formula, but at the end we will find that there is another interpretation for this
trajectory, without assuming that the mass grows. Setting α ¼ 1=2 gives
 !
1 dr 2 d 1 dr 2
 
d d 1
hðrÞ ¼ HðrÞ ¼ α log 1 ¼α (60)
dr dr c2 dt 1 dr 2 dr c2 dt


1 2
c dt

 2 ! 1  2 ! 1
dt d dr 2 d2 r
 
2 dr dr
¼α c ¼ 2α c2 : (61)
dt dr dt dt dt dt2

From (44)
!   ! 1
dm dφ d2 r dr 2
hðrÞ ¼ m 1 ¼ þ þφ (62)
dr dr dt2 dt

we get an equation
16
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

 2 ! !  2 !
2 2
dr dr dφ d r dr
2α 2 þφ ¼ þ c2 : (63)
dt dt dr dt2 dt

Let us make a small calculation:

 2 !
2
d r dr 2 dφ 2
2 2
 
dr dr 2d r
0 ¼ 2α φ þ ð2α 1Þ 2 þ c þc 2 (64)
dt2 dt dt dr dt dt
 2 !
d2 r dr d2 r dr 3 dr dt dφ d2 r dr
   
dr
0 ¼ 2α 2 φ þ ð2α 1Þ 2 þ c2 þ c2 2 (65)
dt dt dt dt dt dr dt dt dt dt
 4 !  2 !
d dr 2 d 1 1 2 d dr 2
   
dr dφ 2 dr
0 ¼ αφ þ ð2α 1Þ þ c þ c
dt dt dt 4 dt dt dt 2 dt dt
(66)

and finally, we have

(  2 !   )
1 dr 4 dφ dr 2 d dt 2
    
d 2 1 dr 1
c φþ þ α ¼ αφ : (67)
dt 2 dt 2 2 dt dt dt dt dt

Let us insert α ¼ 1=2. Then the equation is easily solved:

dφ 1 2 d dr 2 dφ dr 2 1 d dt 2
     
2
c þ c ¼ φ (68)
dt 2 dt dt dt dt 2 dt dt

gives
 2 !
1 d dt 2
2
 
dφ 2 dr 
c ¼ c þφ (69)
dt dt 2 dt dt

and

 2 ! 1
1 d dt 2 2
 
dφ
2  1 dr
c þφ ¼ c , (70)
dt 2 dt dt dt

which can be integrated

 2 !
 1 dr
log c2 þ φ ¼ log c2


þ log B (71)
2 dt

where B is an integration constant. Thus,

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
2 2
dr
c þφ¼B c : (72)
dt

17
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

We must set B ¼ c in order to cancel the leading term in

 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 dr
c þ 2c φ þ φ ¼ B c B : (73)
dt

The final equation of movement is

 2
1 dr
2φ þ 2 φ2 ¼ : (74)
c dt

This equation looks rather strange, but we can put it to a more familiar form by
differentiating it with respect to time:

d2 r dr
   
dφ 1
2 1þ 2φ ¼ 2 2 (75)
dt c dt dt
and writing is as:

d2 r d2 r
   
dt dφ 1 dφ 1
1þ 2φ ¼ that is 1þ 2φ ¼ : (76)
dr dt c dt2 dr c dt2
From this form, it is clear that the classical limit is (31). Notice that this formula
does not have mass. The rest mass of the test mass is in m0 ¼ expð HðaÞÞ. What (76)
is claiming is that all sizes of test masses fall according to (76). The situation is
spherically symmetric. We notice that the Eq. (76) can be written as:

dΨ d2 r 1
¼ 2
where Ψ ¼ φ þ 2 φ2 (77)
dr dt 2c
and be interpreted as an equation of two forces:

d 2 ðr 0 r Þ
Ffield ¼ m∇Ψ ¼ Facceleration ¼ ma ¼ m (78)
dt2

where the mass m stays constant. This understanding is possible only if α ¼ 1=2 in
(67), which seems to mean that α ¼ 1=2 is the correct value. Eq. (78) agrees with the
basic concepts of F ¼ ma and F ¼ m∇Ψ. Thus, if the gravitation field created by the
mass M is not φ ¼ GM=r but

1 GM 2
 
GM
ψ¼ þ 2 : (79)
r 2c r

Here is a normal Newtonian equation of motion and a field that stops the test mass
from reaching the speed of light: in small values of r, the second term in Ψgives a
negative force and slows down the test mass. This is correct: if a test mass is acceler-
ated to speeds close to c, it cannot increase its speed above c, assuming, as we do, that
the speed of light is the maximal speed. A falling test mass loses potential energy but
cannot gain equally much kinetic energy. If there is an energy difference, then it must
go somewhere. If it does not go into building moving mass, it goes into some other
form of energy. However, in (78), the test mass does not lose much potential energy

18
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

when it is falling: the energy stays in the form of potential energy. Eq. (79) also implies
that there is a radius:

GM
r¼ (80)
2c2

where the field Ψis zero.

Notice that the derivation from (39) and (59) to (76) does not anywhere use any
explicit form of φ. From (39) to (76), there is no assumption that φ is the Newtonian
gravitation field as in (29). One way of understanding (76) is to say that (59) is only
an apparent dependency of the mass from the velocity, in reality the mass is constant
while (39) is incorrect: field φ does not act as in (39). The space does not allow the
mass to exceed the velocity c, and there comes an additional term to the equation of
movement: the correct form is (76).
The other way of understanding (76) is that the equation of motion is (39) and the
mass grows as in (59). This is Einstein’s understanding. It leads to an unphysical
solution if φ is the Newtonian gravitation field. Eq. (76) is a direct consequence of (39)
and (59) with α ¼ 1=2. It is possible to solve (74) exactly for the Newtonian gravita-
tion potential:
1  1  1 1 1
2GM 2 GM 2 2c2 r cr 2c2 r
     
dr 1 2 2 2 2

¼ 2φ φ ¼ 1 ¼ 1
dt c2 r 2c2 r GM GM GM
(81)
where the sign is selected as + from  because both r and t are positive and inserted
φ ¼ GM=r. Writing
 21
2 3
t¼ r2 þ g ðrÞ (82)
9GM

for some smooth function g ðrÞ gives by using (81):

1 pffiffi
cr 2c2 r
 
0
2
r
g ðr Þ ¼ 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (83)
GM GM 2GM

which is integrated to
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi(rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  32 )
3 2 GM 2 GM 1
g ðrÞ ¼ r 2 1 1 : (84)
GM 2c2 r 3 2c2 r 3

The integration constant is zero because if c ! ∞, then g ðrÞ ¼ 0. Thus, (82) and
(84) give the exact trajectory of the test mass m in Einstein’s understanding of (39)
and (59). We can see from (81) that if

GM dr d
r¼ , then ¼ c and F ¼ m∇ψ ¼ ðmðrÞφðrÞÞ ¼ 0 (85)
c2 dt dr
pffiffiffi
2 GM dr 3
r¼ , then ¼ c (86)
3 c2 dt 2

19
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

GM dr
r¼ , then ¼0 and ψ ¼ 0: (87)
2c2 dt
Firstly, according to (75), the mass m does reach the speed c at one point. The
inertial mass does grow to infinity at this point if (59) is assumed to describe the
physical reality, but the gravitational mass in the left side of (39) also grows to infinity
at the same point: the attraction force also becomes infinite. Secondly, after this point
the mass slows down and its velocity goes to zero at the radius (80). In Einstein’s
understanding, the gravitational attraction force in (39) always increases when r
decreases, so there is no reason why the mass should start slowing down. We conclude
that Einstein’s understanding is not possible if φ is the Newtonian gravitation field.
Though this unintuitive behavior is only shown for a Newtonian gravitation field, it
seems justified to conclude that the moving mass interpretation is problematic and the
natural interpretation is in (77)–(79): the gravitational force induced by the field φ has
two components and F ¼ m∇Ψ, not F ¼ m∇φ. The reason for this is that the field
geometry does not allow a test mass to exceed the speed of light.
The field Ψ can be continued as zero, or some other function, inside the radius
(80). Therefore, there need not be any singularity in the gravitational field, which is
good as singularities should not appear in physical systems. The field Ψ is a spherically
symmetric scalar field. Such a field cannot be obtained from the field equation of the
General Relativity Theory, but it comes naturally from Nordström’s first gravitation
theory where the field equation is

□φ ¼ 4πGρ when η ¼ ðþ, , , Þ: (88)

with

1 2
F ¼ m∇Ψ where Ψ ¼ φ þ φ: (89)
2c2

6. The error in Einstein’s proof of E = mc2

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The usual proof for E ¼ mc2 is very simple. From m0 ¼ m 1 β2 , we get by
squaring

m20 c2 ¼ m2 c2 m2 v2 : (90)

Assuming that this equation holds when v is not constant, we can differentiate

0 ¼ 2mc2 dm 2mv2 dm 2m2 vdv (91)

and obtain

c2 dm ¼ v2 dm þ mvdv: (92)

Inserting the equation of motion:

d dm dv
F¼ ðmvÞ ¼ vþm (93)
dt dt dt

20
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

to

dm dv ds ds
dW K ¼ Fds ¼ v ds þ m ds ¼ v dm þ m dv ¼ v2 dm þ mvdv ¼ c2 dm (94)
dt dt dt dt

we get

ðWK ðm
E¼ dW K ¼ c2 dm ¼ mc2 m0 c 2 : (95)
0
m0

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
If m0 ¼ m 1 β2 is not correct, this proof fails. Notice that this proof works in
the frame of reference where the mass is moving. It is not in the rest frame of the
mass. In that frame, v ¼ 0.
Section 5 shows in the discussion after (76) that there is a much more reasonable
explanation to (76) where the mass is not growing with velocity, but the field created by
a force has an additional component which slows the mass down and stops it from
exceeding the speed of light. There seems to be no experimental way to tell the differ-
ence between this case and the case where the mass grows. Considering that Section 2
proves that the Special Relativity Theory is wrong and Section 4 demonstrates that there
is no reason to require Lorentz invariance from the equation of motion, the natural
conclusion is that the mass does not grow and Einstein’s proof of E ¼ mc2 is incorrect.
The equation E ¼ mc2 is not any deep result, and it has nothing to do with the mass
growing when the velocity is increasing. This equation was first published by Olinto
de Pretto and should be called De Pretto’s equation. In a discrete model, it is trivial to
derive it. Consider mass m being originally at rest and then speeded in the time Δt to
the velocity c. Thus, the velocity difference is Δv ¼ c, and the acceleration is
a ¼ Δv=Δt ¼ cð1=ΔtÞ. The force needed for giving the mass m this acceleration is
F ¼ ma ¼ mcð1=ΔtÞ. In the time Δt, the object moves a distance Δs. The force acts for
this distance Δs; thus, the work is W ¼ FΔs and we get

Δs
W ¼ FΔs ¼ mc : (96)
Δt

The term Δs=Δt is a velocity. In a continuous space-time, this velocity would be the
average velocity where the velocity increases linearly from zero to c. Thus, we would
get the usual formula for the kinetic energy for mass m moving with speed c:

Δs 1 1
W ¼ mc ¼ mc c ¼ mc2 : (97)
Δt 2 2

In a discrete model, this is different. The mass accelerates in one discrete time unit
Δt, and the space unit is Δs ¼ cΔt. The velocity in a space unit can be either zero or c
and nothing between. Then, we do get

Δs
E ¼ W ¼ mc ¼ mc2 : (98)
Δt

Speeding a mass to a velocity c in (98) must be understood in the sense that what
gets this velocity c must be massless. The baryon number must be conserved in any

21
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

nuclear reaction where mass changes to energy. If the sum of mass before and after
the reaction does not match, then the missing mass has turned to energy.
A discrete space-time model also explains why the maximum speed is c: it is the lattice
speed of the space. A discrete model with a lattice speed is usually discarded as such a
model is not Lorentz invariant and it has a (local) preferred frame of reference. Sections
2 and 4 show that the Lorentz transform is incorrect, and there is no reason to demand a
model to be Lorentz invariant, and a local preferred frame of reference is quite well
justified. Instead of requiring Lorentz invariance, the natural demand is that the geom-
etry is conformal. Indeed, if we replace the Minkowski space with a four-dimensional
Euclidean space, the transform of space and time intervals as (10) means a conformal
transform of R4 to R4 and such a mapping defines a conformal geometry to the target
space. Fortunately, demanding that an equation is Lorentz invariant often implies that it
is invariant under conformal mappings, and there should be little need to make changes
to existing gauge field theories because of dropping the Lorentz invariance.
Einstein never gave a mathematically fully satisfactory proof of De Pretto’s theo-
rem E = mc2; see the discussion in Ref. [6]. An accepted proof of the theorem was
given by Max von Laue in 1911 [7], and this proof derives the equation from GRT. The
equation is verified in nuclear reactions and seems correct. Derivation of a correct
result from a theory that is not correct is not valid; therefore, von Laue’s proof must
also be discarded. GRT is not correct because it is Lorentz invariant and therefore does
not have a valid time in moving inertial frames. Section 7 gives other reasons why
GRT is not correct: an important principle in the relativity theory is that the speed of
light in vacuum must be c in every point and at every time to every direction. When
this requirement is imposed, the gravitational field must be a scalar field. GRT does
not have scalar field solutions that approximate Newtonian gravitation acceptably
closely, the closest are very far from Newton’s gravity. GRT also fails two of the tests
that Einstein imposed for relativity theory. Therefore, E = mc2 cannot be validly
derived from GRT, even though von Laue’s proof is mathematically sound.

7. Remarks on the General Relativity Theory

This final section discusses some of the main principles of the General Relativity
Theory: the geometric interpretation of gravity, the equivalence principle, and the
constant speed of light. To keep the article short, calculations are not included and the
reader is referred to my unpublished papers in the ResearchGate.
Gravitational redshift is demonstrated by the Pound-Rebka experiment. In this
experiment, an atomic clock that is in a stronger gravitational field ticks slower. A
gravitational field affects some clocks, like a pendulum clock goes faster in a stronger
gravitational field, and some clocks are not affected, like a sundial measures the same
time whether placed on mountains or on lowlands. The problem is that there is no
place in the equations of QED where an atomic clock could be slowed down by a
gravitation field. One can add a gravitation potential to the equations, but it is too
weak to give an observable effect, yet such an effect is observed in the Pound-Rebka
experiment (and accurately measured by clocks in GPS satellites). QED is a too good
theory to throw away, and therefore this problem is solved by interpreting that the
time coordinate in QED is not Euclidean time, but it is the time coordinate of the
space-time of the gravitational field. Maybe there are other ways to include an expla-
nation of the Pound-Rebka experiment to QED, but the idea of changing the

22
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

Euclidean space to the gravitational field space-time seems to work. This is why it is
correct to say that a gravitational field slows down time. It does not mean anything
philosophical, and it does not mean that all clocks run slower if gravity is stronger, for
example, pendulum clock runs faster. It only means that the time in QED is the time
from the space-time description of the gravitational field.
Because the time coordinate is from the gravitational field space-time, then logi-
cally also the space coordinates in QED must be from the gravitational field space-
time. This means that also length changes in a gravitational field. As QED is modified
in this way and the time and length measures we use are derived from atomic phe-
nomena, it follows that gravitational redshift and gravitational time and length dila-
tion do happen in reality. As a consequence, a straight line in the space-time
coordinates of QED is fact a geodesic of the three-dimensional space-time geometry of
the gravitational field: light travels along geodesics of the gravitational field and for
that reason light bends in strong gravitational fields.
Yet, notice that these conclusions hold for any geometric gravitation theory that
gives the correct result for the Pound-Rebka experiment. GRT gives the correct result
for the Pound-Rebka experiment, but so does also Nordström’s scalar gravitation
theory. Many papers discussing Nordström’s gravitation theory (e.g., [8]) repeat false
arguments against this theory, like that light would not bend in Nordström’s gravita-
tion theory. Nordström did not discuss this issue, but light necessarily bends in every
geometric gravitation theory that is replacing the Euclidean space-time in QED
because light travels along a straight line in QED, and this straight line is a geodesic in
the gravitation field geometry.
Thus, several main results of the geometric interpretation of gravity follow logi-
cally. The geometric interpretation of gravity is a valid element of relativity theory.
The equivalence principle in Newton’s gravitation theory says simply that the
inertial mass is the same as the gravitational mass, that is, mis the same number in F ¼
ma and F ¼ GmM=r2 . In the relativity theory, this principle has a bit more content: the
mass should not be able to tell any difference if it is accelerated or in a gravitational
field. Therefore, as a gravitation field causes time and length dilation, also
accelerated motion must cause time and length dilation. The experiment where
muon half-time increases when the muon is accelerated to speeds close to the speed
of light supports the equivalence principle. GRT satisfies the equivalence principle,
also in the stronger form. Nordström’s gravitation theory is one of the few that also
satisfy the equivalence principle, and the stronger form of it; see [8]. The equivalence
principle should remain in the relativity theory, because a scalar gravitation theory
satisfies it and the (locally) constant speed of light demands a scalar gravitation
theory.
Probably, the most famous principle of the relativity theory is that light travels in
vacuum with the constant speed c to every direction in every point and every moment
of time. At least in our local environment, speed of light has been many times mea-
sured and the speed seems to be constant in vacuum, but this principle has an
interesting consequence: if the speed of light is constant c to each direction in each
point, then the gravitation field must be scalar. GRT is a tensor field theory and
though it has some scalar field solutions, most known solutions to the field equation of
the GRT, like the Schwarzschild solution, are not scalar fields and do not give a
constant speed of light to all directions in every point and every time.
It is easy to see why only a scalar field gives constant speed of light: in a geometric
formulation of the gravitation field, the infinitesimal line element is ds2 ¼ g ab ðxÞdxa dxb .

23
Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

The square of the speed of light in the direction of the spatial dimension xi , i ¼ 1, 2, 3, is
∣g ii ðxÞdxi ∣=∣g 00 ðxÞdx0 ∣. The infinitesimals dx0 , dx1 , dx2 , dx3 have the same absolute


0
values as the infinitesimals ðdt, dx, dy, dzÞ of an Euclidian 4-space, thus ∣dxi ∣=∣dx
∣¼1
2
for every i ¼ 1, 2, 3. If the speed of light is constant c, then g ii ðxÞ ¼ c g00 ðxÞ . The

element ab of the metric tensor gab ðxÞ can be a complex function, but because ds2 is a
i
real number as the square of the length of the line element and dx
is a real number,
g aa ðxÞ is a real function, and the absolute value is simply g aa ðxÞ ¼ g aa ðxÞ. The sign is
determined by ηab . We get the result g ab ¼ ηab φ2 , αβ 6¼ 00, g 00 ¼ η00 φ2 =c2 for some
scalar gravitational field φðxÞ. The result is that only a scalar gravitational field has a
constant speed of light in vacuum.
This fact has certain consequences. In the calculation whether GRT is claimed to
pass the Shapiro delay test, the solution of GRT that is used is the Schwarzschild
solution. Because this solution does not have a constant speed of light in a gravitation
field, the Shapiro delay test fails for GRT, while Nordström’s scalar gravitation theory
passes the Shapiro delay test (unlike often claimed); see [9] for my calculations.
GRT also fails the test of determining the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,
and it is also related to the constant speed of light in the following way: GRT gives a
solution that has a constant speed of light in the vacuum at each point and at each time
only if the solution is a scalar field. Imposing in the field equations of GRT (i.e., the
Einstein equations) that the field is scalar gives a relatively simple set of equations.
These equations do not have any solutions that are close to the Newtonian gravitation
potential; see my calculations in Ref. [2]. Therefore, GRT cannot approximate New-
tonian gravitation in the case of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun. Consequently,
GRT cannot possibly predict correctly the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. In
the calculations claiming that GRT gives the precession of the perihelion correctly, the
force is not calculated from the field equations of GRT but in another way, and this
other way is in contradiction with the field equations.
Discussions of Nordström’s gravitation theory claim that this theory predicts a
wrong value for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. This is not true: the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury cannot be precisely calculated from
Nordström’s gravitation theory, because the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
cannot be precisely calculated from any theoretical model: the orbits of the planets
present a many body problem and there is no analytic solution to this problem; see my
calculations in Ref. [10]. All one can do is to simulate, but simulations are also not
precise. Einstein knew from literature what the measurement oddity in the precession
of the perihelion of Mercury was, did not try to calculate what his GRT predicts from
the field equations (which would have shown that he cannot do it), but constructed a
short calculation claiming that GRT gives the correct result.
As a summary, Nordström’s gravitation theory passes the tests that GRT is claimed
to pass, while GRT fails two of these tests. GRT should be discarded already because it
is a Lorentz covariant theory and therefore does not have a valid time for a moving
frame of reference, but it also should be discarded because of these tests and GRT
could be replaced by some scalar gravitation theory. This does not exclude other
approaches. It may be that astrophysical observations can be explained only with
some other type theory. But if the speed of light is constant to each direction in each
point and each time moment, and if light travels along geodesics of a gravitational
field, then the field is scalar. Naturally, a new theory can replace the concept of a
gravitational field with something else and not get to this dilemma.

24
The Relativity Theory Needs Some Fixing
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110070

8. Conclusions

Many elements of the relativity theory are valid, such as the geometric interpreta-
tion, gravitational time and length dilation, proper time (though not Einstein’s proper
time), and some form of the relativity principle (though not Lorentz invariance). It
seems to me that SRT needs a revision and GRT could be replaced by some quantized
version of a scalar gravitation theory. A scalar gravitation theory is easily quantized,
see [11] how to quantize a scalar field, and such a theory is renormalizable. My
unpublished paper [12] has a proposal how to connect this scalar gravitational field to
the Higgs field. Something of this type might work, and Nordström’s gravitation
theory can be a good starting point, but there are also other, better worked out, scalar
gravitation theories. This is not the only approach, for example, [3] has a totally
different approach to a new gravitation theory.
Einstein did not have any references in his article 1905 of special relativity, even to
Henry Poincaré; therefore, a reference to his book [1] should suffice in an article
pointing out to some problematic issues in his relativity theory. Reference [2] is a
longer and older unpublished version of the presented article. In Section 8, paper [2]
has calculations of what GRT field equations give for a scalar gravitation field. Refer-
ence [2] also includes a discussion of the experiments by which the Special Relativity
Theory is claimed to have been verified. Theoretical proofs of any formula in the
Special of General Relativity Theory are typically of two types: either they directly use
the Lorentz transform to calculate the time in the moving frame and therefore they do
not have a valid time for the moving frame, which is a reason for discarding the proof,
or they use the proper time as the time for the moving frame and in that case the speed
of light is not constant in the moving frame, which is also a reason to discard the
proof. All empirical results that claim to verify Einstein’s GRT seem to have a flaw, or
they equally well verify some other theory, like Nordström’s first gravitation theory. I
feel that a critical analysis of the Special and General Relativity Theory does not need
many references to literature results, and it is sufficient to use very simple mathe-
matical arguments.

Author details

Jorma Jormakka
Department of Communications and Networking, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

*Address all correspondence to: jorma.o.jormakka@gmail.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
25
 Redefining Standard Model Particle Physics

References

[1] Einstein A. The Meaning of Relativity. https://www.researchgate.net/publica

Princeton: Princeton University Press;
1922 [From Polish translation Istota
teorii Względności. Proszyiński i S-ka,
Warszawa, 1997]
[2] Jormakka J. The Final Blow to the
Relativity Theory. ResearchGate; 2022.
Available from: https://www.researchga
te.net/publication/358352774_The_fina
l_blow_to_the_relativity_theory
tion/330313656_Einstein's_field_theory_
is_wrong_and_Nordstrom's_correct
[10] Jormakka J. On the Orbits of Planets
and the Precession of Mercury’s
Perihelion. ResearchGate; 2021.
Available from: https://www.researchga
te.net/publication/353979795_On_the_
orbits_of_planets_and_the_precession_
of_Mercury's_perihelion

[3] Cahill RT. The speed of light and the
Einstein legacy. Physics. 2005;2005:
0501051. Available from: https://arxiv.
org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501051.
pdf
[4] Cahill RT. Michelson-Morley
Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic
Background Radiation Preferred Frame.
2002. Available from: https://arxiv.org/
abs/physics/0205065
[11] Bailin D, Love A. Introduction to
Gauge Field Theory. Bristol, Boston: IOP
Publishing; 1986
[12] Jormakka J. Quantization of
Gravitation. ResearchGate; 2020.
Available from: https://www.researchga
te.net/publication/339460920_Quantiza
tion_of_gravitation

[5] Šarli A. Physical origin of the relative

rate of clocks in GPS and errors of
relative motion concept. Advanced
Studies in Theoretical Physics. 2022;
16(4):191-200. DOI: 10.12988/
astp.2022.91893. Available from:
www.m-hikari.com

[6] Ohanian HC. Einstein’s Mistakes: The

Human Failings of Genius. New York,
London: W. W. Norton & Company;
2008

[7] von Laue M. On the dynamics of the

theory of relativity. Annalen der Physik.
1911;340:524-542

[8] Deruelle N. Nordström’s scalar

gravitation theory and the equivalence
principle. arXiv. 2011:1104.4608

[9] Jormakka J. Einstein’s Field Theory is

Wrong and Nordstrom’s Correct.
ResearchGate; 2019. Available from:
26

View publication stats