View source for Explanation Of Relativistic Phenomena by Revision of Classical Mechanics

{{Infobox paper
| title = Explanation Of Relativistic Phenomena by Revision of Classical Mechanics
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_126.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Viraj Fernando]]
| keywords = [[Classical physics]], [[Relativity]], [[Particles]], [[Light]]
| published = 2008
| num_pages = 23
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_126.pdf here]

==Abstract==

At the time Michelson's experiment was first performed or even when SRT was formulated, the existence bosons and fermions had not yet been identified. Therefore SRT carries an inherent basic error of mixing up the 'relativistic phenomena' of fermions with those of bosons. (We define as 'relativistic' those phenomena that cannot be explained with the prevailing classical concepts). SRT has not recognized that the constancy of velocity of light arises from the nature of motion of bosons, and Lorentz transformation arises from that of fermions. Therefore it will become evident that the underlying reason for the doctrine of spatio-temporal relatedness in nature in SRT is the basic error of mixing up Lorentz transformation and constancy of the velocity of light under the same umbrella. Einstein has made his tangled web in such a manner, that even the dissenters can get trapped in it hopelessly unless a conscious approach is taken in regard to avoiding this basic error. The methodology proposed is to classify phenomena into three groups as arising from changes of states of energy a) of bosons, b) of fermions, and c) of boson-fermion interactions, and then to look for the common root causes for each of the discrete groups. Presently, while the mainstream is satisfied with Einstein's approach of considering a hodge-podge assortment of 'relativistic phenomena' piece meal, and attributing them separately to dynamic and kinematic reasons in an ad hoc manner, the dissenters also have failed to classify phenomena into different groups and to look for the common root causes for each of the discrete groups.

==Overview==

Viraj Fernando's paper is a dynamical reconstruction of the phenomena that [[Special Relativity]] treats kinematically. His organising claim is a classification: the effects lumped together as "relativistic" belong to three distinct families — changes of energy state of fermions, of bosons, and of boson–fermion interactions — and each family has its own root cause. Mass increase, clock retardation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]] belong to the fermion family. The constancy of the velocity of light belongs to the boson family. Einstein, writing before the fermion/boson distinction existed, put both under one umbrella, and it is this conflation, Fernando argues, that generated the doctrine of spatio-temporal relatedness. He is pointed that the error catches critics as well as defenders: "Einstein has made his tangled web in such a manner, that even the dissenters can get trapped in it hopelessly."

The positive programme is a revision of classical mechanics rather than a rejection of it. Fernando's central technical move is to deny that inertia is a primary category. A body is not a mass point but an internal momentum ''Mc'' — inertia and velocity as "two inseparable constituent components". Once inertia is understood as a derivative of momentum, momentum itself has inertia, and setting a body in motion therefore triggers an infinite regress of resistances that Newton, on Fernando's reading, saw but deliberately excluded from the ''Principia''. Summing that regress geometrically yields the Lorentz factor as a dynamical consequence rather than a coordinate convention. He supports the historical part of the argument with extensive quotation from Newton's ''Opticks'' Query 31 and the ''Principia'' definitions.

==The argument==

===Where does the momentum of motion come from?===

Fernando begins with a discrepancy in bookkeeping. Kinetic energy ''E''<sub>K</sub> supplied to a particle carries directly a momentum ''E''<sub>K</sub>/''c''. But the momentum the particle actually ends up with satisfies

''p''<sup>2</sup>''c''<sup>2</sup> = ''E''<sup>2</sup> − ''E''<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>

from which he obtains ''p'' = [(Γ + 1)/Γ''v''] · ''E''<sub>K</sub>/''c'', with Γ = 1/(1 − ''v''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>. Since (Γ + 1) ≫ Γ''v'' for ordinary speeds, the supplied momentum is "amplified spontaneously" by a factor Λ that is 20,000 for a body moving at 30 km/s and 2.16 × 10<sup>7</sup> at 100 km/h. In the low-velocity limit the same relation reproduces the empirical ''E''<sub>K</sub> = ½''Mv''<sup>2</sup>, which Fernando notes was never rigorously derived.

He takes the excess to be induced non-locally, and reads Newton as having said so. Query 31: "Motion may be got or lost … there is a necessity of conserving and recruiting it by active Principles, such as are the cause of gravity … For we meet very little Motion in the World, besides what is owing to these Principles." Fernando deliberately leaves the source unnamed — "the [[Aether|aether]], the 'universal field', the 'plenum', the 'neutrinos' or whatever" — asking only that a flow of momentum between the local system and outside it be granted.

===Newton's two fictitious premises===

Fernando reads the ''Principia'' as an admittedly provisional construction, quoting the first edition's preface on the hope that its principles "will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy". He identifies two simplifications. First, Definition III strips the velocity aspect from ''vis insita'' and keeps only the inertia aspect, so that a body's substance is represented by "a geometrical point with no extended structure" rather than by a line segment — a drawback he says relativity inherited. He cites Huygens as the one contemporary who saw that momentum can exist in a body without manifesting as displacement of that body ("Most people suppose that true motion of a body consists in its being transferred from a certain fixed place in the universe. This is wrong…"), which is exactly the case of confined internal momentum in a fermion. Second, Newton "ignored the fact that momentum of motion too has inertia" in framing the second law. Fernando remarks that [[Special Relativity|SRT]] amended the second law for ''E''<sub>K</sub>/''c''<sup>2</sup> but never for ''p''/''c'', and that it is ''p''/''c'' which produces clock retardation and the Lorentz transformation.

===Cumulative residual resistance===

If ''Mv'' is needed to move a body of internal momentum ''Mc'', then ''Mv'' itself has inertia ''Mv''/''c'', which needs ''Mv''<sup>2</sup>/''c'' to overcome, which has inertia ''Mv''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup>, and so on ''ad infinitum'': a "cumulative residual resistance". Fernando holds this to be the reason classical mechanics cannot explain relativistic phenomena — it is "built on the pretence that momentum has no inertia". Arithmetically the series ''p''(1 + ''v''/''c'' + ''v''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup> + …) approaches but never attains the required total, a structure he calls a Zeno paradox; nature solves it by injecting ''Mv''·tan φ in one instance. Geometrically, with the internal momentum as line segment ''AD'', the increments sum as ''Mv''cos φ(sin φ + sin<sup>3</sup>φ + sin<sup>5</sup>φ + …) → ''Mv''tan φ. He describes the resulting figure as a "fractal structure" built on the internal-momentum mainstay.

===Mass increase, clock retardation and momentum===

Applying ''E''<sub>K</sub>/''c'' = ''Mc''(sec φ − 1) produces several effects at once. The added momentum assimilates into the internal momentum with ''c'' as the common factor, so that ''c'' cancels from ''M''(sec φ − 1)''c'' + ''Mc'' = [''M''(sec φ − 1) + ''M'']''c'' and the result "manifests as the theorem of addition of inertia" — this is the notion of mass increase, presented as the converse of the ordinary addition of velocities where ''M'' cancels instead. The induced momentum shifts to overcome the cumulative residual resistance, bifurcating the total internal momentum ''AC'' into ''AE'' = ''Mc''cos φ and ''EC'' = ''Mv''tan φ. Since ''EC'' is sacrificed, only ''AE'' remains for internal processes, so that clocks retard in the ratio 1 : cos φ with cos φ = (1 − ''v''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>. The total momentum of motion is ''Mv''sec φ = ''Mv''/(1 − ''v''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>. Fernando then checks that the line segments of his figure reproduce the standard relations ''E''<sub>K</sub>/''c'' + ''E''<sub>0</sub>/''c'' = ''E''/''c'', ''p''<sup>2</sup> = ''E''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup> − ''E''<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup> and ''p'' = ''Ev''/''c''<sup>2</sup>, and takes the "perfect complementarity" as confirmation of the framework.

The [[Inertia|law of inertia]] itself then acquires a physical basis: a body attempting to move spontaneously could emit ''EB'' and induce ''ED'', but ''EB'' alone is insufficient to overcome the resistance ''EC'', so it cannot change its own state of motion. The corollary Fernando draws — the "theorem of momentum enhancement" — is that for fermions every change of state of energy is concurrent with an increase in inertia by 1/(1 − ''w''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>, and he compares this to the law of entropy. It is this repeated algorithm that "gives the DNA signature" of the Lorentz factor to disparate phenomena. Bosons are explicitly exempt.

===Co-movement and the root equation===

Fernando distinguishes Galileo's principle from Newton's. Galileo's ship passage — "the ship's motion is common to all things contained in it" — and Newton's restatement, "a body, which is moved from a place in motion, partakes also of the motion of the place", both rest on ''co-movement with the space of location''. Later usage dropped the reason and kept the rule of thumb. Newton's own Corollary V is worded in terms of relative velocities of bodies ''within'' a given space, which Fernando says leaves room for a body's motion to be affected by the motion of its place.

The co-movement component must itself be paid for. By the law of proportions, momentum ''M'''''v'' requires (''M'''''v''/''c'')''u'' to co-move at ''u'', leaving ''M''(''v''/''c'')(''c'' − ''u'') for motion relative to the space. With the momentum-boost factor Γ<sub>''u''</sub> applied to this subsidiary interaction, the displacement becomes

''x''' = Γ<sub>''u''</sub>(''v''/''c'')(''c'' − ''u'')''t''   (1)

valid, he claims, at any velocity, and reducing to

''x''' = Γ<sub>''u''</sub>(''x'' − ''ut'')   (2)

only in the limit ''v'' → ''c''. Equation (2) is the Lorentz transformation, and Fernando's account of why Lorentz found it is that Kaufmann's electrons were moving at near-light velocities.

===The claimed systemic error===

Since SRT adopted (2) as a postulate, it carries, on this account, a systemic error understating the displacement by ''ut''(1 − ''v''/''c'')/(1 − ''u''<sup>2</sup>/''c''<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>. Fernando anticipates the reply that one could simply postulate (1) instead, and calls it the trap: with (1), the time unit becomes a function not only of the frame velocity ''u'' but of the object's velocity ''v'', so "every moving object will have its own time unit" and the clock must co-move with the object. He also objects that treating ''x'' = ''ct'' as ''a priori'' makes ''x''' a constant regardless of the particle's actual velocity, which he calls absurd, an absurdity hidden while ''v'' → ''c''. A table compares the two predictions for ''u'' = 30 km/s: the discrepancy is 0.0001% at ''v'' = 0.99''c'', 0.0067% at 0.6''c'', 0.99% at 0.01''c'' and 9.99% at 0.001''c''. He proposes that the thousands of existing particle experiments across a range of velocities could decide between (1) and (2).

===Bosons and the constancy of light speed===

For bosons the mechanism is entirely different: no law of inertia, no momentum boosting, and no co-movement with the place. Instead a boson changes its inertia and varies its velocity conjugately, "as it happens in Boyle's law", with velocity as the intensive and inertia the extensive component. A boson emitted from a moving apparatus retains its precursor's co-movement momentum ''mu'', now redundant; the two quanta ''mv'' and ''mu'' each treat the other as its "place", each wanting a co-movement fraction of inertia ''mvu''/''c''<sup>2</sup>, and the unfulfilled want "turns into an impedance", raising the inertia to ''m''(1 + ''uv''/''c''<sup>2</sup>). Hence

''w'' = (''u'' + ''v'')/(1 + ''uv''/''c''<sup>2</sup>)   (4)

which for a photon (''v'' = ''c'') returns ''w'' = ''c''. Fernando's point is that the familiar velocity-composition formula is dynamical, not kinematic: ''m'' appears on both sides of ''m''(1 + ''uv''/''c''<sup>2</sup>)''w'' = ''m''(''u'' + ''v'') and becomes a hidden parameter, "creating the illusion that it is arising from a kinematic relationship".

He then links this to the [[Doppler Effect|Doppler]] shift: a fractional inertia change α changes frequency by 1/(1 − α) and wavelength from ''λ''<sub>0</sub> to ''λ''<sub>0</sub>(1 − α). The proposed tests are to verify that Doppler wavelength shifts of bosons scale as α = ''vu''/''c''<sup>2</sup>, and to check the shifts at the free end of the arm of Michelson's apparatus in different directions. In his theory the constancy of light speed and the Doppler shift are one phenomenon dynamically; in SRT, he says, the first is postulated and the second explained kinematically, and the two are "disjointed".

==Assessment==

The paper's real strength is its refusal to accept a formal postulate where a mechanism might be found. Fernando is right that the Lorentz transformation entered physics as an empirical fit to Kaufmann's data before it was a postulate of a theory, and right that the ''Principia'''s premises were declared provisional by their author in words that are almost never quoted. His reading of Query 31 — that Newton privately held motion to be recruited by "active Principles" and even that the quantity of motion in the world is not conserved — is accurate to the text, and using it to motivate a non-local momentum source is a legitimate historical argument rather than an invented pedigree. The insistence that inertia is not a primary category but the residue of an inertia–velocity pair is a genuinely interesting reframing, and the derivation of clock retardation as a bifurcation of internal momentum, with ''AE'' = ''Mc''cos φ left for internal processes, at least offers a picture of ''why'' the ratio should be cos φ rather than simply asserting it. The fermion/boson split is also a real observation: velocity composition and the length-contraction factor are logically separable, and Fernando is unusual among critics in trying to give them separate physical origins rather than attacking both at once.

The difficulties are correspondingly serious. Several key steps are asserted rather than derived. The geometrical theorem that sums the residual-resistance series is presented through figures the text describes but the reader cannot reconstruct from the equations alone, and the crucial claim that "nature solves this problem by creating a device to inject ''Mv''·tan φ in one instance" is a statement of what must happen, not an account of how. The "conjugate variation" of inertia and velocity for bosons is likewise named rather than modelled: the phrase "when what is 'wanting' is not fulfilled, it turns into an impedance" carries the entire weight of the derivation of the factor (1 + ''uv''/''c''<sup>2</sup>), and the Boyle's-law analogy is an analogy, not a mechanism. The non-local source of induced momentum is deliberately left unspecified, which is candid but means the theory has no account of the conservation bookkeeping it depends on.

The most consequential problem is the paper's own central empirical claim. Fernando's table asserts that equation (1) will match experiment "without deviation" at all velocities while (2) deviates by up to 10% at ''v'' = 0.001''c''. But that comparison is made against a laboratory frame velocity ''u'' = 30 km/s, i.e. the Earth's orbital motion, so what equation (1) actually predicts is a first-order dependence of measured displacement on absolute velocity through space — precisely the kind of effect the [[Michelson-Morley Experiment|Michelson–Morley experiment]] and its successors were built to detect and did not find. A 10% discrepancy for slow particles is not a subtle effect requiring archival reanalysis; it would be conspicuous in ordinary laboratory kinematics, and Fernando offers no explanation of why it has never been reported. He is to be credited for making a falsifiable prediction and for stating exactly where the two equations diverge — that is more than many critiques offer — but the prediction appears to be already falsified by the ordinary agreement of Newtonian mechanics with experiment at low speeds. Relatedly, the paper does not engage with the transverse [[Doppler Effect|Doppler]] shift or with the measured lifetimes of fast muons, both of which test the time-dilation factor in configurations where his "co-movement with the place" bookkeeping would need separate treatment. The rhetorical register — "that's the ''coup de grâce''. That's where they get check-mated!!" — also works against the paper, since the reader is being asked to accept a checkmate before the position has been fully set out.

==See also==

* [[Viraj Fernando]]
* [[Special Relativity]]
* [[Lorentz Transformation]]
* [[Inertia]]
* [[Mass]]
* [[Isaac Newton]]
* [[Michelson-Morley Experiment]]
* [[Doppler Effect]]
* [[Time Dilation]]
* [[Length Contraction]]
* [[Speed of Light]]
* [[Photon]]

[[Category:Scientific Paper|explanation relativistic phenomena revision classical mechanics]]

[[Category:Unified Theory|explanation relativistic phenomena revision classical mechanics]]

[[Category:Light]]
[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Particle Physics]]