an introduction to relativistic cosmology: a simple ... · observer and the object observed. the...

@IJRTER-2016, All Rights Reserved 200

An Introduction to Relativistic Cosmology: A Simple Relativity

Theory of Everything

Burhan Davarcioglu

Department of Physics, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey

Abstract—Simple relativity theory of everything (RTE) postulates that all physical measurement of

velocity, time, space, energy, and density are relative and depend on the relative motion between the

observer and the object observed. The theory diverges from Einstein’s relativity in that it applies the

relativity principle to all matter, including light photons. For the simple case of constant relativite

motion, the theory yields novel time, distance, energy, and density transformations, and constructs a

new model of the universe spacetime. The cosmology describes a universe where the material world

is static and the luminous world expanding. This cosmology makes it possible to reconcile the static

universe of Einstein with observations of the expanding universe. The theoretical results obtained

reveal that RTE is compatible with quantum theory and Big Bang theories. For the case of very low

velocities; the transformations obtained yield Newton’s laws of motion and energy. The theory

generates plausible definitions of dark matter and dark energy and uses them to make a fairly good

prediction of the content of the universe. In addition, it makes remarkably good predictions

concerning several important phenomena, including prediction of the accelerating expansion of the

universe, a remarkably good estimate of the Hubble constant and of the content of the universe.

Keywords—special relativity, spacetime, energy, simple relativity theory, Lorentz’s invariance

I. INTRODUCTION

The theory of special relativity (SR) of Einstein is essentially based on the constancy of the

velocity of light in all inertial frames of reference. Einstein introduced this as a physical principle or

axiom in order to explain the negative outcome of the experiments of Michelson and Morley who

tried to prove the existence of a drift velocity of the earth in hypothetical ether. This sounds like

introducing the old ether idea from the nineteenth century. Our knowledge has only little improved

since then. The ether was abolished by Einstein, but indirectly reintroduced by himself in his theory

of general relativity. It is possible to define an “objective” frame of reference constituted by existing

masses. However, in the last years a number of experiments came up showing that the velocity of

light is not an incontrovertible constant. His explanations are wound and based on quantum effects

“tunnelling” which should not appear in systems with exclusively macroscopic dimensions. Most

convincing would be an explanation by classical physics which is also the basis of electromagnetic

signal transmission. When doing this, earlier inconsistencies are resolved and an absolute motion of

the earth against the space background is detected. This revolutionary insight has not been

recognized in the scientific public so far [1].

Fundamental of modern physics is the principle of relativity. Besides the reasonable

assumption that laws of nature work in the same way in all reference frames not being accelerated to

one another, it is postulated that the transformation between reference frames is always of the same

form. It is assumed that all frames of reference be of equal kind. This consideration does not take

into account that the universe is structured by masses which define reference points for physical

processes. The whole universe is impleted with gravitational and electromagnetic fields. This also

holds for the “empty” ranges between galaxies and galaxy clusters since the particle density is non-

vanishing in interstellar space to today’s knowledge. While Einstein based his theory: on the

relativity principle of motion and constancy of the velocity of light. We can extend the comparison

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER)

Volume 02, Issue 10; October - 2016 [ISSN: 2455-1457]


with usual media by assigning a state of motion to the space itself. Masses “swim” in this space and

therefore reflect its movement. Conversely, the fields created by the masses determine the

surrounding space in a fedback manner. Both entities cannot be considered independently from each

other. Our physical environment is defined by the objectively existing structure which is defined by

masses, charges and fields. These are adequately described in an objective manner by laws of nature

being independent from subjective human receptions.

So we can say that in certain areas of the cosmos we can neglect the influence of cosmic

fields, but normally we use the visible beacons (earth, sun, centers of galaxies) to define reference

frames. The cosmos as a whole is described by general relativity which states that the masses define

the space. Without masses there is no space at all. “Special relativity is merely an augmentation to

Minkowski space by the arbitrary insertion of mass and energy into Minkowski space with the

constrained kinematic features of Minkowski space applied to those masses and energies”. When it

comes to define the frames of reference, however, the state of motion relative to the absolutely

defined environment is important again. All these arguments become much more intelligible if we

assume that the space between massive particles has a state of motion. The motivation for the present

article comes from several cosmological observations [2-4], also see for review [5], and high energy

experiments indicating that SR theory and the Lorentz invariance principle might have been violated

[6, 7]. To account for such violations, several theories, which allow for a breakdown of Lorentz

invariance, or at least slight violations at sufficiently high energies, have been proposed. That

includes theories and models of gravitational forces within the context of a quantum theory [8, 9],

loop quantum gravity [10]. Other models that incorporate Lorentz violation are emergent gauge

bosons [11, 12], varying moduli and ghost condensate [13], spacetime varying coupling, and varying

speed of light cosmology [13, 14-18]. The neutrino sector provides other cases of possible Lorentz

violation [8, 9, 19]. The possibility of breaking the speed of light and the violation of Lorentz

symmetry has far reaching ramifications on our understanding of physics.

This article puts forward a new relativity theory called “a simple relativity theory of

everything” (RTE). The theory relaxes Einstein’s constancy of light-velocity principle and postulates

that all measurements of velocity, time, space, energy, and density of an object depend on the

relative motion between the observer’s frame of reference and the object. In this respect, RTE

resembles previous attempts to construct relativity theories that relax Einstein’s velocity of light

invariance [1, 20]. Another motivation for proposing an alternative to Einstein’s SR stems from SR’s

sharp contradictions with both quantum theory and Big Bang theories, as well as with related

empirical evidence. Quantum theory and abundant related evidence indicate that at sufficiently high

energies, matter enters into a quantum state. In contrast, SR prescribes that normal matter does not

transform into any form. From a cosmological perspective it is well established that the universe is

curved, open, and expanding at an accelerating rate [21-23]. Conversely, SR claims that the universe

is flat, isotropic, and static. In addition, Big Bang theories and related inflammation models and

findings indicate that our universe is comprised mainly of dark energy and dark matter (with only

≈4.6% normal matter). In comparison, SR claims that 100% of the universe is matter. These are very

fundamental and unbridgeable differences, causing an unbiased scholar to conclude that SR might be

flawed. The argument for such deduction is straightforward: a theory that produces results that

sharply conflict with two key theories, and more important, with strong empirical results, should not

remain unquestionable, as SR has remained for over a century. Dark energy and dark matter

constitute about 95% of the universe. Nonetheless, not much is known about them. Existing theories,

including general relativity, fail to provide plausible definitious of the two entities, or to predict their

amounts in the universe. More importantly, natural definitions of dark energy and dark matter and

predicts the content of the universe with high accuracy [24].

This article seeks to respond to such challenges by proposing an alternative theory to SR,

called “RTE”. The proposed theory is “simple” since it assumes that all frames of reference move

with constant velocity with respect to one another. It is also simple because it has no presuppositions,




except the one stating that there is no preferred frame of reference and that the laws of physics are

the same in all inertial frames [25, 26]. In contrast, it is a theory of “everything” since it provides

impressive explanations for a wide range of physical phenomena, beginning from a precise

prediction of all neutrino velocity experiments [6, 7] through prediction of quantum criticality at

energies equaling the Golden ratio [27], to near precise calculation of the Hubble constant and the

content of the universe.

RTE is based on Galileo’s relativity principle, postulating that there is no absolute motion

and that objects have velocities only with respect to one another. This means that any statement of an

object’s velocity must be made in regard to something else. In this respect, RTE does not differ from

SR. On the other hand, it departs fundamentally from SR in that it relaxes its second postulate and

subjugates light photons, like any terrestrial matter, to the relativity principle. Put more succinctly,

RTE postulates that everything is relative, “full stop”, with light being no exception. This is a

fundamental departure from SR, and consequently, from Lorentz symmetry principle. In addition to

complete relativism, RTE assumes that all translation of information regarding events, from one

frame of reference to another, is carried by light or electromagnetic waves with equal velocity. This

should not be considered a drawback, since the results of RTE are directly applicable to physical

systems which use other ways for communicating information, given that the relative speed of the

information carrier is known to the observer.

Interestingly, while RTE sharply contradicts SR and Lorentz’s invariance, it is consistent

with well grounded research in chemistry and microbiology, which emphasizes the crucial role of

asymmetry, or “chirality”, in the creation and development of all living organisms, from amino acids

to the human body. This body of research further suggests that the source of all asymmetry in life is

to be traced back to the physical asymmetry of the universe [28]. “It is only slightly overstating the

case to say that physics is the study of symmetry” [2]. Such a view was succinctly expressed by

Louis Pasteur, the celebrated chemist and microbiologist, who wrote that: “The universe is

asymmetrical and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of

the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetrical; for if one placed the

entire set of bodies that compose the solar system, each moving in its own way, before a mirror, the

image shown would not be super imposable on the reality” [13].

II. GENERAL RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY To what extent is the electric charge itself responsible for the curvature of space that is, how

does it contribute towards “Gravity”? The Reissner-Nordstrom metric involves the effect of charge

as well as mass in curving the space around it. We may easily derive the result from the Reissner-

Nordstrom metric that the gravitational potential of the charge falls off as the square of the distance

of the charge, the constant of proportionality being much smaller than the value of gravity. The

electric charge itself exerts a “Repulsive Gravity” which gets masked by the attractive influence of

the mass of the particle [10].

A problem concerns the interpretation of length contraction and time dilation. Originally

Einstein believed that these changes are virtual, i.e. are only measured values of an observer moving

relative to another system. The scales of the real objects never change. Later after upcoming of

general relativity it became clear that scales have to change in reality because the gravitational field

is real in the sense that it evokes real, measurable forces. So it was implicitly assumed that also the

scale changes of special relativity have to be real. This however is a severe philosophical problem

since two observers measuring the same object would obtain different values for identical physical

properties of the object. This discrepancy has not been addressed in literature until today and reflects

inconsistencies in the transition from general to special relativity [1].

The physics literature provides no compelling argument for special relativistic tachyons and

only some rare instances where departures from standard Lorentz symmetry could be motivated. We

feel that the most compelling arguments for possible departures from standard Lorentz symmetry are




found in the part of the quantum gravity literature which motivates [8-12] the adoption of a

nonclassical geometry description of spacetime, with associated violations or deformations of

Lorentz symmetry. Another noteworthy possibility is the much studied idea of large extra

dimensions, within which several authors have motivated mechanisms for violations of Lorentz

symmetry [8]. Concerning the quantum gravity literature the observer that superluminal particles

have been motivated in some quantum gravity studies. We aspects of the quantum gravity problem

offer motivation for a particle dependence of the effects so that it would not be surprising to find the

superluminal behavior of neutrinos, possibly even just some types of neutrinos, to be a few orders of

magnitude stronger than for other particles.

The dichotomous cosmology introduced in 2014 that is inspired by the tired light theory [16].

It describes a universe where the material world is static and the luminous world expanding. This

cosmology makes it possible to reconcile the static universe of Einstein with observations of the

expanding universe. Specifically, the theory is reported to conform with the time dilation effect with

the stretching of supernova light curves by a factor (1+z), and the Tolman surface brightness test.

The astronomical observations that support the dichotomous cosmology are as follow:

� the linear relationship between the luminosity distance and redshift of supernovae

� the Etherington distance duality which is based on observations is a consequence of the

nowadays study’s model

� a Monte Carlo simulation testing framework based on the observations of the zCosmos.

The relationship of supernova light curves by a factor (1+z), and the factor (1+z)4 for the radiation

energy density inferred from the cosmic microwave background radiation [13, 17].

The reciprocity theorem for null geodesics is of fundamental importance for observations in

astrophysics and cosmology. The core of the reciprocity theorem is the fact that many geometric

properties are invariant when the roles of source and observer in astronomical observations are

transposed. In the simplest case, it states that for two observers at rest relative to each other in an

arbitrary static spacetime, objects of identical size at each observer are seen by the other observer to

subtend identical solid angles. When there are relative motions, as in the case of cosmology,

allowance for redshift effects must be made, as follows:

� let the observer area distance r0 be defined by dS0 = (r0)2dΩ0, where a (past directed) bundle

of null rays subtending a solid angle dΩ0 at the observer at time t0 has cross sectional area dS0

at the object observed (notionally a galaxy).

� Similarly let the galaxy area distance rG be defined by dSG = (rG)2dΩG, where a (future

directed) bundle of null rays subtending a solid angle dΩG at the galaxy has cross sectional

area dSG at the observer at the same time t0.

Then these two area distances are related by

(rG)2 = (r0)

2(1+z)

2 (1)

where z is the redshift measured for the galaxy by the observer. This is the general reciprocity

theorem; it shows that in any cosmological model whatever, no matter how lumpy or anisotropic.

The area distance up the null cone is the same as the area distance down, up to redshift factors

(which must be there because of the way solid angles transform under velocity transformations).

The observer area distance, also known as the distance by apparent size, is in principle

determinable by direct astronomical observation (choose objects of known physical size and measure

their angular size). The galaxy area distance (the reciprocal distance based on null geodesics from the

galaxy to the observer instead of from the observer to the galaxy) is not. However on considering the

emission of radiation from the source, diverging from it on the outgoing null rays centered on its

world line. One can see that the galaxy area distance rG is (up to redshift factors) the same as the

directly observable luminosity distance D, determined by measuring the apparent flux of radiation F

from the object and comparing it with the its intrinsic luminosity L.




F = L/4πD2 D

2 = (rG)

2(1+z)

2 (2)

Hence the luminosity distance too is equal to the observer area distance, up to redshift factors:

namely (1) and (2) together imply

D2 = (r0)

2(1+z)

4 (3)

This can be regarded as an alternative form of the reciprocity theorem. An immediate consequence is

the optical theorem that the surface brightness of an extended source, while dependent on redshift, is

independent of the area distance of the observer from the source.

That radiation with a black body spectrum maintains a black body spectrum as it propagates,

but with observed temperature To related to the emitted temperature Te by

To = Te/(1+z) (4)

again this is true for both isotropic and anisotropic models. These results all are founded, in the end,

on the hypothesis of general relativity theory that light travels on null geodesics in a Riemannian

spacetime. It gives a proof by use of normal coordinates, followed by transformation to a general

coordinate system. This general result was then lost to later generations of cosmologists, and was

independently rediscovered in the 1960s. It was developed as a power series (approximate) result in

the remarkable paper on observational cosmology by Kristian and Sachs in 1966. They conjectured it

was an exact result in arbitrary universes [29]. Proofs initially were essentially based on geometric

optics; a kinetic theory version was outlined by Sachs and Wolfe [30].

Following from equations (1) to (2), are a key element for cosmology in three areas. Firstly,

for galaxy observations: they show that luminosities and angular sizes are dependent on each other,

shaping the way that galaxy observations are analyzed [13]. In principle the key relation (3) is

testable by astronomical observations, but in practice there are so many uncertainties in the

astronomical parameters that this relation is taken for granted and used to eliminate one of the

unknowns. What is directly measurable by detectors in the case of extended sources is not the total

flux F given by equation (2) but rather the pointwise surface brightness given by equation (4); the

flux F is a derived quantity. Secondly, these relations are a key element in analyzing cosmic black

body radiation observations. Equation (4) provides the foundation for understanding how the cosmic

black body radiation temperature changes in standard isotropic cosmologies after decoupling in

Weinberg [31], the radiation measurements providing the basic evidence for the hot Big Bang

expansion of the universe. It is also the foundation for cosmic black body radiation anisotropy

analyses in cosmology, a key element of present day cosmology. This is also the basis for the

pioneering analysis of cosmic black body radiation anisotropies in spatially homogeneous

anisotropic cosmologies by Thorne [32]. Thirdly, these relations underlie observed luminosities

occurring in gravitational lensing (where the geometry is locally anisotropic by its nature); thus

provide the foundation for understanding lensing brightness. It emphasize that follow from the

Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin approximated covariant Maxwell equations in an arbitrary spacetime; the

photon picture was used only for ease of expression [13].

In principle the key relation (3) is testable by astronomical observations, if one can locate

sources with bothwell defined and narrowly constrained intrinsic luminosities and sizes (but this test

is difficult carry out in practice, as indicated above). If this relation were observationally found to not

be true, this would be a major crisis for observational cosmology “any observed major deviation

from would be a catastrophe from the theoretician’s viewpoint” [29]. Because the results equations

(1)-(4) above hold for all cosmological models based on Riemannian spacetimes (in particular, do

not depend either on the Einstein field equations or the nature of matter present). That is not




generically true in other kinds of geometries, for example in spacetimes with torsion. One would be

able to derive generalised versions of the relations above in such spacetimes; but then inter alia the

key relation (4) would presumably no longer be true in general, and the entire standard body of

analysis of the cosmic black body radiation anisotropies would be in doubt.

The relativity principle states that all inertial frames are equivalent for describing the laws of

physics. A difference by measurement is not detectable. The prerequisite is that a global, absolute

reference frame does not exist. Then space itself is a medium which shows optical properties and a

local structure which is defined by the vacuum or background potential. The new interpretation of

Michelson and Morley experiments is compatible with this concept.

III. TRANSFORMATIONS In Einsteinian relativity the transformations are the same in both directions which is a

consequence of the relativity principle. For the sake of simplicity, the theoretical analysis presented

here is confined to the simple case of collinear and constant relative velocities. For such a case,

considering all three spatial dimensions becomes cumbersome and unnecessary; since we can simply

treat the constant velocity as + or − the scalar value of the velocity vector υ.

3.1. Time and velocity transformations There is a principal difference in the time transformations. Consider the two frames of

reference F and F′ shown (two observers in two reference frames moving with velocity υ with

respect to each other), suppose that the two frames are moving apart from each other at a constant

velocity υ. Assume further that at time t1 in F (and t′1 in F′) a body starts moving in the +x direction

from point x1 (x′1 in F′) to point x2 (x′2 in F′). Suppose that the times of arrival in F and are t2 and t′2,

respectively. Finally, assume that the start times in F and F' are synchronized such that t1 = t′1.

Since the start times t1 and t′1 are synchronized, the end time t2, measured in F, equals the end

time plus the time t′2 which is the time it takes the light beam marking the body’s arrival at x2 to

reach the observer in F

t2 = t′2+δt δt = x3/c (5)

where x3 is the distance (measured in F) travelled by F′ relative to F in time t2 and also that defining

t/t′ = 1/1−β where β = υ/c note that 1/1−β is positive when F and F′ depart from each other, and

negative when they approach each other.

(a)




(b)

Figure 1. Time transformations for the one way (a) and round trip (b)

To velocity transformation; the similarity between the time dilations predicted by RTE and

SR at relatively low velocities, particularly for the round trip, implies that the time transformation

depicted in t/t′ = 1/1−β2 should yield the null. In a typical experiment, the velocity of neutrinos is

determined by measuring the time of travel and the distance between a source and a receiver. Using

the time transformation, the relative velocity υ−c/c could be expressed as υ−c0/c. So there is a

coupling between space and time which ensures the basic axiom of constancy of υ=c.

Figure 1. depicts the relative time t/t′ as a function of β for the one way and round trip. The

dashed lines depict the corresponding predictions of SR. For the one way trip and the case in which F

and F′ depart from each other with velocity β (0≤β≤1), RTE and SR yield similar predictions,

although the time dilation predicted by RTE is larger than that predicted by SR. Conversely, for

approaching objects (β<0) RTE predicts that the internal time measured at F will be shorter than that

measured at F′. For the round trip the results of RTE and SR in 1≤β≤1 are qualitatively similar,

except that the time dilation predicted by RTE is larger than that predicted by SR. Notice that for

small β values the two theories yield almost identical results. For example, for the velocity of the

earth around the sun of (υ≈29.78 km/s), and c=299792.458 km/s, the one way time dilation predicted

by RTE is t/t′≈1.000099350, while the comparable result of SR is ≈1.000000005 (the difference is

≈9.9345x10-5

). For the round trip RTE yields t/t′≈2.0000000197, while SR yields ≈2.0000000099.

As can be seen, the difference between the two predictions is negligible (≈9.9x10-9

).

3.2. Distance transformation To derive the distance transformation, assume that a light pulse with velocity c0 relative to the

internal frame F′ travels from x′1 in the +x direction. The velocity of light c, as measured in frame F

will be

c = c0+υ = (1+υ/c0)c0 = (1+β)c0….. (6)

The time in F′ for the light pulse to pass from x′1 to x′2 is (x′2−x′1)/c0, and the comparable time in F is

(x2−x1)/c0. Which yields

(x2−x1)/(x′2−x′1) = (1+β)/(1−β) (7)

Figure 2. depicts the relative distance Δx/Δx′ = (x2−x1)/(x′2−x′1) as a function of β, together

with the respective relative distance according to SR (in dashed black). As could be seen, where as

SR prescribes that irrespective of direction, objects moving relative to an internal frame will contract,

RTE predicts that a moving object will contract or expand, depending on whether it approaches the

internal frame or departs from it. For relative velocity exceeding the velocity of light (β>1), RTE

predicts that Δx/Δx′ will become negative. Since Δx′ is positive, this implies that for bodies departing




from an internal frame with a velocity higher than the velocity of light, the length of a rod of rest

length l0, placed along the x axis, will be negative.

Figure 2. Distance transformation

3.3. Density and energy transformations Similar analyses for density and kinetic energy yield the following transformations

ρ/ρ′ = (1−β)/(1+β) (8)

E = 0.5m0(c0)2β

2(1−β)/(1+β) (9)

Figure 3. Density transformation

As shown in Figure 3. the density of departing bodies relative to an observer is predicted to

decrease with β, reaching zero for velocity equaling the speed of light. For bodies approaching the

observer (β<1) RTE, similar to SR, predicts that the relative density will increase nonlinearly, from

at β=0, to infinitely higher values as β approaches −1. For β<−1 and β>1, RTE predicts that the

relative density, as measured in F, will be negative [24].

The predicted decline in kinetic energy at velocities above β≈0.618, despite the decrease in

velocity, suggests that mass and energy transform gradually from normal mass and energy to

unobservable dark mass and dark energy. The non-monotonic change in energy at a critical β value,

equaling the golden ratio (≈0.618), resonates with recent experimental findings [28], which

demonstrated that applying a magnetic field at right angles to an aligned chain of cobalt niobate

atoms, makes the cobalt enter a quantum critical state, in which the ratio between the frequencies of




the first two notes of the resonance equals; the highest-order E8 symmetry group discovered in

mathematics [27].

Figures 4. depict the kinetic energy, normalized by as a function of β. As shown in the Figure

4. the kinetic energy displays a non-monotonic behavior with two maxima: one at negative β values

(approaching bodies) and the other at positive β values (departing bodies).

Figure 4. Kinetic energy as a function of velocity β

Figure 5. Energy as a function of velocity according to three theories

A new special relativity theory (SR-Einstein), called complete relativity theory (CR-

Suleiman) that is anchored in Galileo’s relativity, but without the notion of a prefered frame. The

theory results are consistent with Newtonian and quantum mechanics (Figure 5 and Figure 6) [24].

Figure 6. Comparison between CR’s prediction of the content of the universe and cosmological measurements

The relativity principle states that all inertial frames are equivalent for describing the laws of

physics. A difference by measurement is not detectable. The prerequisite is that a global, absolute




reference frame does not exist. The relativity principle would be valid only if space were exactly

homogeneous, i.e. free of matter. From general relativity it follows that this velocity is not constant

but dependent on the strength of the gravitational and other fields.

Existing cosmological data reveal that our universe includes about 4.6% atoms, 72% dark

energy, and 23% dark matter. While the nature of atoms is reasonably understood, our current

knowledge about dark energy is based on cosmological measurements and not on theory. The

incorporation of the cosmological factor in general relativity does not constitute a serious theoretical

account for dark energy, simply because the introduced anti-gravitational force has nothing to do

with Einstein’s relativity theories. In fact, it was added in order to “fill a big hole” in general

relativity, which contrary to contemporary measurements by Edwin Hubble [24] prescribed that the

universe should collapse into itself, rather than expand. The theoretical explanation regarding dark

matter is even more problematic and completely speculative. The proposed theory suggests a simple

and straightforward interpretation for both dark energy and dark matter.

IV. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION There are several interpretation problems in conventional special relativity. When comparing

two frames being in motion to one another, the length rods of the other system appear shortened,

seen from the system where the observer resides. This follows from the symmetry of the

transformation law (Lorentz transformation). When the speed of one system is adopted to that of the

other system, the difference in rod length disappears. At least Einstein has assumed that the scale

change is a measuring artifact and not real.

Time dilation is regarded differently. In the well known twin paradoxon it is assumed that the

integral taken over the coordinate time is identical to the real elapsed time, the scale change is

considered to be a real effect as is done in general relativity. There is a contradiction in the

interpretation. Contrary to this, the alternative theory assumes the scale changes always to be real.

Since all length changes are related to the rest frame, there is no “symmetry” between measurements

when one moving system measures quantities in another. For the twin paradoxon this means that the

twin having higher absolute speed ages faster than the other one. Both twins can calculate the age of

the other twin and come to the same result. All contradictions are removed.

The SR formalism asserts that only relative descriptions of phenomena between two or more

observers have any meaning. In fact we now understand that all effects are dynamically and

observationally relative to an ontologically real, that is, detectable dynamical 3-space. Ironically this

situation has always been known as an “absolute effect”. The most extraordinary outcome of recent

discoveries is that a dynamical 3-space exists, and that from the beginning of physics this has been

missed that a most fundamental aspect of reality has been completely overlooked.

I have proposed a novel relativity theory called “RTE”. The theory makes no assumptions.

Similar to Galileo and Einstein’s relativity, it postulates that the laws of physics are the same in all

inertial frames of reference and all physical measurements are relative to the frame of reference in

which they were measured. The above stated postulate was applied to all physical measures

including the velocity of light. The theory generates a time transformation similar to the Doppler

formula, alongside novel transformations for distance, density, and energy. For bodies travelling

away from an observer, RTE predicts a time dilation. On the other hand, for bodies travelling

towards the observer, RTE predicts that time will be shorter. For the round trip, the theory predicts a

time dilation regardless of the direction of movement relative to the observer.

The predictions for distance are complementary: For bodies travelling towards the observer,

the theory predicts a length contraction along the movement axes. In contrast, for bodies travelling

away from the observer, it predicts that length will increase. The density equation prescribes that the

relative density of bodies travelling towards the observer will increase, whereas the density of bodies

travelling away from the observe will decrease. As a result, in all the derived transformations the




relative velocity υ=c constitutes a singularity point, at which the translation of physical

measurements from one frame to another is undefined.

No less important, the theory puts forward novel relativistic definitions of dark matter and

dark energy and, based on the definitions, calculates the amounts of matter, dark matter, and dark

energy with high precision. In addition, it provides a plausible answer to the open question of what

caused the Big Bang, according to which it might have been the outcome of an enormous “collision”

between our universe and a “mirror image” universe comprised of dark matter and dark energy.

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Professor Dr. Ramzi Suleiman (Physics Department, Laboratory of

Optics and Spectroscopy, University of Haifa, Haifa-Israel) for the oppurtunity to perform this work

and his valuable comments on the manuscript.

REFERENCES [1] H. Eckardt, “An alternative hypothesis for special relativity,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 56-65, 2009.

[2] P. W. Anderson, “More is different,” Science, Vol. 177, No. 4047, pp. 393-396, 1972.

[3] K. Hirata, T. Kajita, M. Koshiba, M. Nakahata, Y. Oyama, N. Sato, A. Suzuki, M. Takita, and Y. Totsuka, “Observation of a neutrino burst from the supernova SN1987A,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 58, No. 14, pp. 1490-1493, 1987.

[4] R. M. Bionta, G. Blewitt, C. B. Bratton, D. Casper, A. Ciocio, R. Claus, B. Cortez, M. Crouch, S. T. Dye, S. Errede, G. W. Foster, W. Gajewski, K. S. Ganezer, M. Goldhaber, T. J. Haines, T. W. Jones, D. Kielczewska, W. R. Kropp, J. G. Learned, J. M. LoSecco, J. Matthews, R. Miller, M. S. Mudan, H. S. Park, L. R. Price, F. Reines, J. Schultz, S. Seidel, E. Shumard, D. Sinclair, H. W. Sobel, J. L. Stone, L. R. Sulak, R. Svoboda, G. Thornton, J. C. van der Velde, and C. Wuest, “Observation of a neutrino burst in coincidence with supernova 1987A in the large magellanic cloud,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 58, No. 14, pp. 1494-1496, 1987.

[5] V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell, “Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 11-31, 2011.

[6] G. Amelino-Camelia, G. Gubitosi, N. Loret, F. Mercati, G. Rosati, and P. Lipari, “Opera-reassessing data on the energy dependence of the speed of neutrinos,” International Journal of Modern Physics D, Vol. 20, No. 14, pp. 2623-2640, 2011.

[7] G. R. Kalbfleisch, N. Baggett, E. C. Fowler, and J. Alspector, “Experimental comparison of neutrino, antineutrino, and muon velocities,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 43, No. 19, pp. 1361-1364, 1979.

[8] V. A. Kosteleck′y and S. Samuel, “Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string theory,” Physical Review D, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 683-685, 1989.

[9] O. Bertolami, R. Lehnert, R. Potting, and A. Ribeiro, “Cosmological acceleration, varying couplings, and Lorentz breaking,” Physical Review D, Vol. 69, No. 8, pp. 083513, 2004.

[10] A. Palit, “Amazing facts in general relativity,” Global Journal of Pure and Applied Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 68-83, 2012.

[11] P. Kraus and E. T. Pullin, “Photons and gravitons as Goldstone bosons and the cosmological constant,” Physical Review D, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 045015, 2002.

[12] A. Jenkins, “Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance,” Physical Review D, Vol. 69, No. 10, pp. 105007, 2004.

[13] G. F. R. Ellis, “On the definition of distance in general relativity,” General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 39, No. 7, pp. 1047-1052, 2007.

[14] Y. Heymann, “The dichotomous cosmology with a static material world and expanding luminous world,” 3rd Annual International Conference on Chemistry and Physics, Athens, Greece, July 20-23, 2015, pp. 38.

[15] Y. Heymann, “Redshift adjustment to the distance modulus,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 6-7, 2012.

[16] Y. Heymann, “The dichotomous cosmology with a static material world and expanding luminous world,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 178-181, 2014.

[17] I. M. H. Etherington, “On the definition of distance in general relativity,” Philosophical Magazine, Series 7, Vol. 15, No. 100, pp. 761-773, 1933.

[18] G. F. R. Ellis, “Relativistic cosmology,” Proceedings of the 47th International School of Physics “Enriro Fermi”, R. K. Sachs., Ed. New York and London: Academic Press, 1971, Vol. 15, pp. 104-182.

[19] J. Silk and S. D. M. White, “The determination of qo using X-ray and microwave measurement of galaxy clusters,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Vol. 226, pp. L103, 1978.

[20] S. J. G. Gift, “Light speed invariance is a remarkable illusion,” Physics Essays, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1-5, 2010.

[21] A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, and R. P. Kirsher, “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 1009-1038, 1998.

[22] A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, M. C. Liu, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, J. Tonry, P. Woudt, R. J. Brunner, A. Dey, R. Gal, J. Graham, J. Larkin, S. C. Odewahn, and B. Oppenheimer, “Tests of the accelerating universe with near-infrared observations of a high-redshift type Ia supernova,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 536, No. 1, pp. 62-67, 2000.




[23] E. V. Linder, “Exploring the expansion history of the universe,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 90, No. 9, pp. 091301, 2003.

[24] R. Suleiman, “The dark side revealed: A complete relativity theory predicts the content of the universe,” Progress in Physics, Vol. 4, No.4, pp. 34-38, 2013.

[25] A. Sen, “How Galileo could have derived the special theory,” American Journal of Physics, Vol.62, No. 2, pp. 157-162, 1994.

[26] W. S. C. William, Introducing Special Relativity, 2nd ed., London, England: CRS Press Taylor and Francis, 2002, p. 264.

[27] R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, E. M. Wheeler, E. Wawrzynska, D. Prabhakaran, M. Telling, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, and K. Kiefer, “Quantum criticality in an Ising chain: Experimental evidence for emergent E8 symmetry,” Science, Vol. 327, No. 5962, pp. 177-180, 2010.

[28] A. T. Borchers, P. A. Davis, and M. E. Gershwin, “The asymmetry of existence: Do we owe our existence to cold dark matter and the weak force?,” Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 229, No. 1, pp. 21-32, 2004.

[29] J. Kristian and R. K. Sachs, “Observations in cosmology,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 143, No. 2, pp. 379-387, 1966.

[30] R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, “Perturbations of a cosmological model and angular variations of the microwave background,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 147, No. 1, pp. 73-90, 1967.

[31] S. W. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, 1st ed., New York, USA: Wiley, 1972.

[32] K. S. Thorne, “Primordial element formation, primordial magnetic fields and the isotropy of the universe,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 148, No.1, pp. 51-68, 1967.

an introduction to relativistic cosmology: a simple ... · observer and the object observed. the...

Documents