Dimensions of Einstein's Space
Series #16 - Space and
Question - (1-A)
Is Time a "Physical"
No. In a description of the physical nature of matter, everything
in physics can be described in a space having a width, a depth, and a
height. Nothing more is necessary. Of course, such a description can be
different later. A new three-dimensional description might be necessary
after a given time interval. That description can also vary as a
function of temperature and various other parameters. It exists no
a mathematical equation being able to transform "one second" into
"meters" (or vice versa) (called space-time transformation).
Mathematics is a tool to predict numerical parameters. Mathematics does
not give a physical description of phenomena. Mathematics is not
physics. Just try to explain to a friend how to proceed to make a
physical transformation of a "space" into "time"
(space-time transformation). Mathematically it is easy. You simply
write "Space" = "Time". Physically, it is non-sense. It is not because
you can write a mathematical formula relating numbers of units that a
physical reality exists. A mathematical relationship
between numbers is NOT a physical process. A mathematical
between numbers is not the "Cause" of any phenomenon. It is a tool
giving predictions. Do not confuse a tool making predictions
(mathematics) with the physical mechanism itself.
Question - (1-B)
How many physical
dimensions are necessary to give a complete description of all matter
in the universe?
Question - (1-C)
In physics, we saw that an
important condition requires using Proper Values. What is the meaning
of Proper Values?
moves from one frame to another, the Proper
Value of Time is the number of units
of time (using local clock) the local standard unit (of time) is needed
by this local observer to measure the local time. In the case of
length, the Proper Value of length is the number of times the Local
Standard Meter must be used to represent the length measured.
values is explained in the book: "Einstein's
Theory of Relativity versus
Classical Mechanics." In the paper: "A
Classical Description of the
Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury",
we see that using proper values with Newton's physics, we find the
correct value of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury without any
need of Einstein's principles of relativity.
number (of units) measured at the
location where the physical interaction takes place. Inside atoms, the
proper value is therefore the number of units which exists at the
particular location where the element of the particle is located.
Question - (1-D)
does the local observer (in a moving frame) not use the same universal
standard meter (and standard clock) as defined everywhere else (instead
of his local meter and local clock)?
to do it. The only standard meter (or standard
clock) available to him in his local frame is necessarily different
from the one in the initial frame because it has been moved
(accelerated). In order to make a measurement, the observer must carry
the universal meter (and the universal standard clock) from the
original frame to his local frame. When he does this moving, the
universal standard meter (and the universal standard clock) changes its
velocity when carried from the universal frame to the local frame.
Therefore ENERGY is given to the atoms (and electrons) of his universal
standard meter (and universal clock). This change of energy given to
the atoms of his standard meter (during the change of frame) changes
the Bohr radius of the atoms, which changes the real physical length of
the universal standard meter (and the rate of the standard clock).
Therefore, when the local observer makes a measurement, the local meter
and the local clock are different from what it was before the moving.
This is what we take into account in our book (Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus
There are neither space contraction nor time dilation, however the
units of time and length on the moving frame are necessarily different
as explained above.An important application of this principle is used
in the paper: "A Detailed Classical
Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury".
Question - (1-E)
local units, will an observer measuring the Proper Values of his own
height, find a different value, after moving to another frame?
the same number
of units. Of course, his own height has changed. However, the number of
units are the same because the length to be measured (the moving
observer) has moved as well as the meter used for the measurement. When
moving to a different frame, the standard meter changes by the same
amount as the height of the human body, since they both (the body and
the standard meter) are submitted to the same change of velocity and
the same change of gravitational potential. The Bohr radius changes by
the same ratio for both the observer and the standard meter.
Question - (1-F)
we move from Earth to the orbit of Mercury (always neglecting the mass
of Mercury), will we find that the number of units giving the size (of
an external body) of the Sun (using Mercury proper values) is the same
as measured from Earth (using Earth proper values)?
size of the meter carried out with the
observer from Earth to Mercury's orbit, does change. Of course, the
actual size of the Sun does not change because an observer moved from
Earth's orbit to Mercury's orbit.
Question - (1-G)
read in many books that Newton's physics does not lead to the so-called
"Relativistic Corrections". What is wrong about Newton's Physics (as
mass-energy conservation has not
been fully applied in the past when using Newton's physics. This is
explained in more details in "chapter one" of the Book:
Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics".
Here is an example. Let us give a
kinetic energy "Ek" to a mass having an initial mass Mo. The initial mass Mo becomes slightly larger, due
to that increase of kinetic energy (which possesses mass). From the
relationship Ek=Mkc2, the mass increase is: Mk=Ek/c2.
Mf is then:
+ Mk = Mo+ Ek/c2
It is that small increase of mass
which has been neglected in the past and which renders Newton's physics
compatible with all observations without using Einstein's hypotheses of
Question - (1-H)
we now take into account the increase of mass due to kinetic energy,
can we then use Newton's equations to predict all observations?
missing. Potential energy, which is
energy, must also be taken into account. For example, when we give
(potential) energy to raise a mass against the gravitational potential,
we also have given energy to that mass. This is explained in chapter
one of the book Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical
Mechanics, chapter one.
Due to potential energy Ep, there is an increase of mass
"Mp" given by:
Mp = Ep/c2
The final mass including "Kinetic
Energy" Mk and
"Potential Energy" Mp is then:
Mf = Mo+
Ek/c2 + Ep/c2
Question - (1-I)
there any other kind of energy (other than kinetic and gravitational
potential) that also contributes to increase the mass of bodies?
energy contribute to an increase of mass. The
principle of mass-energy conservation is "always" valid. No exception,
ever. We can have gravitational energy, kinetic energy, electrostatic
energy, magnetic energy, nuclear energy, and any other form of energy.
In fact, after considering gravitational energy and kinetic energy,
electrostatic energy has also been considered in chapters three and
eleven of the Book: "Einstein's Theory
of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics"
when calculating the change of Bohr radius and clock rates. However, in
some problems, the change of other energies (electrostatic, magnetic,
nuclear, etc.) is not always directly relevant, so that we can solve
more easily many problems considering only kinetic and gravitational
energies. However, one must keep in mind that, not using all forms of
energy is an approximation, which is not necessarily valid.
must also understand that this change of mass must be carefully taken
into account everywhere in physics. This strict application of
mass-energy conservation will solve the problems usually attributed to
relativity even when applied to atomic, molecular, and nuclear and
particle physics. There is an interesting challenge to apply this
physical and logical solution of strict mass-energy conservation to the
problem of internal structure of matter.
Question - (1-J)
We know that Einstein's
definition of time is what clocks are showing. Do we use the same
definition of time? If not, why not?
due to the change of electron mass, the rate
shown by clocks changes when they are carried to another frame having a
different energy. It is not acceptable to believe, as Einstein, that
time runs faster just because clocks run at a faster rate. The clock
rate depends on a physical mechanism and "Time" does not change because
the clock rate is different. In our work, the change of clock rate is
taken into account and is considered to be due to the change of
electron mass (which changes its motion rate). For practical reasons,
inside a moving frame, the "clock rate" can be called: "Local time" or
"Apparent time". However, it is not real "Time" at all. It just means
"clock rate". Then we see that the variables "t" or "T" do not
represent time. These variables represent "local clock rates".
"Time" is an arbitrary defined reference rate, which is defined as the
particular "clock rate" of a clock in which the physical parameters
have been carefully defined. All clocks rates, in any frame, can be
compared with this absolute standard. These main physical parameters
requested are its gravitational potential and its absolute velocity.
The absolute definition of that standard is given in the Book: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus
Question - (1-K)
this work, within any individual frame, using proper values, we must
substitute the "clock rate" instead of the variable, which was
previously called time "t". What physical phenomena lead us to do that?
two direct reasons that led us to consider that
Newton's laws of physics are not really directly related with "time",
but evolves only as a function of local "clock rate".
Einstein, they did not know that the clock rate
was changing when energy was given to atoms and electrons inside
matter. However, Einstein used the "clock rate" even if he did not
specify it directly, since he was using a "time" that he defined as
being the local clock rate. The information about the change of clock
rate requires a level of knowledge of atomic structure of matter that
did not exist in 1905. The crucial information needed came from de
Broglie discovery on the wavelength of matter-waves. Consequently,
without the relevant knowledge of atomic structure, there was no
alternative available, and the only variable available at that time was
the century, more precise experiments with
light, have shown that physical laws were invariant within any frame of
reference. However, without knowing that clock rates were changing due
to mass-energy conservation, it was assumed that time itself was
changing. At that time, there was then no possibility to see that
"Time" was not the correct concept represented by "t" in classical
mechanics. Einstein had to make new hypotheses while the same
correction (of clock rate) can be obtained without any hypotheses using
de Broglie description on the wavelength of particles. Einstein did not
have the correct tools (e.g. wavelength of matter) at his time to get
the realistic solution to that problem. It appears unsuitable that
Einstein defined "Time" as the observed "clock rate".
changing with energy, it is
abnormal to believe that real "time" is changing just because clocks
are changing their rate. Something must be wrong. It is more logical to
assume that the clock rate is changing because the phenomenon that is
responsible for the change of clock rate, is the same as the one that
changes the interaction between particles and bodies. More explanations are given in the
book: Einstein Theory of Relativity
versus Classical Mechanics.
Question - (1-L) (IMPORTANT)
an observer moves to a different frame, we have seen that the number of
proper units is different. Therefore, the physics seems to be the same
but expressed with different numbers. How can results of Newton's
equations REALLY BE PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT because of these
transformations of units! Give a typical example to illustrate that the
local observer will get a different realistic physical answer although
he uses the same Newton's physics all the time?
the simple transformation of physical quantities
from one system to another, followed by the inverse transformation
leads to the same original parameters and exactly the same physics.
Absolutely no physics is involved in the simple transformation of
units. This is just a mathematical transformation of physical
quantities. This can be illustrated in some examples. For example, let
us transform all the parameters (from a rest frame), to the proper
values of a body moving around a central force like the Sun. After
these parameters have been transformed, giving the proper values of the
system in motion, you can verify that the centrifugal force, still
equals the gravitational force (using now the moving frame units). This
particular physical relationship (mv2/r=Gmm'/r2)
is still valid in this moving frame after the transformation giving the
new proper values. However, this simple transformation (into the proper
units in motion) is quite insufficient to predict the exact shape of
the orbit. This is just a simple mathematical transformation of units
(into the moving frame units). The interesting point is elsewhere as we
will see now.
an orbiting mass around the Sun. In
physics, it is known that the gravitational field around the Sun
decreases exactly as the inverse square of the distance. This is
certainly correct. This quadratic decreases of the field ,
that the planetary orbits around
the Sun must have an elliptical shape, having axes in a fixed direction
in space. It is well known mathematically (see H. Goldstein, Classical
Physics, Addison Wesley, Reading Mass, second edition, page 123, 1980)
that when the force (and not the field )
the axis of the ellipse rotates slowly around the Sun. This is called;
a precession of the elliptical orbit around the Sun. It is well known
mathematically that an orbit with axes having a fixed direction in
space is possible only, when the change of force around
the central field varies as the inverse of a quadratic
the Sun, the "exactly quadratic" decreasing
a well-accepted physical fact. However, we have seen that due to the
principle of mass-energy conservation, the mass of an orbiting body is
different at different distances from the Sun. The mass of a physical
body, at the Earth distance, is different from the mass of the same
body at Mercury distance. Therefore, even if the field
around the Sun is quadratic, the force acting on a mass
is not quadratic.
observer orbiting the Sun at the Earth
distance. Then, he moves to half that distance. He finds that the Sun's
gravitational field is increased by exactly four times.
However, since the mass of the body has changed due to mass-energy
conservation, he will find that the gravitational forces acting
quite increased four times because the mass
has changed due to mass-energy conservation. Consequently, the force
on that body as a function of distance is not
quite quadratic. This is one of the phenomena that is responsible for
the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.
Furthermore, as explained in the book Einstein's Theory of Relativity
versus Classical Mechanics, not only the change of mass, but also the
change of proper values of "length" and "clock rate" adds a further
contribution to the advance of the perihelion of Mercury as
demonstrated in the paper: "A
Detailed Classical Description of the Advance of the Perihelion of
The change of the proper values of "length" and "clock rate" must also
be taken into account. Their physical representation is more subtle but
their contributions make a further increase to the advance of the
perihelion of Mercury.
parameters must use the variable "t" (or
"T") which can be called "local time". However, the variable which must
be put in Newton's equations is not "time". It is the local "clock
rate" that changes with the energy (where the clock is located).
exist any physical instrument being
able to measure "absolute time" in all frames, (not more than absolute
meter or absolute mass) because all clocks change their rate when they
are moved to a new frame. The absolute values must be found by
calculation. This is the way Nature is made. However, everything
quite logical (and compatible with common sense).
New Choice of Questions
Return to top of
previous series of questions
Return to list of
Return to list
space-16.html Updated Sept. 1999