Reimagining Reality: Consciousness, External Energy, and the Space-Time Quantum as the Foundation of Physics

We present a comprehensive discussion of the formulation of the kinematics of special relativity, i.e., the Lorentz transformation. We begin with a concise new proof that the principle of relativity implies that the transformation of event coordinates between inertial reference frames is linear. We then give a clear derivation of the pre-Lorentz transformation, which follows from the principle of relativity. We then show that the pre-Lorentz transformation and the inertial invariance of the speed of light together result in the Lorentz transformation. This, of course, is essentially the traditional formulation. We next present two additional formulations, one using Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction and one using time dilation, instead of inertial invariance. This is reasonable since Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction and time dilation are about as well established as and are arguably less abstract than inertial invariance, and thus may profitably be used instead of inertial invariance to complete the formulation. We then present a complete proof that the pre-Lorentz transformation and the requirement of closure upon composition together imply that the transformation is either a Galilean transformation or a generalized Lorentz transformation. This is noteworthy in that it gets ever so close to the Lorentz transformation without invoking light. In the course of this, we obtain a generalized velocity addition rule, which reduces to the velocity addition rule of special relativity. We next show that the generalized Lorentz transformation, together with inertial invariance, Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction, and time dilation, used one at a time, yields three more formulations. We then show that the unspecified, nonzero, constant speed in the generalized Lorentz transformation can be determined without any reference to light, thereby obtaining a seventh formulation. Light plays no explicit role in the four formulations employing Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction and time dilation and plays no role whatsoever in the seventh formulation. Thus, and this is a fact which should be strongly emphasized, the formulation of special relativity in no way depends upon the nature of electromagnetic radiation. We conclude by briefly discussing these seven formulations of the kinematics of special relativity and some associated implications.

This article reconsiders the double-slit experiment by establishing a new type of relationship between it and the concept of entanglement. While the role of entanglement in the double-slit experiment has been considered, this particular relationship appears to have been missed in preceding discussions of the experiment, even by Bohr, who extensively used it to support his argument concerning quantum physics. The main reason for this relationship is the different roles of the diaphragm with slits in two setups, S1 and S2, defining the double-slit experiment as a quantum experiment. In S1, in each individual run of the experiment one can in principle (even if not actually) know throughout which slit the quantum object considered has passed; in S2 this knowledge is in principle impossible, which impossibility is coextensive with the appearance of the interference pattern, once a sufficient number of individual runs of the experiment have taken place. The article offers the following argument based on two new concepts, an “experimentally quantum object” and an “ontologically quantum object.” In S1 the diaphragm can be treated as part of an observational arrangement and thus considered as a classical object, while the object passing through one or the other slit is considered as an “ontologically quantum object,” defined as an object necessary to establish a quantum phenomenon. By contrast, in S2, the diaphragm can, via the concept of Heisenberg-von-Neumann cut, be treated as an “experimentally quantum object,” defined as an object treatable by quantum theory, even while possibly being an ontologically classical object. This interaction is not an observation but a quantum entanglement between these two quantum objects, one ontologically and one experimentally quantum. This argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum theory, which belongs to the class of interpretations designated here as “reality without realism” (RWR) interpretations. The article also argues that wave-particle complementarity, with which the concept of complementarity is often associated, plays little, if any, role in quantum physics, or in Bohr’s thinking, and may be misleading in considering the double-slit experiment, often explained by using this complementarity.

Considering that an Einstein clock can travel at a speed no greater than c, from the principle of relativity, a kinematic time dilation factor can be derived whose value cannot be greater than <mml:math display="inline"> <mml:msqrt> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msqrt> </mml:math> . In fact, however, the kinematic time dilation factor γ can approach an infinite value. This discrepancy demonstrates that the derivation of the kinematic time dilation factor γ in Einstein's special relativity (SR) cannot be physically justified by the principle of relativity, and that it is not physically possible that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. The mathematical method of Einstein's SR, which I refer to as the “mathematical method of relativity,” allows the calculation of constant physical values from different quantities of any physical unit and is thus scientifically worthless. Accordingly, it is not surprising that it is possible to predict so-called general relativistic phenomena, e.g., the phenomena observed at the binary pulsar PSR B1913 + 16, just by applying Kepler's second law and simple quantum physical considerations [R. G. Ziefle, Phys. Essays 33, 99 (2020)]. A careful interpretation of interferometer experiments on Earth clearly shows that there is in fact no need for artificial time acceleration by length contraction. However, today's physicists seem to be lost in mathematics. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a physical theory of relativity that does not require mathematical tricks, such as time acceleration (length contraction), space-time curvature, and other mathematical tricks that follow from Einstein's mathematical methods and uphold the illusion that the belief in a constant speed of light c in any frame of reference is physically justified.

The Quantum Theory and Special Relativity stand apart because their authors were admittedly unclear about Wave-quantum Unity of light and light propagating medium. A single experiment shows wave-quantum unity for low intensity light and moving electrons. In our Unified Theory light is propagated as a Wave-Quantum UNITY along transverse electromagnetic wave as per Poyinting vector in the physical 'sharmon medium' contiguously via 1-spin sharmons, which do not physically move. It appears as Quantum Theory's wave-or-quantum DUALITY for observing only one of the two not both characters at a time. Sharmon comprises a positive positrino and negative negatrino, the two all-composing indivisible elements of diameter 1.6x1033cm, electric charge 1.3729x10-30 esu, mass 2.596116x10-48 gm, spin = 1/2. These compose all forms of mass, energy, energy quanta like photon and particles like quarks, leptons and hadrons. Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory is reviewed. Uncertainty Principle is rejected and replaced with new ‘Principle of Null Action’ based on the conservation of massenergy, momentum and action. Since spin of light-emitter does not fall and of absorber does not rise by one, NOT the 1-spin photon but 0-spin sharmon composed energy-quantum is emitted, absorbed and propagated. 'Contraction of space' and 'dilatation of time' are unrealistic. Constancy and invariance of light velocity c are explained, as also the observed variability, superluminality and subluminality which invalidate Relativity theories. Energized 1-spin sharmon replaces conventional photon and explains photoelectric effect and bending of light under gravity. Michelson-Morley got zero fringe-shift as light velocity in the sharmon medium entrained with earth is the same for the two perpendicular interfering beams. Non-Doppler cosmological redshift supports non-expanding universe.

This research investigates the advanced scientific concepts of space-time curvature, wormholes, and time dilation as fundamental natural principles described in the Quran centuries before their modern discovery. Surah Al-Kahf is particularly significant in this context, as it directly addresses wormholes, space-time curvature, and gravitational effects. To fully comprehend this, firstly we must understand what “Al-Kahf” truly represents in the Quran. This study explores the scientific properties of Al-Kahf and its relation to relativity, gravitational lensing, and space-time warping, etc.While modern science views Spacetime Curvature, wormholes and time dilation etc., as extraordinary phenomena, The Quran presents them as fundamental aspects of the universe, and are also utilized in divine operations—just as it describes the water cycle, planetary motion, and celestial mechanics etc. These principles are not isolated mentions but are woven throughout the Quran, highlighting the Quran’s deep engagement with the fabric of space-time.Among the key Quranic verses that encapsulate this concept, Surah Al-Kahf 18:17 [7] stands as the most crucial, as it directly defines and completes the key properties of Al-Kahf by describing the Spacetime Curvature, bending of light and gravitational lensing effects etc., in a most fascinating and unbelievable way, without any illogical interpretation but direct meaning of verses, from existing translations like Sahih International etc. and we have just converted it into a visual diagram/figure. While an understanding of Al-Kahf as a space-time phenomenon is possible from other Quranic descriptions, verse 18:17 serves as the “ULTIMATE KEY” to establish this concept with certainty. If one fully comprehends Quran 18:17, with Quran 18:25,29 etc. then the true nature of Al-Kahf becomes undeniably clear—revealing its nature of space-time curvature, time dilation, and gravitational lensing etc. This verse is 18:17 not only foundational but also the pinnacle of understanding, ensuring that any doubts regarding Al-Kahf’s relation to relativity and space-time distortions are completely resolved.Furthermore, once one will understand what “Al Kahf” truly represents, it will unlock a deeper understanding of entire (CHAPTER) “Surah Al-Kahf” which can ultimately help us to understand & reveal the secrets of the universe deeply including wormholes, space-time curvature, and gravitational effects, as Al-Kahf is treasure of these things. It is a complete dedicated chapter about wormholes, space-time curvature, and gravitational effects etc. Without grasping the concept of Al-Kahf from the initial part of the chapter, the rest of Surah Al-Kahf cannot be fully comprehended. This foundational understanding is not just limited to this chapter—it extends to the entire Quran, where relativity, time dilation, gravitational lensing, and space-time curvature/Anomalies are referenced in various verses. When we will establish Al-Kahf as a space-time concept, it will illuminate the meaning of other parts of Surah Al-Kahf and numerous other Quranic verses that describes these cosmic principles throughout the Quranic text.By integrating Quranic insights with General Relativity and modern astrophysics, this paper challenges conventional narratives of scientific history, advocating for a reassessment of the Quran’s contributions to humanity’s understanding of space-time and relativity. This interdisciplinary approach highlights that the Quran contains detailed direct descriptions of these cosmic phenomenon (wormholes, space-time curvature, space-time distortions and gravitational effects etc.) that align with cutting-edge physics, reinforcing the need for a historical reevaluation of scientific knowledge.

Special relativity is based on the principles of relativity and constancy of the speed of light. The apparent contradiction between these two postulates was resolved by Einstein with his realization that simultaneity, hence the measurement of time, is coordinate-dependent. This new kinematics immediately leads to the derivation of the Lorentz transformation. Physical consequences follow immediately. A moving clock appears to run slow (“time dilation”); a moving object appears to contract (“length contraction”). The electromagnetic fields also transform into each other when observed in different frames. Just as light speed is absolute in relativity c′=c, so is a particular combination of space and time in an invariant interval: s′=s, where s2≡x2+y2+z2−c2t2. Two counterintuitive puzzles (the twin paradox and the barn-and-pole paradox) are presented to shed light on time dilation, length contraction, reciprocity of relativity, and relativity of event order.

Although the importance of clock synchronization for relativity is discussed from time to time in the educational literature, the fact that different synchronization conventions imply different coordinizations of spacetime with ensuing changes of the form of possibly all coordinate-dependent quantities, has neither entered textbooks nor undergraduate physics education. As a consequence, there is a widespread belief among students that the familiar form of coordinate-dependent quantities like the measured velocity of light, the Lorentz transformation between two observers, 'addition of velocities', 'time dilation', 'length contraction', 'E=mc2 gamma ', which they assume under the standard clock synchronization, is relatively proper. In order to demonstrate that this is by no means so, the paper studies the consequences of a non-standard synchronization, and it is shown that drastic changes in the appearance of all these quantities are thus induced. For example, the phrases 'moving clocks go slow', and 'simultaneity is relative', which are usually considered as intrinsic features of relativity, turn out to be no longer true, whereas all coordinate-independent quantities remain of course indifferent to such a change in coordinization. Although Einstein's standard convention of clock synchronization enjoys distinct advantages over the 'everyday' method, the message clearly conveyed is that in the teaching of elementary relativity much more stress should be laid on the intrinsic (coordinate-independent) features of spacetime.

Background Tests of special relativity have been conducted over the past century with increasing accuracy and none have showed violations of Lorentz invariance. In this paper we will examine whether these tests are together sufficient to rule out theories that violate observational symmetry. Methods A variant theory is outlined where relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation are purely local consequences of the relative velocity between a system and its medium. The outlined theory is tested against the fundamental tests of special relativity. Results It is found that although this alteration does not align with the principle of relativity, it quantitatively aligns with the experimental results of the fundamental tests of special relativity and their modern variations, and makes diverging, testable but as of yet untested predictions concerning Doppler shift and time dilation. Conclusions These results warrant a closer theoretical inspection of the outlined theory, and could provide a direction to test for new physics. A modified Ives-Stilwell experiment is proposed to test between this model and special relativity.

The exact analytical values of the position and momentum information entropies are calculated for the single-slit and double-slit diffraction experiments. In both cases, the product of the exponentials of the entropies is strictly greater than the lower bound $\ensuremath{\pi}e\ensuremath{\Elzxh}$ given by the optimal entropic uncertainty relation for position and momentum, which implies that the single-slit and double-slit configurations are not minimum-uncertainty states. The results obtained show that the position-momentum entropic uncertainty relation provides a rigorous quantitative expression for the uncertainty principle in these experiments, unlike the Heisenberg inequality for standard deviations. However, it is also shown that, in the double-slit experiment, wave-particle duality cannot be derived from the entropic uncertainty relation.

We would like to solve the following problem: find a mathematicalmodel formulating I) quantum entanglement, II) particle-waveduality, III) universal objects (ur-sub-Planck objects): to bedefined in terms of direct or inverse limits (defined by universalmapping properties) giving microcosm behaviors of space-time so asto give the smooth macrocosm space-time, and IV) the “curved”space-time associated with particles with mass in microcosmconsistent with the notion of a light cone in macrocosm.Problems I) and II) are treated in Kato G.,Europhys. Lett., 68 (2004) 467. In this paper, we willfocus on III) and IV). As a candidate for such a model, we haveintroduced the category of presheaves over a site called at-topos. During the last several years, the methods ofcategory and sheaf theoretic approaches have been activelyemployed for the foundations of quantum physics and for quantumgravity. Particles, time, and space are presheafified in thefollowing sense: a fundamental entity is a triple(m,κ,τ) of presheaves so that for an object V in at-site, a local datum (m(V),κ(V),τ(V)) mayprovide a local state of the particlem = m(V), i.e., the localization ofpresheaf m at V, in the neighborhood (κ(V),τ(V)) ofm. By presheafifying matter, space, and time,t-topos can provide sheaf-theoretic descriptions ofur-entanglement and ur-particle and ur-wavestates formulating the EPR-type non-localityand the duality in a double-slit experiment. Recall thatpresheaves m and m′ are said to be ur-entangled whenm and m′ behave as one presheaf. Also recall: a presheaf mis said to be in particle ur-state (or waveur-state) when the presheaf m is evaluated as m(V) at aspecified object V in the t-site (or when an object in thet-site is not specified). For more comments and the precisedefinitions of ur-entanglement and particle and wave ur-states,see the above-mentioned paper. The applications to a double-slitexperiment and the EPR-type non-locality are described in detailin the forthcoming papers Kato G. and Tanaka T.,Double slit experiment and t-topos,submitted to Found. Phys. andKafatos M., Kato G., Roy S. and Tanaka T.,The EPR-type non-locality and t-topos, to be submitted to Int. J. Pure Appl. Math., respectively. By the notion of decompositions of apresheaf and of an object of the t-site, ur-sub-Planckobjects are defined as direct and inverselimits, respectively, in Definitions 2.1and 2.4in what will follow.

This compact yet informative Guide presents an accessible route through Special Relativity, taking a modern axiomatic and geometrical approach. It begins by explaining key concepts and introducing Einstein's postulates. The consequences of the postulates – length contraction and time dilation – are unravelled qualitatively and then quantitatively. These strands are then tied together using the mathematical framework of the Lorentz transformation, before applying these ideas to kinematics and dynamics. This volume demonstrates the essential simplicity of the core ideas of Special Relativity, while acknowledging the challenges of developing new intuitions and dealing with the apparent paradoxes that arise. A valuable supplementary resource for intermediate undergraduates, as well as independent learners with some technical background, the Guide includes numerous exercises with hints and notes provided online. It lays the foundations for further study in General Relativity, which is introduced briefly in an appendix.

We review how the kinematic structures of special relativity and quantum mechanics both stem from the relativity principle, i.e., "no preferred reference frame" (NPRF). Essentially, NPRF applied to the measurement of the speed of light c gives the light postulate and leads to the geometry of Minkowski space, while NPRF applied to the measurement of Planck's constant h gives "average-only" projection and leads to the denumerable-dimensional Hilbert space of quantum mechanics. These kinematic structures contain the counterintuitive aspects ("mysteries") of time dilation, length contraction, and quantum entanglement. In this essay, we extend the application of NPRF to the gravitational constant G and show that it leads to the "mystery" of the contextuality of mass in general relativity. Thus, we see an underlying coherence and integrity in modern physics via its "mysteries" and the fundamental constants c, h, and G. It is well known that Minkowski and Einstein were greatly influenced by David Hilbert in their development of special relativity and general relativity, respectively, but relating those theories to quantum mechanics via its non-Boolean Hilbert space kinematics is perhaps surprising. Quanta 2022; 11: 5–14.

Recent advances in the theory of electromagnetic retardation have made it possible to derive the basic equations of the special relativity theory and to duplicate the most important practical results of this theory without using the concepts of relativistic length contraction and time dilation. Thus the reality of these concepts appears to be questionable. It is imperative therefore to reexamine the experimental evidence supporting these concepts. The calculations presented in this paper show that some of the experiments allegedly proving the reality of length contraction and time dilation can be unambiguously interpreted as manifestations of velocity-dependent dynamical interactions taking place within the systems involved in the experiments rather than as manifestations of length contraction or time dilation.

Tam Hunt, UC Santa Barbara, tam.hunt@psych.ucsb.eduThe Lorentz transformations form the mathematical core of the 1905 theory of Special Relativity as well as the earlier version of relativity created by Lorentz himself, originally in 1895 but developed further in the ensuing years. These two theories interpret the physical significance of the transformations quite differently, but in ways that are generally not considered to be empirically distinguishable. It is widely believed today that Einstein’s Special Relativity presents the superior interpretation. A number of lines of evidence, however, from cosmology, quantum theory and nuclear physics present substantial evidence against the Special Relativity interpretation of the Lorentz transformations, challenging this traditional view. I review this evidence and suggest that we are now at a point where the sum of the evidence weighs against the Special Relativity interpretation of the transformations and in favor of a Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian approach instead.1. IntroductionI’m sitting in a public square in Athens, Greece, biding my time as I write these words. The battery on my phone ran out as I was trying to navigate to my lodgings on my first night in this historic city, forcing me to stop and charge my phone for a little while. I’m waiting for the passage of time.The nature of time has been debated vigorously since at least the age of Heraclitus and Parmenides in ancient Greece. “All things flow,” said Heraclitus. “Nothing flows,” said Parmenides as a counter-intuitive rejoinder, suggesting that all appearances of change are an illusion. How could Parmenides make the case that nothing flows, nothing changes? It would seem, from easy inspection of the world around us that indeed all things do flow, all things are always changing. So what was Parmenides talking about?Parmenides’ arguments illustrate well the rationalist approach that Plato was later to more famously advocate, against the empiricist or “sensationist” approach that Heraclitus and Aristotle too would champion as a contrary approach. Parmenides and Plato saw reason as the path toward truth and they were not afraid to allow reason to contradict what seemed to be obvious sensory-based features of the world. Apparent empirical/sensory facts can deceive and, for these men, Parmenides, Plato and their followers, reason alone was the arbiter of truth. Wisdom entailed using reason to see through the world’s illusions to the deeper reality.Heraclitus and Aristotle, to the contrary, stressed the need to be empirical in our science and philosophy (science and philosophy were the same endeavor in the era of classical Greece). Reason was of course a major tool in the philosopher’s toolbox for these men too, but it seems that reason unmoored from evidence should not be used to trump the obvious facts of the world. The Aristotelian approach is to find a pragmatic balance between empirical facts and reason in attempting to discern the true contours of reality.Einstein was firmly in the camp of Parmenides and Plato (Popper, et al. 1998). He famously considered the passage of time, the distinction between past, present and future, to be a “stubbornly persistent illusion.” This view of time, as an illusory construct hiding a deeper timeless world, was based on his theories of relativity. Einstein and his co-thinkers held this view, of time as illusory, despite the obvious passage of time in the world around us, no matter where we look. The widely-held view today is that Einstein finally won the long war, decisively, between Heraclitus and Parmenides. Despite appearances, nothing flows and the passage of time is just that: only appearance.I suggest in this paper, however, that this conclusion is premature. Einstein’s thinking is indeed an example of rationalism trumping empiricism and it is time for us to take a more empirical approach to these foundational questions of physics and philosophy. Today’s physics lauds empiricism rhetorically, but in practice a rationalist approach often holds sway, particularly with respect to the nature of time.2. An overview of Special Relativity and Lorentzian RelativityIn discussing the nature of time with respect to modern physics, I will focus on the Special Theory of Relativity (SR) and avoid discussion of the general theory. Einstein’s 1905 theory of relativity adopted the Lorentz transformations directly, unchanged from Lorentz’s own version of these equations (Einstein 1905, Lorentz 1895 and 1904, in Lorentz 1937). Einstein’s key difference from Lorentz’s version of relativity (first put forth in 1895, but developed further in later work) was to reinterpret Lorentz’s equations, based on a radically different assumption about the nature of physical reality. Lorentz interpreted the relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation—which follow straightforwardly from the Lorentz transformations—as resulting from interaction with an ether that constituted simply the properties of space (Lorentz’s ether was not some additional substance that pervades space, as was the case in some earlier ideas of the ether). Einstein, to the contrary, interpreted these effects as resulting from the dynamics of spacetime, a union of space and time into a single notion, and dismissed the ether as “superfluous.”Because Lorentz’s and Einstein’s versions of relativity both use the Lorentz transformations, they will yield in many cases the same empirical predictions. The prevailing view today, then, is that while these two theories are empirically indistinguishable there are other considerations, relating to parsimony primarily, that render special relativity the preferred approach. I discuss below, however, why we now have good empirical reasons to distinguish between these two interpretations—in favor of the Lorentzian approach.Length contraction and time dilation occur as a result of the assumed absolute speed of light because either space or time, or both, must distort if we consider the speed of light to be invariant. This is because speed is measured simply by dividing distance traveled by the time elapsed; and if the speed of light remains the same in all circumstances then space and/or time must distort in order to maintain this invariance. As an object travels closer and closer to the speed of light, its length must decrease (length contraction) and/or the time elapsed must increase (time dilation) – but only from the perspective of an observer in a different inertial frame. In the original inertial frame there is no length contraction or time dilation.“Moving clocks run slow” is a good shorthand for relativistic time dilation, but again only from the perspective of a different inertial frame. Time moves at the same rate for an observer in the moving frame of reference, no matter what one’s speed in relation to other frames. Relativistic effects only occur when considering the relationship between two different frames of reference, not in the same frame.

BackgroundTests of special relativity have been conducted over the past century with increasing accuracy and none have showed violations of Lorentz invariance. In this paper we will examine whether these tests are together sufficient to rule out theories that violate observational symmetry.MethodsA variant theory is outlined where relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation are purely local consequences of the relative velocity between a system and its medium. The outlined theory is tested against the fundamental tests of special relativity.ResultsIt is found that although this alteration does not align with the principle of relativity, it quantitatively aligns with the experimental results of the fundamental tests of special relativity and their modern variations, and makes diverging, testable but as of yet untested predictions concerning Doppler shift and time dilation.ConclusionsThese results warrant a closer theoretical inspection of the outlined theory, and could provide a direction to test for new physics. A modified Ives-Stilwell experiment is proposed to test between this model and special relativity.