<<

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 128 ISSN 2229-5518

Time Contraction: The Possibility of Faster Than without Violation of or Causality and the Dependent Azzam AlMosallami

Abstract— Faster than light is impossible according to the theory of Einstein SRT. In this paper I’ll propose a new concept in called “time contraction”. This concept will solve many problems in physics related to faster than light without violation Lorentz transformation or causality. According to this concept, it is possible measuring the speed of an electromagnetic wave or a particle which owns rest greater than zero to be faster than the in vacuum without violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. Time contraction is proposed by a new understanding to the Lorentz transformation equations depending on the concepts of theory (Copenhagen School). It is a new formulation to the and the and the speed of light which are vacuum energy dependent. By this new formulation, I could rescue the special relativity from the , , Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. Furthermore, I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —, Hartman effect— with the SRT in this paper.

Index Terms— Special relativity, Lorentz transformation equations, faster than light, . Pioneer anomaly.

——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION Y paper (The modified special relativity theory MSRT) vacuum as being filled with pairs of virtual particles with M [23] is considered as a new understanding to Lorentz fluctuating energy values. As a result, the inherent transformation equations depending on the concepts of characteristics of vacuum, like the speed of light, may not be a quantum theory (Copenhagen School). It is a new formulation constant after all, but fluctuate [38]. Meanwhile, in another to the time dilation, length contraction and the speed of light study, Gerd Leuchs and Luis L. Sánchez-Soto, from the Max which are vacuum energy dependent. What I proposed in my Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany, paper is agreed and interpreting the experimental results of suggest that physical constants, such as the speed of light and quantum tunneling (Gunter Nimtz experiments) and quantum the so-called impedance of free , are indications of the entanglement. Recently, thereIJSER are some voices in physics total number of elementary particles in nature [39]. Also, two asking for the variability of the speed of light, one of them the separate research groups, one of which is from MIT, have Portuguese cosmologist and professor in Theoretical Physics presented evidence that wormholes — tunnels that may allow at Imperial College London João Magueijo. In 1998, Magueijo us to travel through time and space — are “powered” by teamed with Andreas Albrecht to on the varying speed . Furthermore, one of the research of light (VSL) theory of cosmology, which proposes that the groups also postulates the reverse — that quantum entangled speed of light was much higher in the early , of 60 particles are connected by miniature wormholes. These ideas orders of magnitude faster than its value. This would are agreed and predicted in my paper [40,41]. explain the horizon problem (since distant regions of the expanding universe would have had time to interact and The dependency of the speed of light on the vacuum energy is homogenize their properties), and is presented as an adopted in my paper, which is the lost key of unifying alternative to the more mainstream theory of cosmic between quantum theory and relativity (special and general). [37]. My paper reconciles and interprets the variability of the speed of light in SRT which is vacuum energy dependent. Also recently, two published papers in European Physical 2 The Theory Journal D challenge established wisdom about the nature of vacuum. In one paper, Marcel Urban from the University of In my Modified Special relativity (MSRT)[23], I found, when Paris-Sud, located in Orsay, France and his colleagues the train is moving with constant speed V, its vacuum energy identified a quantum level mechanism for interpreting is increased compared to the vacuum energy of the earth surface. And when the light beam is passing through the ———————————————— vacuum of the train, it is equivalent to passing through a • Azzam AlMosallami is currently The Director of the Science Center for medium of refractive index greater than 1. In this case I Studies and Research, Switzerland, PH-+41791206234 Email: [email protected] proposed in my MSRT, the time required for the light beam to pass the length of the moving train for the earth observer is independent of the direction of the velocity of the train

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 129 ISSN 2229-5518 compared to the direction of transmitting the light beam 1 (Robertson [33]). Thus, if the light beam is sent inside the of . Thus, (4) indicates us also if the stationary earth v2 moving train from the end to the front –at the direction of the 1− velocity- in this case for the earth observer according to his c2 clock the required time separation for the light beam to pass observer registered by his clock a time separation for an event the length of the moving train is ∆t where occurred inside the stationary train to be ∆=∆ tt 0 , then if

L this train is moving with constant speed v , then the earth t =∆ (1) 22 − vc observer will register by his clock a time separation ∆t for the Also if the light beam is sent from the front of the moving same event to be occurred inside the moving train, where train to the end at the opposite direction of the direction of the ∆t t =∆ 0 . Thus events are occurring inside the moving velocity of the train, then the measured time separation for the 2 light beam to pass the length of the moving train for the earth v 1− 2 observer according to his earth clock is also given according to c (1). From (1), the measured speed of light inside the moving train in a slower rate than if the train was stationary for the train for the stationary earth observer according to his earth stationary earth observer according to his earth clock clock is c' where according to (4). Now suppose both the earth observer and the rider of the ' −= vcc 22 (2) moving train are agreed to perform this thought experiment. The rider of the moving train sent a ray of light along his Where c' does not depend on the direction of transmitting moving train length, and both the earth observer and the rider the light beam compared to the direction of the velocity of the will measure the time required for the light beam to pass the train. It depends only on the absolute value of the velocity of length of the moving train, each one uses his clock. According the train. This proposed solution - the independency of the to the MSRT [23], both the earth observer and the rider of the measured speed of light inside the moving frame with the moving train will be agreed at the moment of transmitting the direction of the velocity of the moving frame – explains the ray of light from the end of the moving train and then they negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment [34] as we will be agreed at the moment of reaching the ray of light at the shall see later. front of the moving train. We have seen previously, relative to In my MSRT I proposed also, the length of the moving train the earth observer the direction of transmitting the light beam L is the same if the train was stationary for the stationary is independent on the direction of the velocity of the moving earth observer, where I refute the length contraction in the train. Also, both of them will be agreed at the measured length IJSERof the moving train to be L . Thus for the earth observer the special relativity of Einstein that the length of the moving frame will be contracted in the direction of the velocity for the time separation of this event according to his clock is given earth observer. From that we get, when the train is stationary, according to (4). Where, the earth observer will measure a and a light beam is sent along its length, we get time separation for the light beam to pass the length of the moving train to be greater than if the train is stationary. Now (3) for the rider of the moving train, since the motion of his clock ∆= tcL 0 inside the moving train is considered as events occurring inside the train, thus its motion will be slower when the train Where c is the light speed in vacuum, and ∆t0 is the time is moving than when it is at rest. And, since both the rider of required for the light beam to pass the length of the stationary the moving train and the stationary earth observer are agreed train for the stationary earth observer according to his clock. at the measured length of the moving train to be L, and also Now, if we substitute the value of L in (3) to (1), we get they are agreed at starting of transmitting the light beam from

∆tc 0 ∆t0 the end of the train and then agreed at the moment of reaching t =∆ = (4) the light beam to the front of the moving train. Thus, by these 22 2 − vc v conditions, when the stationary earth observer computed the 1− 2 c time ∆t for the light beam to pass the length of the moving Equation (4) indicates us that, for the stationary earth train L, at this moment the rider of the moving train will observer according to his earth clock, the time separation measure the time separation ∆t' according to his clock, where required for the light beam to pass the length of the moving v2 train is greater than if the train is stationary by the factor t 1' 2 ∆−=∆ t c And from (4) we get

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 130 ISSN 2229-5518

∆t0 by our clock for the light beam to pass the length of the (5) ' ∆=∆ tt 0 tube, then when the tube is full of water we shall measure the

Thus, (5) indicates us, the rider of the moving train will time separation ∆t where measure a time separation for the light beam to pass his moving train length to be the same time separation if the train ∆=∆ tnt 0 (7) at rest. From that the measured speed of light inside the moving train for the rider according to his clock is equal to the Where n is the refractive index of water. According to speed of light in vacuum, same as the stationary earth postulate (*) and (4), we get an equivalence when the light beam observer when he measures the speed of light on the earth is passing through the moving train or passing through a medium surface; he will get it equals to the speed of light in vacuum. of refractive index n. Suppose we have a meter stick of length From that we get the main principle of the modified special ∆x0 in free space. If we put this meter stick inside the tube of relativity which illustrates the consistency of the speed of light water, we shall see the length of this meter stick is longer than in locally. the free space, by the factor of n, the refractive index of water, * The speed of light is locally constant and equals to the where speed of light in vacuum c for any inertial .

∆=∆ xnx (8) From (5), we can write (4) as 0 ∆t' t =∆ (6) Where ∆x is the length of the meter stick inside the water for 2 v an observer in free space. 1− c2 Thus from our , and from (8), if we

determined two points of length separation ∆x0 inside the train

Equation (6) represents the equation of time dilation in when it is stationary, then, when the train is moving with constant Einstein’s SRT. velocity v, the measured length of ∆x0 for the stationary earth observer will be ∆x given according to (8) as 3 THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS AND THE MSRT ∆x x =∆ 0 (9) How can we understand the Lorentz transformation equations v2 according to the MSRT in order to keep the laws of physics are 1− IJSERc2 the same for all inertial frames of reference? We have seen in the previous section, when the light beam is passing through the moving train, then the time separation for For the rider of the moving train the measured space time passing the light beam the length of the moving train is lengths inside his moving train will be equal as it is stationary, independent on the direction of transmitting the light beam where from (5) we have ' ∆=∆ tt 0 , and thus we get also compared to the direction of the velocity of the moving train (Robertson [33]). ' ∆=∆ xx (10) Both the stationary earth observer and the rider of the moving 0 train are agreed at the length of the moving train to be L, same as if the train is stationary. Also, both the stationary earth observer Thus from (10), we can write (9) as and the rider of the moving train are agreed at the moment of transmitting the light beam from the back of the moving train and ∆x' x =∆ (11) also will be agreed at reaching the light beam at the front of the v2 train, and vice versa if the light beam sent from the front to the 1− 2 end of the moving train. c From these postulates we derived (6) which represents the equation of Einstein of the time dilation in the SRT. Equations (6) and (11) represent the measured space-time inside the moving train comparing to the measured space-time Now suppose we have a tube full of water of length L. we have locally on the earth surface for the earth observer. For a free seen in optics, when a light beam is incident inside this tube, then particle moving on the earth surface, the particle is defined by the the time separation for the light beam to pass the length of the space-time length of ∆x and ∆t for the earth observer. But tube is greater than if the tube is empty according to our lab when this particle is incident inside the moving train, it will be clock. If the tube is empty and we measured the time separation defined locally by the space-time length of ∆x'and ∆t' of the IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 131 ISSN 2229-5518 stationary rider of the moving train. In this case ∆x is related to the speed of light in vacuum. Equation (14) represents another ∆x'by (11), and ∆t is related to ∆t' by (6). Now suppose a interpretation why the light beam is taking longer time separation light beam is incident inside the moving train. According to the when it is passing though a medium of refractive index greater than 1. According to the meter stick located outside along the two points separated by a distance ∆x' inside the moving train, length of the tube, the light speed will be decreased, and because for the rider of the moving train, the measured speed of light will of that it takes longer time separation according to our clocks. be given as But according to the meter stick inside the medium, the light

speed is the same light speed in vacuum, because the distance is ∆x' ∆x c'= = 0 = c (12) longer inside the medium of refractive index greater than 1 ∆t' ∆t0 according to (8), so it takes longer time separation according to our clocks. Einstein in his special relativity adopted the second interpretation, the consistency of the speed of light and then the ∆t' is the time separation of the event for the rider according difference of measuring the time and space by the two observers to his clock. Thus the rider will measure the light speed inside his who are moving in a relative velocity. But, what we have moving train to be the light speed in vacuum. discovered in our MSRT that the two interpretations are For the stationary earth observer, within the same two points equivalent to each others as we shall see in the following. inside the moving train separated by a distance ∆x'for the rider of the moving train, the measured speed of light will be given as In order to understand how my theory works, let’s start studying the thought experiment which was adopted by v2 Einstein’s SRT which illustrating his interpretation of the Lorentz transformation and the simultaneity. Suppose both 2 ∆− x'1 ∆x c ∆x0 c '' = = = = c (13) the earth observer and the observer of the moving train will 2 perform this thought experiment. As in fig. 1, at pylon A the ∆t v ∆t0 2 ∆− t'1 train started to move with constant speed v, and at this c moment the observer stationary on the moving train sent a ray of light from back to front the train, and also at this time the Equation (13) indicates us; the measured speed of light inside observer on the ground sent a ray of light from pylon A to the moving train for the earth observer will be equal to the speed pylon B. The two rays of light are sent along the direction of of light in vacuum also! At the first time the reader will think the velocity of the train. (13) is contradicted with (2), but there is no contradiction. Since Relative to the observer stationary on the moving train, the (2) is predicting the light speed by measuring the time separation distance between the back and the front is fixed, where the for the light beam to pass the length of the moving train length of his moving train is the same length as if the train is according to the clock of theIJSER stationary earth observer. And since stationary. For the observer on the ground, while he sees the the length of the train is determined locally by the space on the ray of light moves toward the front of the moving train, he earth surface and this length of the train is not changed if the train will see also at the same time the front of the moving train is is moving or stationary. This is equivalent to the tube of length L going far from the light beam, that is because the train moves with constant speed v at the same direction of the light beam. full of water. Suppose the length of the tube is 1 meter. Now if In this case and according to the concept of the classical we have two meter sticks of length 1 meter. Now if we put one relativity, the observer stationary on the train will see the light meter stick inside, along the water tube length and we put the beam arrives the front of his moving train before the observer other outside along the length of the tube. What shall we stationary on the ground. Let’s propose this condition- observe? We shall observe the meter stick inside the water will according to the classical relativity- if at the moment that the be appeared to be longer than the meter stick outside. And since observer stationary on the moving train sees the light beam the meter stick outside will give us the length of the tube locally. reaches to the front of the train, at this moment the train The meter stick inside will give us the length of the tube arrives to the second pylon B on the ground. According to the according to the space inside the tube. Thus, by using (7)&(8) to concept of the objective existence of the phenomenon of the determine the speed of light according to the space-time inside classical physics, both the observer on the ground and the the water tube, we get observer stationary on the moving train will see the train arrives pylon B, but according to the classical relativity, the observer stationary on the moving train will see the light beam ∆x ∆xn 0 c '' = = = c (14) arrives to the front of his train and also at this time the front of ∆t ∆tn 0 his train arrives to pylon B. But at this moment for the observer stationary on the ground, he sees the train arrives to Equation (14) represents the measured speed of light inside the pylon B, but the light beam is still approaching to pylon B. water tube according to the space-time coordinates inside the tube which is related to our coordinates according to (7)&(8). The negative result of the Michelson-Morely experiment [43] Where, according to (14), the measured speed of light is equal to illustrated the speed of the light beam will not be affected by IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 132 ISSN 2229-5518 the relative velocity and thus both the observer stationary on where the observer stationary on the moving train will the ground and the observer stationary on the moving train measure the distance between the two pylons to be contracted. must see the light beam arrives the front of the moving train and the front must arrive to pylon B at the same moment According to Einstein interpretation to the Lorentz according to the concepts of the classical physics at that time. transformation in his SRT, it is impossible measuring a particle And thus in order to solve the negative result of the or electromagnetic waves to move faster than light. Where, Michelson-Morely experiment FitzGerald [43-45] Proposed that leading to violation the Lorentz invariance and causality. the concept of the length contraction in the direction of the In this paper I’ll introduce a new interpretation to the Lorentz velocity, where according to this concept the length of the transformation depending on a new understanding to the moving train must be contracted along the direction of the Lorentz transformation equations. And this interpretation is moving train relative to the observer on the ground, and thus leading to the possibility of measuring faster than light according to this concept both the observer on the ground and without violation of the Lorentz invariant or causality and at the observer on the moving train will see the light beam the same time keeping on the constancy of the speed of light to arrives the front of the train, and also the front of the moving be c the speed of light in vacuum locally. train arrives pylon B. After that, Lorentz [46-48] proposed his transformation in order to keep on the constancy of the speed In our new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation of light and then the invariance of Maxwell’s equations and equations in the previous thought experiment, we propose the laws of physics. Einstein interpreted the Lorentz that at the moment that the observer on the ground sees the transformation equations according to the concept of the front of the moving train arrives to pylon B, he sees the light relative velocity and the simultaneity by his special relativity beam that sent from the back does not arrive to the front of the SRT. According to the SRT of Einstein, both the observer on train as in point (h) in fig. 1, where if the train length is L, then ground and the observer on the moving train see the light the observer on the ground sees the light beam that sent from beam arrives to the front of the moving train and the front of the back is still at distance L’ where the train arrives to pylon (B) as well, but in a different time v2 separation and space separation. Where according to the −= from the back or the light beam is still at L 1' 2 L c 2 reciprocity principle of the SRT of Einstein and under the v postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, he defined the distance ∆ from pylon A where ∆−=∆ . At this x' x 1' 2 x Lorentz contraction, where the measured length of the moving c train for the observer on the ground is L’ where moment also, when the observer on the ground sees the front v2 of the train arrives pylon B, he sees the light beam which sent −= , where L is the of the moving from pylon A reaches to pylon B. Where, relative to the L 1' 2 L c observer on the ground the light beam which sent from the train for the observer stationary on the moving train, where L back of the moving train requires more time separation than is equal to the length of theIJSER train if it was stationary. Thus the light beam which sent from pylon A in order to reach the from that and according to the SRT of Einstein’s interpretation front of the moving train, and at this time separation during of the Lorentz contraction, both the observer on the ground the motion, the train would pass a distance more than the and the observer on the moving train will agree that the light distance between the two pylons, where if the distance beam arrives to the front of the train and also the front of the between the two pylons ∆x , then when the observer sees the train arrives to pylon B. Now, relative to the light beam that light beam which sent from the back of the train reaches to the was sent from pylon A, according to the classical relativity, front of the train, then the front of the moving train must pass for the observer stationary on the moving train, pylon A is pylon B, and the front of the moving train is at distance ∆x' moving with velocity –v relative to him, and thus the light ∆x beam is going far from the front of his train. Thus, at the from pylon A where x ' =∆ . From this principle we moment that the stationary observer on the train sees the front lead to eqs 1&2. v2 1− of his train arrives at pylon B, he will see the light beam that c2 was sent from pylon A is not arrived to pylon B according to classical relativity. According to classical relativity the Now relative to the observer stationary on the moving train, at observer stationary on the moving train will see the light beam the moment that the stationary observer on the ground sees is still approaching to pylon B, while at this moment, the the front of the moving train arrives pylon B, at this moment, observer on the ground sees the light beam which was sent the observer stationary on the moving train sees his train front from pylon A is arrived to pylon B, and he agrees also with the does not arrive to pylon B, but it is still approaching to it. observer stationary on the moving train that the front of the Where at this moment if the distance between the two pylons train arrives to pylon B. According to Einstein’s SRT is ∆x for the observer stationary on the ground, at this interpretation of the Lorentz contraction, both the observer on moment the observer stationary on the moving train will see the ground and the observer stationary on the moving train the front of the train is at distance ∆x' where will agree that the light beam which was sent from A reaches v2 to pylon B but they will be different in the time separation of ∆−=∆ from pylon A, and this distance was passed x 1' 2 x the event and the space separation between the two pylons, c IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 133 ISSN 2229-5518

in a time separation ∆t' according to his clock stationary on v2 According to the MSRT, at the moment that the stationary the moving train, where ∆−=∆ , where ∆ is the observer on the ground sees the front of the train arrives pylon t 1' 2 t t c B, he sees the light beam which sent from pylon A arrives measured time separation for the event when the train front pylon B at point f , and at this moment he sees also the light arrives to pylon B for the observer on the ground according to beam which sent from the back of the moving train does not his clock. Also at this moment the observer on the moving arrive to the front, it is at distance ∆x' from pylon A at point train sees the light beam which was sent from back is still h. At this moment also the observer stationary on the moving approaching to the front of his train, where if the length of the train sees the light beam is still approaching to the front of the train is L, then he sees the light beam is at a distance L’ from train as in point (i) where, the light beam is at a distance v2 ∆x '' from pylon A, and the front of the train does not arrive the back, where −= (point (i) in fig. 1), and thus, pylon B, where the front is still at distance ∆ from pylon A. L 1' 2 L x' c The dotted picture of the train illustrates the location of the the light beam is still at a distance ∆x '' from pylon A as in fig. train from pylon B for the observer on the train at the moment (1). Relative to the light beam that was sent from pylon A, for the observer on the ground sees the front of the moving train the observer stationary on the moving train, at the moment arrives pylon B. At this moment also, the observer on the train that the observer on the ground sees the light beam arrives to sees the light which was sent from pylon A is at point (g) at pylon B at point (f). At this moment the observer stationary on distance ∆x '' from pylon A, at the moment the observer on the the moving train sees his train front is at a distance ∆x' from ground sees the light beam is at point (f). pylon A and also at this moment he sees the light beam is still approaching to pylon B. He sees the light beam which sent from pylon A is at point (g) at a distance ∆x '' from pylon A In our preposition we adopt the principle of quantum theory v2 (Copenhagen school) that the observer has the main formation in a time separation ∆−=∆ for the event according of the phenomenon. And we refuse in our preposition the t 1' 2 t c principle of the objective existence of the phenomenon that is to his clock on the moving train. The observer on the moving exited in Einstein’s SRT and then his interpretation to Lorentz train sees the light beam which sent from back to front moves transformation equations. In our preposition both the observer at the same time with the light beam which sent from pylon A on the ground and the observer on the moving train will agree to pylon B. Thus the measured speed of light that sent from at the measured length of the moving train to be L same if the the back of the train is equal to the measured speed of light train was stationary and then the measured distance between that sent from pylon A is equal to c the speed of light in the two pylons. According to our preposition in my modified vacuum for the observer stationary on the moving train relativity we predict also the observer on the moving train will according to his measured time and space separation. Also, for see the clock of the observer on the ground is moving in a the observer on the ground,IJSER he will see the light beam which similar rate of his clock motion, that means the observer on the was sent from pylon A arrives pylon B at the same time when moving train sees the events on the ground in his present are the front of the train arrives pylon B, but the light beam which considered as past relative to the observer on the ground. sent from back did not reach the front at this time, but it is still approaching to the front. Now let’s propose another thought experiment. Suppose the train moves from pylon A to pylon B and the ray of light is sent from pylon B to pylon A in opposite direction of the ∆x velocity, and at the same time a ray of light is sent inside the moving train from front to back as in figure 2. According to our MSRT interpretation to the Lorentz transformation, and f ∆x '' according to fig. 2, when the train front arrives to pylon B

g relative to the observer stationary on the ground, at this time he sees the light beam does not arrive to the back of the train, h i where if length of the train is L, then light beam is at distance

i 2 v L’ from the front where L. 1' −= L , and also at this time ∆ 2 x' c

he sees the light beam which sent from pylon B arrives to pylon A. But, for the observer on the moving train at this Fig. 1: the observer stationary on the moving train sent a light moment he sees the train front does not arrive to pylon B but it beam from back of the train to the front in the direction of the is still approaching to pylon B. Where, the measured passed velocity. At the same time the observer on the ground sent a v2 distance is ∆−=∆ from pylon A to the back of the light beam from pylon A to Pylon B. x 1' 2 x c 2 v train in a time separation ∆−=∆ according to his t 1' 2 t IJSER © 2014 c http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 134 ISSN 2229-5518

coordinates system of the observer stationary on the moving clock. Where, when the observer stationary on the ground train, then the light beam is defined according to the sees the train arrives to pylon B, his measured distance from coordinates system S(x,t) of the observer on the ground as pylon A to the back of the train is ∆x in a time separation ∆t according to his clock on the ground. At this moment the ∆x' ∆tv ' observer on the moving train sees the light beam which sent x =∆ + v2 v2 from front to back of his train is still approaching to the back 1− 1− of his moving train, where if the length of the train is L, at this c2 c2 2 v moment the light beam is at distance L 1' −= L from the 2 2 c ∆t' vx / c =∆ + front for the observer on the train, at the same time he sees the t 2 2 light beam which was sent from pylon B does not arrive to v v 1− 2 1− 2 pylon A but it is still approaching to it. When the observer c c stationary on the moving train sees the train front arrives to pylon B and then at this moment he sees the light beam which But the new modified thing in the Lorentz transformation sent from the front arrives to the back of the train, he will see equations which is predicted by our MSRT is existed in the case also at this moment the light beam which was sent from pylon of the space axis y and z, where the transformation will be B arrives to pylon A. But at this moment the observer on the according to our MSRT as ground sees the light beam which was sent from the front ∆y' arrives the back of the moving train, but the front of the train y =∆ v2 passed pylon B, where the front of the train is at distance ∆x' 1− 2 ∆x c from pylon A, where x ' =∆ . From that, relative to 2 ∆z' v z =∆ 1− 2 c2 v 1− 2 the observer on the ground the time separation for the light c beam to pass length of the moving is independent on the direction of transmitting the light comparing to the direction In the literature of relativity, space-time coordinates and the of the velocity as we proposed previously. energy/momentum of a particle are often expressed in four- vector form. They are defined so that the length of a four- vector is invariant under a coordinate transformation. This f IJSERinvariance is associated with physical ideas. The invariance of the space-time four-vector is associated with the fact that the g speed of light is a constant. The invariance of the energy- momentum four-vector is associated with the fact that the rest ∆x mass of a particle is invariant under coordinate h transformations. In our previous thought experiments we proposed a null vector or lightlike. In our previous examples, i the null vector for the observer stationary on the moving train ∆x' A 222 B according to his coordinates system xtc =∆−∆ 0'' , and

Fig. 2: The observer stationary on the moving train sent a ray of light from the front to the back of his moving train in the opposite then by the Lorentz transformation equations we have also direction of the velocity. At this time the observer on the ground 22 sent a ray of light from pylon B to pylon A. The dotted picture of the relative to the observer on the ground xtc =∆−∆ 0 . We train represents the location of the train for the observer of the have seen previously, Lorentz transformation is applied moving train at the moment the observer of the ground sees the during the motion, and as we have seen in our previous train arrives to pylon B. examples, when the observer on the ground sees the front of the moving train arrives to pylon B, at this moment it is In this case during the motion, the observer on the moving impossible that the observer on the moving train sees the front train will measure the speed of light inside his moving train of the moving train arrives pylon B, both of them are not when it is sent from front to back to be c the speed of light in agreed that the front of the moving train arrives to pylon B, vacuum, and also he will measure the speed of light which and this is the main difference between my MSRT and the SRT sent from pylon B to pylon A to be the speed of light in of Einstein. According to my MSRT when the observer on the vacuum also. And when we define light beam inside the moving train looks at the clock stationary on the ground, he moving train which is defined by S’(x’,t’) according to the will see the clock on the ground is moving in a similar rate of IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 135 ISSN 2229-5518 his clock motion, and since his clock is considered stationary ∆x on the moving train, then he will confirm that the clock on train is given as v = = 87.0 c which is equal to the ground is stationary also same as his clock on the moving ∆t train. From that also he will agree with the observer on the equivalent velocity of the owned by the moving ground on the measured rest mass of the clock. When the train. For Sally (who is the driver of the train) there are two clock on the ground moves with speed v on the ground, in this states that the train existed instantaneously, the first one is the case both the observer on the ground and the observer on the state of motion, and the measured velocity of the train at this moving train are agreed at measured speed of the moving state for Sally is given as clock and then the relative measured mass, and the kinetic energy and the momentum, and the clock is moving slower v2 than their clocks and they will agree at the slowing rate. 1 ∆− x Furthermore according to my MSRT, I could rescue the special ∆x' c2 relativity from the Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder v'= = == 87.0 cv ∆t' v2 paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox as we have seen 1 ∆− t previously. c2

4 THE LENGTH CONTRACTION ACCORDING TO MSRT And this measured velocity is equal to the measured velocity equivalent to the kinetic energy owned by the moving To understand the concept of the length contraction train. The other state is the state of stationary, and the according to the MSRT [23], let’s assume Sally is driving a predicted velocity of the train for Sally at this state is given as train with constant velocity 0.87c between the two pylons

A&B, and the distance between the two pylons is 100 m. let’s ∆L' ∆L v 87.0 c assume also at the moment of reaching the train at pylon B, v'= = = = = 74.1 c Sara who was stationary on the earth could stop the train ∆t' v2 v2 − )87.0(1 2 1 ∆− t 1− instantaneously by a remote control. In this case we neglect c2 c2 the deceleration because this case is equivalent to some cases Those two states of the train are separated by a distance in quantum as we shall see in following sections. Thus, in this equals to 50m, where Sally will think her train passed this case we consider the velocity of the train is changed from 0.87c distance in a zero time separation as seen in fig. 3, and then to zero in a zero time separation at the moment of reaching to Sally will think the distance of 100m was passed by her train Pylon B. Thus, by this condition we have with velocity equals to 1.74c which is greater than the speed of

light in vacuum. This measured velocity is not real, as we have v = 0 at L = 0 seen the train hasn’t moved with speed greater than the speed = at 0

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org

Fig. 3 illustrates the relationship between x and x’

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 136 ISSN 2229-5518

same clock. That is in contrast with the objective existence of the phenomenon.

5 THE VACUUM ENERGY AND THE EQUIVALENCE There is another consequence that produced by adopting PRINCIPLE OF THE MSRT this interpretation of the length contraction by MSRT. It is; how does Sally see the motion of Sara’s earth clock comparing Suppose Sally is living on a planet of mass M. and Sara is to her clock during the motion. According to MSRT [23], Sally stationary very far from the planet in space. Now according to will see the motion of the earth clock of Sara is moving similar the theory of Einstein, if Sara is looking at to her moving train clock, and by adopting this principle let’s the clock of Sally, she will find the clock of Sally is moving in study the following thought experiment. a slower rate than her clock according to the equation Suppose Sally during the motion of her train is looking at the stationary earth clock of Sara by applying this condition 2GM t 1' ∆−=∆ t 2Rc v = 0 at tSara =∆ 0 Where, ∆ is the time separation measured by Sara from = 87.0 cv at 0< tSara ≤∆ 4 years. t' the clock of Sally, ∆t is the time separation measured by the v = 0 at ∆t >4 years Sara clock of Sara for Sara, G is the gravitational constant, and R is the radius of the planet. Thus from the equation above Where ∆ is the reading of Sara from her clock. We can tSara 2GM is equivalent to v2 , that means it is equivalent that draw ∆tSara versus ∆tSally as in fig. 4, where ∆tSally is the R reading of Sally from the clock of Sara. From fig. 4, we find Sally is riding a train moving with constant speed v. Thus two straight lines; the first one is for 0< t ≤∆ 4years and according to the previous discussion, if Sally is looking at the Sara clock of Sara, then Sally will see the clock of Sara is moving at its slope is equal to 0.5. The second line is for ∆tSara >4 years, the same rate that her clock is moving, and what is Sally and its slope is equal to 1. We find from fig.4, the years seeing now about Sara is done for Sara in the past. Now suppose both Sally and Sara are in the Lab. They cooled an between 2< ∆tSara ≤ 4 years would not be determined by empty tube to − 237oC . In this case the vacuum energy of Sally, where her train was stopped at ∆t >4 years, and thus IJSERSara the tube is less than the vacuum energy of the lab. That is she would find that Sara is living the years at ∆tSara >4 years, equivalent; both of Sara and Sally are moving with velocity v while her last reading was equal to 2 years. That means the relative to the tube, and then the events inside the lab are occurring in a slower rate than if the same events are events were lived by Sara between 2< ∆t ≤ 4 years were Sara occurring inside the tube for an observer located inside the not be received by Sally during her motion. tube. What is the consequence of that according to what we discussed previously is what we shall discuss in the next section.

6 QUANTUM TUNNELING AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

Quantum tunneling experiments have shown that 1) the tunneling process is non-local, 2) the signal velocity is faster than light, i.e. superluminal, 3) the tunneling signal is not , since photonic tunneling is described by virtual photons, and 4) according to the experimental results, the

signal velocity is infinite inside the barriers, implying that Fig. 4 t (Sara) versus t (Sally). tunneling instantaneously acts at a distance. We think these

properties are not compatible with the claims of many textbooks on Special Relativity [1-9, 16]. The results produced by our modified special relativity theory MSRT [23] are in From the fig. 4 we get, the observer is the main participant agreement with the results produced by quantum tunneling in formulation of the phenomenon, where each one creates his experiments as noted above, and thus it explains theoretically own clock picture during the motion although they used the IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 137 ISSN 2229-5518 what occurs in quantum tunneling. It proves the events inside v2 the tunneling barrier should occur at a faster rate than the 1 ∆− x usual situation in the laboratory. It provides a new concept of ∆x' c2 is v'= = = c . Thus, both Sally and Sara will time contraction which is not existed in the SRT. The concept ∆t' 2 of time contraction in our theory is proven by many v 1 2 ∆− t experiments where some enzymes operate‡ kinetically, much c faster than predicted by the classical ∆ G . In "through the agree at the measured speed of the light beam inside the tube. barrier" models, a proton or an electron can tunnel through But, when Sara sees the light beam reached to the end of the activation barriers [11, 12]. Quantum tunneling for protons has tube and passed the distance L the length of the tube, at this been observed in tryptamine oxidation by aromatic amine moment for Sally, the light beam have not reached to the end dehydrogenase [13]. Also British scientists have found that enzymes cheat time and space by quantum tunneling - a much v2 of the tube, it is still at x 1' −=∆ L . After that the light faster way of traveling than the classical way - but whether or c2 not perplexing quantum theories can be applied to the biological world is still hotly debated. Until now, no one knew beam will exit the tube, and will be seen for Sally at the just how the enzymes speed up the reactions, which in some distance ∆x' >L. In this case, for Sally, the light beam is cases are up to a staggering million times faster [14]. Seed v2 Magazine published a fascinating article about a group of transformed from the point x 1' −=∆ L to the point researchers who discovered a bit more about how enzymes c2 use quantum tunneling to speed up chemical reactions [15]. ∆x' >L in a zero time separation. Thus Sally will see the light In order to understand what is occurring by quantum beam is existed in two places or states at the same time. Now, tunneling, let’s study this thought experiment depending on the concepts and principles what we proposed previously. when Sally sees the light beam at ∆x' >L and she tries to compute the speed of the light beam when passed the distance Suppose Sara and Sally in the lab, they made a tube of length L of the tube, she will find that the light beam passed this L. the vacuum energy inside the tube is negative compared to L L c the vacuum energy of the lab. That means the vacuum energy distance by a speed c'= = = , where ∆t' v2 v2 of the tube is less than the vacuum energy of the lab. Now 1 ∆− t 1− suppose the amount of the negativity comparing to the c2 c2 vacuum energy of the lab is equivalent that the observer in the for Sara inside the tube, the light beam passed the length of lab are moving with speed equals to v. In quantum, the L negativity of the vacuum energy inside the tube is depending the tube with speed c = which equals to the speed of light on the difference of temperature, and the effective ∆t density. IJSERin vacuum. Thus for Sally in the lab, she will think the light Now, suppose Sara entered inside the tube and Sally beam passed the length of the tube in a speed greater than the remained in the lab. After that, Sally sent a ray of light light speed in vacuum, but this measured speed is not real. In through the length of the tube. Now, since the vacuum energy this case, although, Sally measured the light beam passing the is less inside the tube than outside in lab, which means the length of the tube faster-than-light speed in vacuum, But events inside the tube, will occur in a faster rate for Sara than according to that there is no violation for Lorentz Sally. That means the rate of occurring the information which transformation or causality. Where, according to Sara inside define the location and time for the light beam inside the tube the tube, the light beam passing all the length of the tube with is faster for Sara inside the tube than Sally in lab. Thus, if Sara speed equals to the speed of light in vacuum. determined the light passed the distance ∆x inside the tube, Suppose now, Sally sent instead of a light beam, she sent a at this moment Sally will determine the location of the light particle of kinetic energy E inside the tube, which is equivalent v2 the particle to move with speed v(E), as seen in fig. 5. beam at ∆x' inside the tube, where x 1' 2 ∆−=∆ x , also for According to fig. 5, when Sara who is living inside the tube c sees the particle reached at the end of the tube and passed the Sara the distance ∆x was passed by the light beam in a time distance L of the tube in a time separation ∆t according to her separation ∆t according to her clock. Also, for Sally the clock, at this moment for Sally who is in the lab, will see the ∆ 2 distance x' was passed by the light beam inside the tube in a v time separation ∆t' according to her lab clock. From that the particle location at x 1' −=∆ L , and this distance was c2 ∆x = = 2 measured speed of the light beam for Sara is v c , v ∆t passed at a time separation t 1' ∆−=∆ t according to which is the speed of light in vacuum, and for Sally c2 Sally’s lab clock. At this moment, the predicted velocity of the IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 138 ISSN 2229-5518

L she will see the electron passes through the magnetic particle for Sara is v = = Ev )( and for Sally is ∆ p before Sally, and then it will be affected on the magnetic field. t Now when the electron reaches to the end of the tube and v2 passes the distance L the length of the tube. At this moment 1− L ∆x' c2 v2 v'= = = p Ev )( . At this moment the particle Sally will see the electron is at x 1' −=∆ L , and at this ∆t' v2 c2 1 ∆− t c2 moment she will see the electron is affected on the magnetic will exit the tube and will be seen for Sally out of the tube. field. Also at this moment, Sally will see other picture for the Sally will think the particle is transformed from the electron at ∆x' >L, and this picture of the electron at ∆x' >L was affected by magnetic field as seen by Sara. And since the v2 point x 1' −=∆ L to the point ∆x' >L at a zero time two pictures of the electron are seen by Sally in the lab at the c2 same time. Sally will think at the moment of applying the separation, and then the particle will be seen at two places or v2 states at the same time for Sally. Sally will think the particle magnetic field on the electron at x 1' −=∆ 2 L , this effect passed the length of the tube with velocity equals to c was transformed instantaneously to the electron at ∆x' >L. L p Ev )( v'= = , and if p Ev )( is very close to c, Existing an object in two states at the same time for an v2 v2 1 ∆− t 1− observer outside the system was verified experimentally by a c2 c2 team of scientists that has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum in this case it is possible the predicted speed will be greater state of moving and not moving [25]. Furthermore there are than the speed of light in vacuum for Sally depending on the many other experiments where done proving that quantum negativity of the vacuum energy of the tube. laws can be applied on macro objects, and that implies the macro and micro world are governed by the same laws [29]- [31]. This is supporting the main goal of the MSRT which unifying quantum theory (Copenhagen school) and relativity theory (special & general) with the same concepts, principles and laws.

7 THE CHERENKOV RADIATION IJSER While electrodynamics holds that the speed of light in a Fig. 5 (A) Sara who is living inside the tube will see the particle vacuum is a universal constant c, the speed at which light is passing all the length of the tube, and exit it with kinetic propagates in a material may be significantly less than c. For energy v(E). (B) Sally who is in the lab will see the particle example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only existed in two places at the same time, one place is at 2 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed (although v ∆x' x 1' −=∆ L , and the other place is at >L. Sally will still to less than c) during nuclear reactions and in particle c 2 accelerators. Cherenkov radiation results when a charged 2 v particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a think the particle is transformed from x 1' −=∆ L to c2 dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed

∆x' greater than that at which light would otherwise propagate in >L at a zero time separation. When Sally measures the kinetic energy of the particle at ∆x' >L , she will find it is equal to the same medium. Cohen and Glashow [32] pointed out that

the kinetic energy at the moment of sending the particle inside these analogs to Cherenkov radiation must appear at

the tube superluminal speeds. According to the SRT of Einstein, in

order a particle to move with speed equals to the speed of And in order to understand what a quantum entanglement is, light c in vacuum, it is required the particle to be owned by a let’s study this thought experiment. Suppose Sally sent an kinetic energy equals to infinity. Thus, what about if this electron inside the tube. The negativity of the vacuum energy particle moved with speed faster than the speed of light in of the tube is equivalent that Sally who is staying in the lab, vacuum? Faster-than-light speed in vacuum can’t be moving with speed equals to v. Also, suppose Sally applied a interpreted and reconciled according to the SRT principles and magnetic field on the tube at a distance equals to equations, and thus Cherenkov radiation principle can’t be v2 interpreted and reconciled with the principles and equations x 1' −=∆ L as seen in fig. 5. Now for Sara inside the tube, c2 of the SRT.

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 139 ISSN 2229-5518

Cherenkov radiation principle can be interpreted and SOLUTION OF THE PIONEER ANOMALY reconciled according to the MSRT. For example, suppose the Is light bending by or refracted? According to tube that is existed in fig. 5 of length L. The negativity of the special relativity, light speed is constant and equals to light vacuum energy of the tube compared the vacuum energy of speed in vacuum for all inertial frames of reference. General the lab is equivalent that the observer stationary on the lab are relativity was formulated according to the concepts and moving with speed 0.87c relative to the tube. Now, if a principles of SR. Thus, according to GR, light speed must be neutrino is sent inside the tube of kinetic energy Ek . As we constant, and thus to keep the constancy of the speed of light, have seen previously, when the neutrino reached to the end of Einstein proposed in his GR that, for an observer located far the tube and passed the distance L for an observer stationary away from the gravitation field, this observer will see the light inside the tube, then at this moment, for the observer of the beam will be bended toward the big mass when passing lab, the neutrino is located at the distance through the gravitational field of the big mass. Einstein explained this bending of the light beam through the v2 L L 1' L =−= . Now, if there is a detector at the end of gravitational field because when the light beam is passing c2 2 through the gravitational field, then for an observer located far the tube, that means, the neutrino is not passing through the away from the gravitational field will see this light beam is space of the lab, in this case, for the observer on the lab, moving in a geodesic path, and that means the light beam will according to his clock, the neutrino passed the distance of the passing longer distance through the gravitational field than if tube in a less time separation than it is required according to there is no gravitational field, and thus registering longer time its kinetic energy. Now if the kinetic energy inside the tube of separation for the event according to the clock of the observer 2 far away from the gravitational field. Thus, according to that, v the geodesic path is referring to the strength of gravitational the neutrino is equivalent to move in a velocity 1− 2 c c field depending on the distance from the center of mass. According to our MSRT, we have seen how we keep on the < vneutrino < c, which is according to our examples, 0.5c consistency of the speed of light according our derivation to < vneutrino < c, in this case when the neutrino is detected by the the Lorentz transformation equations and the equivalence of detector for the observer of the lab, he will think, the neutrino the Lorentz factor to the refractive index in optics which is related to the vacuum energy. From that, at the same time of vneutrino was moving with speed equals to v'neutrino = , and in keeping the consistency of the speed of light, in our MSRT, we v2 1− keeping on the variability of the speed of light as existed in the c2 concept of the refractive index in optics which depending on the vacuum energy. Thus by applying this concept on GR, the case 0.5c < < c, then the measured speed of the vneutrino IJSER taking into account the dependency of the strength of the neutrino for the lab observer according to his clock is greater gravitational field on the distance from the center of mass, and than c, the speed of light in vacuum, where, v'neutrino > c. But, thus the dependency of the equivalent refractive index of the when the neutrino is detected by the detector without passing gravitation field on the distance from the center of mass. Thus, through the space of the lab, then, the neutrino will register an according to the modified general theory MGRT according to energy spectrum fully corresponding with what it should be MSRT, I could reach to the exact solution to the Pioneer for particles traveling at the speed of light and no more. The anomaly [35]. According to MGRT, if a particle or light beam neutrino inside the tube will not exceed the light speed in passing through the gravitational field, then the measured vacuum locally. But if the lab observer removed the detector, speed of the particle or the light beam will be decreased for an and after that the neutrino passed through the space of the lab, observer far away from this gravitation field. Hubble’s law can in this case the neutrino would radiate an energy equivalent to be interpreted according to this principle [35]. My solution to the Cherenkov radiation. That is because the vacuum energy the Pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the proposed of the lab is greater than the vacuum energy of the tube, which solution of the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly [36]. is equivalent that the refractive index of the vacuum of the lab is greater than 1 comparing to the vacuum of the tube. The 9 THE WORMHOLES AND THE FASTER-THAN-LIGHT Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a particle travels in TRAVEL The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only medium with speed vp such that c/n< vp

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 140 ISSN 2229-5518 to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light separated by a distance x. For an observer located in the earth beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space surface, he will see the ray of light at point A first, and then he outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling will see it at point B. And if the observer divided the distance through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an x over the time separation of the trip t according to his clock, analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at he will get the speed of light in vacuum c. But for the ray of maximum speed may take longer than walking through a light for itself, it will be at point A and B at the same time, and if we divided the distance x at infinity number of points, then tunnel crossing it. In GR, the interpretation of faster-than-light for the ray of light for itself will exist at all the points of the is different from our interpretation although we accept that distance x at the same time. That means for the ray of light for the impossibility of faster-than-light locally. According to our itself when it exists at B, it exists at A at the same time and it MGRT depending on our MSRT, both the local observer on the exists at any point between A and B at the same time. Thus, mountain and the observer located far away from the from that we get, for the ray of light for itself there is no past mountain will agree at the length of the distance passed, and or future, but there is present only. For the ray of light for the particle will move through the same path on the mountain itself we can consider as if the space is zero because it can exist for both observers. The particle will not walking through a at two points A and B separated by a distance equals to tunnel crossing it. According to our MGRT depending on the infinity at the same time. At the same time also we can MSRT, the particle will reach the opposite side of the consider the speed of light for the ray of light for itself to be mountain for the local observer before the observer far away infinity, because it exists at two points A and B separated by a seeing it on the opposite side. And if the observer sees the distance equals to infinity at the same time. The two particle on the opposite side of the mountain in a less time definitions are equivalent to each other. But in the material world of the mass, the speed of light c which is locally separation than the local observer, in this case there must be a constant is related to the rest mass of the system which is distance was not seen by the observer far away that the greater than zero. By creating the mass, it is created the space particle passed it on the mountain. For that observer the and time, and it is created the speed of light c to be particle transformed from point A to point B separated by a 299,792,458 meters per second for the system of mass, and distance D on the mountain in a zero time separation. In my then it is created what are called the past and the future for the MSRT and MGRT, wormholes are an analogy of quantum mass system. The information is transmitted to the mass tunneling and entanglement as illustrated in the previous system by the present. The present of the mass system is sections which are depending on the negativity of the vacuum defined by the collapse of the quantum wave function [24], energy. [28]. Collapsing the quantum wave function leading the As we have seen in the case of faster-than-light in MGRT information to be transformed to past. According to the and MSRT there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation equivalence of mass and energy equation in the SRT, when all or causality, and our interpretation is solving the contradiction of my mass is transformed to energy or photons or ray of light, between quantum theory andIJSER relativity (general and special). then how can I see the universe? According to the MSRT, I’ll see all my life history without past or future. I’ll live all my life history as a present without past or future. I live –at the same 10 THE SPEED OF LIGHT ACCORDING TO THE MSRT time as a present- each event that I lived in my mass world or According to the SRT of Einstein, the speed of light in what I would live in the future. I see myself while I was baby, vacuum c is constant for all inertial frames of reference, and child, youth and old at the same time at the present without thus the inertial frames of reference are different in measuring past or future [24], [28]. In this case I can’t determine who is space and time. There is no particle which owns rest mass before or after if I was baby, child, youth or old. Or who came greater than zero can reach or exceed the speed of light in first I or my father or my grandfather. All of us are existed at vacuum. Einstein -in his SRT- refusing an absolute inertial the same time or present. And thus! I can confirm now the frame of reference to exist. According to the MSRT, we have chicken and the egg are existed at the same time or present! found that it is possible to measure the speed of a particle which owns rest mass greater than zero to move with a speed 11 TACHYON IS NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO THE MSRT faster than light c. We have kept in the constancy of the speed A tachyon or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that of light c locally, and at the same time we illustrated how the always moves faster than light. Most think that variability of the speed of speed light. In the MSRT, the faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not information is transmitting to us in the speed of light c, and consistent with the known laws of physics [26][27]. If such the observer has the main formation of the phenomenon as particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic adopted in quantum theory (the Copenhagen school). The antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which - main question that the MSRT answers is the question of according to SRT- would lead to violations of causality Einstein that “how shall I see the universe if I’m riding a ray of [27]. Potentially consistent theories that allow faster-than-light light? But! The MSRT is modifying the question to be as “How particles include those that break Lorentz invariance, the shall I see the universe if I’m a ray of light?” For example, underlying special relativity, so that the speed of suppose a ray of light is transformed from point A to point B light is not a barrier. In the MSRT I confirm that tachyons are

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 141 ISSN 2229-5518 not exist, but the possibility of faster than light measurement atom transfer in lipoxygenase. J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Mar is exist without violation of Lorentz transformation or 10;126(9):2820-8. PMID 14995199. causality. To understand that, let’s study this thought [13] Masgrau L, Roujeinikova A, Johannissen LO, Hothi P, Basran J, Ranaghan KE, Mulholland AJ, Sutcliffe MJ, Scrutton NS, Leys D. experiment according to the MSRT. Suppose Sally and Sara Atomic Description of an Enzyme Reaction Dominated by Proton again! Sally is staying in the Lab, and Sara is a pregnant at the Tunneling. Science. 2006 April 14;312(5771):237-41. PMID 16614214. first day of pregnancy. Sara incident inside a tube of negative [14] Upcoming drug revolution takes a quantum leap, vacuum energy. The negativity of the vacuum energy of the www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/599, 25 August 2006. tube is equivalent to Sally as moving with constant speed [15] Researchers explain how enzymes use quantum tunneling to speed 0.87c. According to the MSRT, Sally observes the clock of Sara up reactions, Maggie Wittlin, Seed, April 18, 2006. [16] G., Nimtz, A., Haibel, U., Walter, "Zero Time Space: How quantum inside the tube is moving similar to her lab clock motion. But tunneling broke the light speed", John Wiley & Sons, (2008). Sara inside the tube observes Sally lab clock is moving slower [17] Bohm, D., "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics", Routledge and than her clock. Thus, when Sara computes 9 months according Kegan Paul., (1984). to her clock inside the tube, at this moment Sally computes 4.5 [18] Popper, K. R., "Objective Knowledge", Oxford at the Clarendon months according to her lab clock or according to Sara’s clock Press., (1983). inside the tube. At this moments Sally observes Sara when she [19] Heisenberg, W., "Physics and Phylosophy", Allien and Unwin, was at 4.5 month of pregnancy, while relative to Sara she is at (1958). [20] Pais, A., "Einstein and The Quantum theory", (1979),Rev. of Modern 9 months of pregnancy, and after that Sara puts her baby and Physics, vol. 51, No. 4. decided to leave the tube to the lab. When Sally observes Sara [21] Stapp, H. "The Copenhagen School Interpretation and the nature of with a baby outside the tube in the lab, she will be surprised space-time" American Journal of Physics, 40, 1098, (1972). how Sara got the baby in 4.5 months. Sally has already [22] Roland, W. Clark, "Einstein: The Life and Time", Hodder Stoughton, observed Sara at 4.5 month of pregnancy. Sally has not London, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto(1979). observed Sara at 4.5

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 4, April-2014 142 ISSN 2229-5518

[43] Brown, Harvey R., Michelson, FitzGerald and Lorentz: the Origins of Relativity Revisited. [44] O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., A History of Special Relativity [45] Macrossan, Michael N. (1986), "A Note on Relativity Before Einstein", Brit. Journal Philos. Science 37: 232–34. [46] A. Halpern (1988). 3000 Solved Problems in Physics. Schaum Series. Mc Graw Hill. p. 688. ISBN 978-0-07-025734-4. [47] Relativity DeMystified, D. McMahon, Mc Graw Hill (USA), 2006, ISBN 0- 07-145545-0. [48] Michelson, Albert Abraham & Morley, Edward Williams (1887). "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether". American Journal of Science 34: 333–345.

IJSER

IJSER © 2014 http://www.ijser.org