A new theory only has chances on acknowledgment if it is provable. For that physical
phenomena in the sense of the new theory are calculated and independently of this
experiments are being carried out. If the calculations are confirmed by reproducible
measurement results, then with that the correctness of the approach is proven.
In the here presented case we have chosen the field-theoretical approach instead of the
usual quantum physical approach. As a consequence of this we had found as a new
phenomenon the vortex of the electric field. With regard to the normally used Maxwell
theory this resulted in changed field equations in a dual formulation. If both equations,
each of which describes a source-free vortex field, are inserted into each other the result is
an only in time and space formulated, generally valid and hence fundamental field
equation (5.7, fig. 5.1).
This equation has many special cases; one of them, the Schrodinger equation, could be
derived by using an approach which was harmonic in time. We renounced to give special
solutions of the Schrodinger equation, because these are printed in numerous text books.
On the other hand experiments are known, which are capable to confirm the theoretical
solutions and thus to prove the Schrodinger equation. The eigenvalues of the equation
describe for instance the shell-shaped structure of the atoms with the by Niels Bohr given
radii.
Now this already proven equation was derived from the new field-theoretical approach.
Thus for the special case, the area where the Schrodinger equation is valid, the new theory
can be said to be proven (fig. 6.1).
We still are not content with that and put another stone on top: we will calculate the
quantum properties of the elementary particles for ourselves. These until now have only
been measured. Today is merely sought for symmetries and for models of explanation, like
e.g. the quark-hypothesis. From a calculation science is miles and miles away. We will
compare the calculation results with the measurement values. Then everyone can check
and compare for him or herself.
The conditions in an elementary particle are completely different. Here it concerns the
vortex itself, whereas the model of the atom merely describes vortex properties, so-called
actions at a distance. The differences in size and distances for an atom lie more than five
powers of ten over those of a particle!
Here a new problem of causality comes to light, at which we now must have a critical
look: the question of the by Einstein postulated constancy and universality of the speed of
light. Seen from a relativistic and subjective point of view of an observer, Einstein by all
means may be right. But may such a theory be generalized? How are the measurements
concerning the speed of light and the relativity of space and time to be judged when
looking at them objectively?
The current measurements of speeds faster than light speak a clear language and represent
a challenge (fig. 3.1, violation of the principle of causality no. 5).
6.2 Law of conservation of energy
Let the starting-point for our considerations be the electromagnetic wave in a particle-free
vacuum. Here no vortices appear, so that the plane wave can propagate undamped with the
speed of light, and in this way a transport of energy takes place. Electric and magnetic
energy each are the same magnitude.
Let's now imagine the symmetry is disturbed as the wave is "slowed down" on one side.
As a possible result the wave rolls up to a spherical vortex.
As we will see such a process is possible, for instance at impact on a strong field. Thus
part of the energy is bound in the inside. This part from now on withdraws itself from
every possibility to measure it. We can only measure the second part of the field energy,
with which the particle interacts with its neighbourhood.
We c an assume that: _______________________________________________________
The amount of energy bound in the inside of the particle is identical with the free and
measurable amount of energy on the outside of the particle.
The same energy We = 0,51 MeV, we attribute to the electron for reason of its mass with
the help of the Einstein relation (6.1), is also bound in its inside. This conclusion is also
applicable to other elementary particles and with that to all matter.
We here again recognize the principle of the duality between the to the outside striving
eddy current in the inside of the elementary vortex and the concentrating potential vortex
on the outside. Thus also seen energetically both are of the same magnitude.
Whereas in the case of the electromagnetic wave it concerns a symmetrical oscillation
around "zero", by the process of quantization, by the rolling up to a spherical vortex, there
forms an energetic state of space different from zero. The order of magnitude is
determined by the number of elementary vortices, of which the particles and all matter
consist.
Anti-matter forms the opposite energetic state and this again is for the particles of matter
available in their inside in a bound form.
As long as we do not artificially produce new elementary vortices and thus keep the
number of available vortices constant, the energetic state will not change, or as it is
formulated in text books: _____________________________________________________
In an isolated system the sum of the energy is constant.
THE law of conservation of energy is not an axiom, but follows without compulsion from
the vortex theory. It is not elementary, but a consistently derivable consequence of the
field-theoretical approach, according to which solely the field acts as cause for all other
physical phenomena, also for the conservation of energy! Because the cause of it is the
electromagnetic field, the following has to hold: ______________________________
Energy is a state description of electromagnetism.
Now we finally can explain why energy can be converted. Different forms of energy only
are different forms of formation of the same phenomenon!
Of course this statement of the field-theoretical approach does not yet explain what, for
instance, the temperature has to do with electromagnetism. I ask for some patience; no
question will be left unanswered.
6.3 Radius of the electron
For the crucial process, in which the electromagnetic wave rolls up to a vortex, it is for
reasons of continuity to be expected that the velocity of propagation remains equal that
thus for the vortex oscillation exactly like for the electromagnetic wave the speed of light
is determining. The direction of propagation in the case of the vortex takes place
perpcndicular to the in fig. 6.2 shown field direction of the electric field strength. Not even
in that both field-phenomena differ.
Summarizing: the propagation takes place with the speed of light c along a circular path
with the perimeter Therefore holds:
(6.2)
According to this equation the radius and with that the size of the electron is determined
by the speed of light. Therefore the question of the size of the electron is raised.
The energy interpretation predicts that for the theoretical case of a change of size the
energy density in the inside of the particle is influenced that however the quantity of the
included energy remains unchanged. We therefore can further proceed from the
assumption that the bound amount of energy is independent of the size of the particle!
Consequently for the elementary quantum the energy We = 0,51 MeV is assumed, which it
has acccording to the Einstein relation We = mec2. For the electron of mass me the with
measuring techniques determined value is inserted.
The spherical electrode of a spherical capacitor with the above given energy We
(according to eq. 6.1) and the capacity Ce (according to equation 6.4, fig. 6.3) represents a
very realistic model of the negatively charged particle.
In this manner the classical radius of the electron is calculated to be: re = 2,82*10 -15 m.
But in the case of Kuchling it only is half this size
would mean that in the case of Kuchling the light would be on the way only half this
fast
and if one is honest, one admits not to know anything exact.
Not only the electron but also all the other elementary particles are according to the fieldtheoretical
approach formed from concentrated potential vortices. For these equation 6.2
hence has to hold in the same manner, so that more generalized we can conclude:
The speed of light determines the size of the elementary particles.
This statement is incompatible with the assumption of a constant speed of light! Because
then all elementary particles would have identical size. As is known, however, are the
building parts of the atomic nucleus, the protons and neutrons very much smaller than
individual electrons. The constancy of the speed of light is to be questioned.
This question is of such an elementary importance that we are not content with these
considerations and in addition undertake a mathematical derivation in the sense of the
field approach.
6.4 The Maxwell field equations
The laws of transformation of the electromagnetic field shall form the starting-point for
the coming up considerations. To exclude any doubts with regard to the interpretation, the
equations will be derived from the Maxwell laws under the assumption that no sources or
charge carriers are present (fig. 3.2 and 3.3) and as a consequence no current density (j =
0) is to be expected.
This corresponds to the vanishing of the time independent terms, which consequently are
responsible for the occurring of force effects like e.g. the Lorentz force. Only at the end of
this derivation we can understand the sense of this assumption (with = 0 and = 0).
The procedure at first corresponds to that of fig. 5.1. Here the fundamental field equation
had been derived from Faraday's law of induction and Ampere's law. With the
assumptions made this time the in fig. 5.2 treated undamped wave equation is left (5.9,
here 5.9*). Whom the derivation is still present can go in at this point.
In a sufficiently great distance from the source we are dealing with a plane wave, in which
the field factors only depend on the direction of propagation x. The Hertz' wave is a
transverse wave, in which the field pointers oscillate perpendicular to the direction of
propagation and in addition stand perpendicular to each other:
The curl, applied to the electric field pointer, itself points in the y-direction:
rot E = - dE/dx . This for the transverse wave carried out curl operation is now
compared with Faraday's law of induction (5.4):
rot E = -dE/dx = - dB/dt (6.9)
The relation won in a mathematical way, with the speed fixed by (6.8), reads:
dE = (dx/dt) • dB = v * dB (6.9*)
The result of this derivation at first only is valid for the introduced simplification, for
instance for the case of the transverse electromagnetic wave. Better known is apart from
that the generalized formulation, which among others by G. Bosse is called law of
transformation.
(6.10)
With Ampere's law (5.1) we now should proceed in an analogous manner. The result is:
(6.10*)
This equation 6.10* is given among others by Simonyi
which circumstances these equations of transformation can be derived from the Maxwell
equations, the actual work can start.
<
6.5 Equations of transformation
As a consequence of the in fig. 6.5 again written down laws of transformation of the
electromagnetic field (6.10 and 6.10*) magnetic phenomena can be traced back to electric
phenomena and vice versa. The mathematical formulation reveals us the two sides of the
same medal and points to a perfect duality between both fields and their factors of
description.
Because a way exists, as is shown here, in which the equations of transformation can be
derived from the Maxwell field equations, the same generally valid and extensive
importance should be attributed to them. They can with the same right be called the
foundation of electromagnetism. Wherein does lie its message for physics, the always
curious researcher will ask? For that the relations of material 3.5 and 3.6 are completed:
(6.10) und . (6.10*)
The here presented equations state, that we measure an electric field strength E, if we are
moving with regard to a magnetic field H with the speed v and vice versa.
The electric and the magnetic field therefore prove to be an experience of the observing
person and we can say:
We experience the magnetic field as electric field and the electric field
as magnetic field simply and solely for reason of the relative motion!________
Let's assume, v is the component of the relative velocity (6.8), which stands perpendicular
to the area defined by the field pointers (6.8*), then the equations of transformation (6.9*
with 3.5) now read:
(6.11) and . (6.11*)
If we are moving with the velocity v in a basic field which is present with the field
strength E, then according to equation 6.11* we observe a magnetic field, which again
according to equation 6.11 is to be interpreted as an additional electric field Ez:
(6.12)
In duality equation 6.11 inserted into equation 6.11* provides for the magnetic field
strength a corresponding additional field Hz:
(6.12*)
W e obviously owe the measurable overlap fields in a laboratory simply and solely to the
relative velocity v with which the laboratory is moving. But now we must pay attention to
the fact that a terrestrial laboratory rotates along with the earth, that the earth orbits the sun
and the sun again rotates around the centre of the milky way. Eventually the whole milky
way is on the way in the cosmos with a galactic, for us hardly understandable speed. If we
further take into consideration that for every subsystem an additional field occurs as a
consequence of the relative motion with regard to the super ordinate system, then one
additonal field follows after the next and overlaps this one.
Let's imagine, the relative velocity could be reduced towards zero - and maybe we are
moving around such a cosmic point - then here no overlapping field would be measurable.
6.6 Field overlap
Field vectors can be superpositioned. In this manner the additional field Ez resp. Hz which
depends on the velocity, according to equation 6.10, overlaps the respective basic field (E
resp. H) to produce the measurable overall field (E0 resp. Ho):
(6.13)
(6.13*)
In the result something surprising the factor (l-v2/c2) appears, which is well-known from
the special theory of relativity and for instance appears in the Lorentz contraction.
If we rewrite both equations for the characteristic factor and compare with the in a purely
mathematical way, over the Lorentz transformation, won length contraction
(1 - v2/c2) = (l/l0)2 , then it becomes clear that the Lorentz contraction physically seen
should have its cause in the changed field conditions which a with relativistic speed
moving body finds with regard to a resting body.
(6.14)
The equation is a compulsionless consequence of known physical laws. In this derivation
actually no new factor was introduced and nevertheless a completely new picture for the
natural scientific reality results.
In our observer system, where the field Eo exists, a rule has its proper length l0. In another
system, which is moving with the speed v relative to the observer, as a consequence of the
here prevailing field E the corresponding rule has a length 1. In which relation the factors
stand to each other, is described by equation 6.14. Accordingly the following
proportionality holds:
and
(6.15)
If we are exterior to a very fast moving body with velocity v, we immediately can observe
how this body for reason of its relative velocity experiences the calculated additional field
and in this way experiences a length contraction. If the observer is moving along with the
body, then he purely subjective seen doesn't detect a length contraction, because he
himself and his entire measuring technique is subjected to the same length contraction.
From the axiomatic approach what would be, if the field, which itself only represents an
experience, would determine perceptible space and its dimensions, quickly a fundamental
realization can develop if the described experiences should coincide with real
observations.
: Because in this point of view the subjective status of the observer is determining,
it is not completely impossible that there is an error in the interpretation of the
equations of transformation (6.10 and 6.10*). But because we started from the same
point of view of the observer for the derivation of the length contraction from the
Lorentz transformation, here the same error is to be expected. In putting both results
equal (6.14), a like constituted error on both sides will cancel out in any case and the
result stays above all doubts!
106 field dependent curvature of space
(Model):
Two particles of matter each in the field of the other particle.
Two elementary particles or two accumulations of matter
consisting of these are able to reduce the distance to each
other for reason of their fields, which we interpret as a
force of attraction.
B: (Example): The orbits of the planets in the field of the sun.
Fig. 6.7: The influence of the field on interactions.
theory of objectivity 107
6.7 Field dependent curvature of space
Let's assume, an accumulation of matter, as big as our earth, wanted to fly past the sun in
the distance earth-sun. But it would not succeed. Because the fields arising from the sun
decreases with increasing distance and according to equation 6.15 as a consequence the
size of the particles of matter increases. The planet hence is more strongly contracted on
its side turned towards the sun, as on the turned away "night side". It bends towards the
sun and its flight path becomes a circular path around the sun. That is the interaction
known as gravitation!
To an earth inhabitant this curvature reveals itself merely in the observation that the
duration of sunshine at daytime is longer, than it would be expected to be under the
assumption of the earth as a homogeneous sphere. In this context one willingly speaks of a
curvature of space. Actually it is a curvature of matter under the influence of the field
dependent length contraction.
Exactly this contraction the planets owe their circular orbits around the sun and by no
means the equilibrium of forces between the force of attraction and the centrifugal force
(fig. 6.7 B). It obviously is a fundamental mistake to think that gravitation would causally
be connected with a force effect!
If, in this context, we speak of a force of attraction for the sake of our subjective
observation, then we must realize that it merely can concern an auxiliary term founded in
usefulness.
A thought experiment should bring us clarity (fig. 6.7 A). The field, which surrounds
every particle of matter, reaches till infinity but becomes less effective with increasing
distance. If the distance between two particles is 1, then one particle is in the field of the
other particle. As a consequence of the field the length 1 reduces and in this way the size
determining field increases, which again leads to a further reduction of length etc. As a
consequence it can be observed that both particles are moving towards each other. We
speak of a force of attraction, because we can't register the influence of the field with our
senses.
In this way the consistent result that we and our environment at daytime must be smaller
than in the night will as well remain hidden. We experience the effect only indirectly as
gravitational pull of the earth.
Because we don't see the cause of a subjectively observed force effect, for the
electromagnetic interaction, just as for the gravitation, the field dependency of the length
contraction will be responsible. Hence the following conclusion holds for both interactions
equally way.
Two elementary particles or two accumulations of matter consisting of these are able to
reduce the distance to each other for reason of their fields, which we interpret as a force
of attraction.
Now the question still is open, why gravitation only knows forces of attraction, whereas
the electromagnetic interaction also permits forces of repulsion and which are the causal
fields for each.
6.8 Electromagnetic interaction
A convincing answer to the open question provides us the analysis of the course of the
field lines, on the one hand for charged particles and on the other hand for uncharged
particles, which do not participate in the electromagnetic interaction.
If at first we consider electrically charged particles, like e.g. electrons, protons or ions.
Then all in common is that the towards infinity running field lines of the electric field are
open. With this field the particle is able to interact with its environment. We measure a
charge and an electromagnetic force effect. In the case of unequal charges, as is wellknown,
a field amplification and attractive acting forces are observed whereas for equal
charges a field reduction results and repulsion is observed.
If we make a connection between the field conditions and the electromagnetic interaction
in the sense of the proportionality (6.15), then the particle in reality is able to influence the
distance to other particles merely with the help of its electric field. For unequal charges a
compression of field lines arises, in which one particle stays in the focussed field of the
other and vice versa. In this way a contraction of all lengths occurs and the observable
attraction happens (fig. 6.8 A).
For equal charges the opposite case is present, in which even a local field freedom can
occur (fig. 6.8 B). If the field tends towards zero on the dashed line, then the distance will
go to infinity (according to eq. 6.15). Consequently, the observable effect that both bodies
go away from each other, will reach to infinity.
Actually the electromagnetic interaction proves to be a result of the field dependent length
contraction.
The electromagnetic interaction of a particle is a result of the influence of the open field
lines arising from it on the dimensions of the space, in which it is.
It is important that the field lines are open, for which reason they are bent away from like
charges and are directed towards unlike charges. Subjectively seen we find out that as a
consequence of the field reduction repulsive force effects and as a consequence of the field
compression attractive acting force effects are observed (fig. 6.8).
The consequence of is every electric field is, as is well-known, a magnetic field standing
perpendicular on it. The field lines of the magnetic field run parallel to the surface of the
particle and have a closed course (fig. 6.9 A)!
Therefore no magnetic poles form, which would be measurable. Seen from the outside the
particle behaves neutral magnetically seen, because of the closed course of the field lines.
An artificial field reduction and as a consequence observable forces of repulsion, like in
the case of the electromagnetic interaction, hence in principle are impossible.
The effect of the magnetic field thus is limited to a geometrical manipulation of the
environment, namely the curvature of space, with which we have founded the
phenomenon of the attraction of masses and of the gravitation.
110 Gravitation
A: The open field lines of the E-field and the closed field lines of
the H-field of an electrically charged particle (e.g. e-)
B: The closed field lines of the E-field and H-field of an electrically
uncharged particle (e.g. of the neutron n°).
Gravitation is a result of the influence of the field lines with a closed
course running parallel to the surface of the particles on the
dimensions of the space, in which they are.
Fig. 6.9: The influence of the closed field lines of the H-field.
theory of objectivity __________________________________________________________111
6.9 Gravitation
For uncharged, neutral particles (neutron, atom, molecule etc.) both the magnetic and the
perpendicular on them standing electric field lines have a closed course. Now both run
parallel to the surface of the particle (fig. 6.9 B).
As is said, the density of field lines with a closed course can't be influenced from the
outside. If we approach a particle, the consequence of an increase of the density without
exception is a decrease of the linear measures and thus a larger force of attraction. For this
case of field lines with a closed course, for which in general it doesn't give a field
attenuation and no forces of repulsion, there holds:
Gravitation is a result of the influence of the field lines with a closed course running
parallel to the surface of the particles on the dimensions of the space, in which they are.
Both interactions logically have an infinite range. Both form a whole in the influence of
the fields on the size conditions.
It surely is of the greatest importance that for this derivation of the field dependency of the
Lorentz contraction from the known equations of transformation of the electromagnetic
field we could do completely without the introduction of new factors of description or
neglects.
Solely by consistent derivation and interpretation of the result the unification already has
suceeded and the electromagnetic interaction and the gravitation could, with the derived
field dependent Lorentz contraction, be traced back to a single basic phenomenon. Doing
so we have to pay attention to the fact that the observer is subjected to the same Lorentz
contraction as his measuring technique and therefore he can't see the field dependency at
all. Merely as being an exterior observer it in rare cases will be possible to him to see the
curvature of space in the presence of strong fields.
From this for an astronaut practical consequences result. If he namely would land on
Jupiter, he would think flat hills to be gigantic mountains, that small he would be! Vice
versa if he landed on the moon, high mountains would appear to be insignificant hills, not
because of wrong altitude readings of the terrestrial mission control and measurement
centre, but only because of his own body size. The astronauts of the Apollo missions were
not prepared for this circumstance and after their landing on the moon were completely
surprised, how little validity learned textbook physics has, hardly has one left the earth.
They have brought photographs with them which prove the Lorentz contraction to depend
on the field and therefore on gravitation.
The fact that force effects should arise from the interactions is an auxiliary concept and
auxiliary description of the observing person founded in pure usefulness. The Lorentz
force therefore shouldn't be regarded as cause anymore. It actually appears only as
property of the field factors. Seen this way it only would be consistent to do without space
charges and currents as a result of moving charges and to assume a source-free and
quanta-free field description (fig. 6.4: j = 0).
From an unified theory it is demanded that it besides the electromagnetic interaction and
the gravitation also is able to integrate the strong and the weak interaction. We will also
solve this problem.
112 Field dependent speed of light
Fig. 6.10: Diversion of the light by a strong gravitational field.
Speed of light of the wave: c = *f (6.16)
For the wavelength holds (because of eq. 6.15):
From equation (6.16) follows (with f = constant):
E ~ 1/c2 , H ~ 1/c2
The speed of light depends on the field!
(6.17)
theory of objectivity 113
6.10 Field dependent speed of light
But not only matter is bent towards a gravitational field. If we only think of the much cited
phenomenon that the ray of light of a star is diverted towards the sun, if it passes very
close to the sun on its way to us, like this has been observed for the first time during an
eclipse of the sun in 1919 (fig. 6.10).
Quite obviously the field of the sun also slows down the speed of light. On the side of the
ray of light which is turned towards the sun, the field is somewhat larger and the speed of
light correspondingly is slower than on the side which is turned away, and with that the
ray of light changes its direction in the observable manner. Exactly this relation willingly
is interpreted as a consequence of a curvature of space.
The extremely strong field of a black hole can divert the light down to a circular path, in
order to in this way catch and bind it. The light now orbits the black hole like planets the
sun.
At this point the open-minded reader already might have tapped the confirmation of the
proportionality 6.2 (c ~ r), which has been derived from the vortex model (fig. 6.2).
The sceptic is offered still another derivation: for the borderline case that the relative
velocity v tends towards the speed of light c (fig. 6.6), according to equation 6.13 the
measurable overall field Eo (and also Ho) will go to zero and equation 6.12, with Ez. = - E
(and Hz = - H), will again turn into the wave equation (5.9*) after double differentiation
(fig. 6.4).
The speed v = c so to speak forms the escape velocity, with which the electromagnetic
wave runs away from the cosmic field. Under these circumstances of course neither an
attraction of masses nor an electromagnetic interaction can be exerted on the wave.
If E0 goes to zero at the same time l0 tends to infinity (equation 6.15, fig. 6.6): i.e. the
wave spreads all through space. This result entirely corresponds to the observations and
experiences.
For the wave length and in the end for the velocity of propagation c only the self-field of
the wave E resp. H is responsible. Because of
(6.16)
and the proportionality from equation 6.15: (6.17*)
obtain the new relation:
(6.17)
If the speed of light in the presence of matter decreases, then we now also know why. It is
the field, which surrounds matter, that slows down the speed of light. Therefore a
gravitational field is able to divert a ray of light in the same manner as matter which flies
past. Finally moves the speed of light in the proportionality 6.17 to the place of the linear
measure (in 6.15).
But if the rule fails one will try to replace by an optical measurement arrangement. In this
manner the field dependency of the Lorentz contraction should be measurable; but it isn't!
114 universality of the speed of light
From the comparison of the derived proportionalities:
follows:
1 ~ c (6.18)
The speed of light is proportional to the measurement path.
The variable speed of light is being measured with itself.
The result at all events is a constant value.
The constancy of the speed of light is based on a measurement
which is faulty from the principle!
Because of c ~ r: physical length contraction
Fig. 6.11: Derivation of the length contraction
(field dependent Lorentz contraction)
theory of objectivity 115
6.11 Universality
Why can't the rule be replaced by an optical measurement arrangement? The crucial
indication provides the comparison of both derived proportionalities 6.15 and 6.17.
According to them holds the same field dependency for both the Lorentz contraction and
the speed of light:
or 1 ~ c (6.18)
If the rule has proved to be useless, then we will experience the same disaster if we
measure optically, i.e. with the speed of light.
Obviously both, the length 1 and the speed of light c as a length per unit of time, depend in
the same manner on the respective local field strength. On the one hand do both measuring
methods lead to the same result; but on the other hand will anything which can't be
measured with one method, neither be measured with the other method.
If now the speed of light is being measured optically, then the measurement path will be
proportional to the speed of light and as a result will the unknown factor be measured with
itself. The result of this measurement, which is faulty from the principle, at all events is a
constant value, because here two variables which stand in direct proportionality to each
other are related to each other.
Was the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley unnecessary, the result trivial? And
how does it stand about the postulate of the universality of the speed of light?
If we for that consider a cube (fig. 6.11). And we assume that the speed of light is a
vectorial quantity, which in our experiment is for instance in one direction twice as large,
as in the direction of the other two space axes. By means of the mentioned influence of the
speed of light on the spatial length is, as a consistent consequence, the cube along this
edge pulled apart to a cuboid. We however register this spatial body with our eyes, which
is with the speed of light and that has increased proportionally to the length of the edges,
for which reason we as subjective observer still see a cube in front of us and not a cuboid.
If we trust an apparent objective measurement more than our sense organ and measure the
three lengths of the edges of the cuboid again with a rule then we get three times the same
length, which is a cube.
We probably are dealing with an optical deception using the true meaning of the word.
If the by Einstein postulated universality and constancy of the speed of light in reality
doesn't exist at all, we in no way would be capable to register this; neither to observe nor
to measure it!
The Galilean theorem of the addition of speeds objectively seen still is valid, even if the
fact that the speed of light apparently is independent of the speed of the source pretends us
the opposite.
If for instance a light source is moved towards a receiving device or away from it, then the
speeds will overlap, like for the passenger, who marches in a driving train against or in the
driving direction through the corridor. For the ray of light also the fields, which influence
the speed of light and the measurement equipment, overlap. As a consequence will a
measuring technician, who himself is exposed to this overlapping field, always observe
and "measure" the identical speed of light. The observer as a result imagines, there is an
universality of the speed of light.
116 aether
The field takes over the function of the aether.
Fig. 6.12: Experiment of Michelson and Morley to
detect an aetherwind
: A.P.French: Special Relativity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1966.
subject you wish to write about". To Einstein's Theories, Rare Book and
Manuscript Library, Columbia University, 15.4.1932.
a time constant by definition for the derivation to present at the end of his
derivation a variable time. And with that he presents a result which
contradicts his approach completely.
theory of objectivity 117
6.12 Aether
Important experiments like the one of Doppler concerning the redshift or the one of
Bradley concerning the aberration of the stars show only to clear, where the influence of
the speed of light subjectively still is perceptible, or for laboratory experiments like the
one of Michelson and Morley, where the influence isn't perceptible anymore, because the
length of the interferometers always changes proportionally to the speed of light.
The look in the stars at the same time is a look in cosmic areas, where completely other
field conditions prevail and as a consequence completely other values for the speed of
light and for the dimensions of space are present. The mentioned observations suggest that
we together with our measuring station are moving through the cosmos and therefore a
relative velocity has to be present with regard to an aether which determines the respective
speed of light.
If we however constrict our range of vision and retire in a laboratory, then we no longer
are capable to observe the influence of the field on the speed of light. The experiments of
Michelson which Maxwell had prompted to and which Morley with a higher precision had
repeated with the goal, to detect the aether, inevitably had to turn out negatively. The
laboratory experiments resulted in the misleading picture, as if the earth was resting in the
aether.
The not understood measurements will suggest any observer, he forms the centre of the
universe and everything rotates around him, entirely in the sense of the Ptolemean view of
life, which, although long ago abolished, here belated has experienced support.
With a Swabia caper Albert Einstein has prevented a relapse into the dark Middle Ages
and removed the open contradiction in the question of the aether, which once is measured
as moving and another time as resting, by without further ado abolishing the aether. With
that he undoubtedly has solved a central problem of physics and at the same time created a
new one. As is known does the speed of light have a certain value, and therefore the
question is raised, what determines is size. Exactly for this purpose a luminiferous aether
had been introduced, however it is constituted.
Scientifically it does make little sense, to make an assumption, if at the end of the
derivation the prerequisite is deleted without substitute. In such a case either in the
approach or in the derivation is a principal error*1"*. Nikola Tesla comments on the
working method of Einstein with the applicable comparison, as if Einstein had, while he
was writing a business letter, forgotten completely the subject he wanted to write about
(fig. 6.12
The answer, which removes all contradictions and is entirely in accord with all
observations and measurements, is obvious. Naturally a luminiferous aether exists, which
determines the velocity of propagation and of course it by no means is bound to the
observer.
As has been derived in figures 6.5 and 6.6, will for a relative velocity v arise a field, which
according to proportionality 6.17 determines the speed of light. With that we have derived
completely.
The field takes over the function of the aether.
The equations 6.10 also answer the question, why no aetherwind is being observed,
although such a wind actually is present: we experience, as we have discovered, an E-field
with ,,head wind" as a resting H-field and vice versa and therefore we aren't capable to
detect the head wind in the aether!
118 spin and tunnel effect
Key questions of quantum physics (fig. 4.4 + continuation):
IV. Why do the particles have the form of spheres?
(with increasing E-field decreases c)
VIII. Why is the elementary quantum localized?
(in the vortex centre: c = 0, see figures 4.3 and 6.2)
IX. Why do the elementary particles have a spin?
(spherical form demands field compensation)
X. Why is the magnitude of the spin quantized?
(cosmic basic field determines the need of Ez)
XI. Why can speeds faster than light occur in a
tunnel? ___________________________________
(a reduction of the cosmic basic field can only be realized
locally in a tunnel)
to XI:
Fig. 6.13: Consequences concerning the field
dependency of the speed of light: spin effect and tunnel effect
: Nimtz,G.: Instantanes Tunneln, Tunnelexperimente mit elektromagnetischen
Wellen, Phys.B1.49, VCH Weinheim (1993) Nr.12, S. 1119-1120<*>
Weinheim (1994) Nr.4, S. 359-361<*>
<*>: The measurement results are in accord with the theory of objectivity, not
however the contradictory attempts to interpret them and
theory of objectivity 119
6.13 Spin and tunnel effect
Only with the field dependency of the speed of light (6.17) we can understand, why the
elementary quanta can form as spheres, like is drawn in the figs 4.3 and 6.2. In the centre
the field lines run together, i.e. the field increases and the speed of light decreases. Only
in this way it will be possible for the vortex oscillation to everywhere occur with the speed
of light, even in the inside of the particle! In the centre of the vortex particle the field in
theory will become infinitely large and the speed of light zero. This circumstance again is
the foundation why the elementary particles are localized and it answers key question
VIII of quantum physics. The absence of a speed after all is the characteristic of an
immobile thing.
The field dependency of the speed of light answers also further basic and up to today
unanswered key questions of quantum physics, like why the elementary particles have a
spin (IX) and why the magnitude of the spin is quantized (X).
A vortex particle after all does not exist alone in the world, but it is in the field of other
particles. We can call this the cosmic basic field (E resp. H). This basic field overlaps the
self-field and takes effect the strongest in the area of the spherical shell, where the selffield
is correspondingly small. In order to keep the form of a sphere, this influence of the
basic field has to be compensated. The additional field (Ez resp. Hz according to eq. 6.12)
necessary for the compensation is produced by the particle, by rotating in a spiral around
itself with a speed v which increases towards the outside of the spherical shell. Therefore
does the elementary particles have a spin. The electron spin is therefore determined by the
cosmic basic field.
Another effect of the field dependent speed of light is the tunnel effect. As an example we
consider the two differently charged particles shown in fig. 6.8 A. The open, outside of the
particles running, field lines of the electric field are predominantly bent towards the each
time oppositely charged particle. If another particle wants to pass between the two, then it
gets into an area of increased field strength. As a consequence it will be slowed down,
because here a smaller speed of light is present.
Water molecules show with their polar nature exactly this property. Water has a remarkably
high dielectricity e and slows down the speed of light correspondingly according to
equation 5.6 ( = 1/c2). The refraction of light at the water surface is an observable result
of the reduced speed of light in the presence of matter.
If we now examine the case in which the two particles have the same charge as is shown
in fig. 6.8 B (and fig. 6.13 belonging to XI). The field lines repel each other, so that
exactly in between the two particles a field free area forms, in which the speed of light
goes to infinity! This area acts like a tunnel. If we send through a particle exactly here,
then purely theoretically seen it won't need any time to run through the tunnel, and for a
short time the signal becomes infinitely fast.
If a particle hits only slightly besides the tunnel, then it will one-sidedly be slowed down
and diverted by the respective field. We call this process reflection or scattering. Only the
few particles, which exactly hit the tunnel, arrive behind the hurdle and in the ideal case
even almost without loss of time!
The current measurements of speeds faster than light demonstrate in a convincing manner
the superiority of the field-theoretical approach with regard to the nowadays normally
used quantum physical approach.
6 . 1 4 Interpretation of the measured speed faster than light
Now the attempt can be undertaken, to interpret the spectacular experiments, in which a
speed faster than light has been measured. It is reported that in experiments with
photons at the University of California in Berkeley on an average a speed of 1.7 times the
speed of light has been measured by Prof. Raymond Chiao and his co-workers. At the
Technical University of Vienna Prof. Dr. Ferenc Krausz already has obtained 2.4 times
the, according to Einstein at maximum obtainable, speed of light with tunnelling laser
light.
The first measurements of speeds faster than light have been carried out with microwaves
at the University of Cologne
had published the measurement of a speed 2.5 times the speed of light. In the meantime
they even have transmitted a symphony of Mozart with a speed almost 10 times the speed
of light and with that have contradicted Einstein's hypothesis, according to which the
speed of light in vacuum would be the highest possible speed for the transmission of
signals. The different experiments only resemble each other in the point that the particles
have to tunnel, because one has put a barrier in their way. This "tunnelling" apparently is
the cause for obtaining speeds faster than light. With the prevailing physical view of life
these measurement results are incompatible.
In the measurement set up in Cologne the microwaves are sent through a wave guide,
which they pass with the speed of light. If a parts with narrowed cross-section is inserted,
where the microwaves actually don't fit through at all, then the signal gets damped
strongly. Now however arrives nevertheless a small part of the signal at the other end of
the wire, but much faster than allowed, namely with the measurable speed faster than
light.
The answer of the here presented potential vortex theory reads as follows: the waves
picked up by the wave guide run up to the entry of the tunnel, in order to find out that they
don't fit through. They are reflected or absorbed. A small part however rolls up to
potential vortices and these fit through the tunnel. They however have to be compressed
additionally. In the derivation of the photon (fig. 4.5 and 4.6) we had seen that the inner
vortex always is faster than the bigger one, through which it slips through. The
compression therefore causes an increase in speed. In flow dynamics is known an analogy:
the Venturi-tube. The flow-technical potential vortices also confirm exactly this property.
One can as well start with the Lorentz contraction (fig. 6.6, eq. 6.14*). This states that a
particle moving with a higher speed actually becomes smaller and not only appears to be
smaller as an optical deception of the observer. Because only smaller particles fit through
the tunnel, the particles, measurable at the other end, must be correspondingly faster: quod
erat demonstrandum. In the same manner also the experiments of Berkeley can be
explained physically, because here is worked with photons from the start. With that the
process of rolling up the wave can be left out. The tunnel lets pass only compressed and
therefore faster light particles.
6.15 Definition of the speed of light
If a light signal propagates in space, then as a consequence of the velocity of propagation
c, it at a certain point in time t is in a distance r of the light source:
r = c * t (6.19)
S h o u l d the speed of light become smaller for instance by then the light signal
obviously has covered a distance less by Ar or the time interval has changed by
(6.20)
This equation describes purely mathematically the most general case which can be
assumed. By writing out the multiplication and subtraction of equation 6.18 the change in
distance considered for itself is:
(6.21)
The answer of mathematics is that the change in distance can have its cause in a change in
time, in a change of speed or in both. We now want to turn to the physical interpretation
and have a closer look at the two possibilities, in which either c or t is to be taken constant
(see fig. 6.16).
In the first case the speed of light c is constant and as a consequence the change = zero.
The mathematical formulation (according to eq. 6.21) therefore reads:
case 1:
(relativity) (6.22)
If in this conception world a change in distance is observed, for instance the Lorentz
contraction, then in order to save this relation inevitably a change in time, for instance a
time dilatation, has to make the compensation. Einstein in an applicable manner speaks of
relativity, because according to his opinion in the case of both variables, the length
contraction and the time dilatation, it only concerns observed changes.
For the time dilatation experiments are given. But for the measurement of time always
only atomic clocks are available and their speed of running of course could also be
influenced by the Lorentz contraction. In any case it can't be claimed the time dilatation is
proven experimentally as long as we do not know the mechanisms of decay of atoms.
Otherwise the statements of the theory of relativity are familiar to us, for which reason
further remarks seem unnecessary.
In the second case the time t is constant and consequently the change At = zero. At a closer
look this case is much more obvious, since why should time change. After all time has
been stipulated by definition.
After all, we are the ones who tell, what simultaneity is!
The mathematical formulation for this case reads (eq. 6.21 with = 0):
case 2:
(objectivity) (6.23)
This equation does open up for us an until now completely unknown and fundamentally
other way of looking at the physical reality.
124 relativity and objectivity
Fig. 6.16: Theory of relativity and theory of objectivity,
derivation and comparison.
theory of objectivity 125
6.16 Relativity and objectivity
New to the second case (equation 6.23) is particularly the proportionality contained in it:
(6.25 = 6.2)
But to us it is not new, because we have derived the same proportionality from the model
conept (equation 6.2, fig. 6.2), in which the elementary particles are understood as
spherical vortices.
Equantion 6.25 unconcealed brings to knowledge that any change of the speed of light c
[m/s] in the same way leads to a change of the radius r [m], the distance between two
points in space or even the length of an object, e.g. a rule. Such a rule after all consists of
nothing but spherical atoms and elementary particles and for their radius r again the
proportionality 6.25 holds. Therefore it is to be set:
r ~ 1 (6.26)
and taken both together we already had derived as equation 6.18 (fig. 6.11) from the field
dependency. Here the vortex model as well finds a confirmation of its correctness, as in
the derivation from the equations of transformation of the electromagnetic field. Because
all three, the derivation according to the model, the physical and the mathematical
derivation, lead to the same result, this second case should be called "objective".
With that the first case, which describes the subjective perception of an observer, is not
supposed to be devaluated. It contains the definition of reality, according to which only is
real what also is perceptible. The theory of relativity of Poincare and Einstein is based on
this definition.
With the second case, the case with a variable speed of light, we however get serious
problems, since we observe with our eyes, and that works with the speed of light. If that
changes, we can't see it, as already said. If we could see it, then "reality" would have a
completely different face and we surely would have great difficulties, to find our way
around. In this "objective world" neither electromagnetic interactions nor gravitation
would exist, so no force effects at all. Because all distances and linear measures depend on
the speed of light, everything would look like in a distortion mirror.
The concept of an "objective world" at first has not a practical, but rather a theoretical and
mathematical sense. The distinction between an observation domain and a model domain
is founded in pure usefulness.
The observation domain should correspond to case 1 and the model domain to case 2. The
mathematical derivation tells us, how we can mediate between both domains (equation
6.21): This mediation amounts to a transformation, which provides us the instruction, how
a transition from the observation into a not perceptible model concept, from the relativity
into an objectivity has to.
126 transformation
Fig. 6.17: Model-transformation between
theory of relativity and theory of objectivity.
theory of objectivity 127
6. 17 Transformation
The observation domain is, as the name already expresses, perceptible (observable) with
the help of our sense organs and measurable with corresponding apparatus. The special
theory of relativity for the most part provides us the mathematics needed for that. And in
that is assumed a constant speed of light. Because a length contraction is being observed
and can be measured, a time dilatation must arise as a consequence. Such is the consistent
statement of this theory. Because we already could make us clear that it concerns a
subjective theory, of course caution is advisable if generalizations are being made, like the
one of the inductive conclusion of the length contraction on the time dilatation. We'll
come to speak about that in this chapter (fig. 6.20).
The model domain however is not observable to us and only accessible in a mathematical
manner. Here the time is a constant. On the other hand do the radii of the particles and all
other distances and linear measures stand in direct proportionality to the speed of light. If
that changes, then does that lead to a change in length. The length contraction occurs
physically, which means actually. We propose the name "theory of objectivity" for the
valid theory which is derivable with this prerequisite and independent of the point of view
of the observer.
The importance of this model domain and of the possible model calculations is founded in
the circumstance that many physical relations within our observation domain aren't
recognized by us and can't be mathematically derived. Besides is only all to often worked
with unallowed generalizations and with pure hypotheses. Such a thing does not even exist
in the model domain.
The model domain can be tapped over a transformation. For that we select an approach
x(r) in the to us accessible observation domain. This then is transformed into the model
domain by a calculation instruction M{x(r)}. Here we can calculate the sought-for relation
In the usual manner and transform back again the result according to the same calculation
instruction M-1{x(r)} but in the reversed direction. After being returned in our familiar
observation domain, the result can be compared and checked with measurement results
(fig. 6.17).
In this way we will derive, calculate and compare the quantum properties of the
elementary particles with the known measurement values. Here we remind you of the fact
that all attempts to calculate the quantum properties conventionally, without
transformation, until now have failed. Not even a systematization may succeed, if it
concerns for instance explanations for the order of magnitude of the mass of a particle.
A transformation at first is nothing more than an in usefulness founded mathematical
measure. But if a constant of nature, and as such the quantum properties of elementary
particles until now have to be seen, for the first time can be derived and calculated with a
transformation then this measure with that also gains its physical authorization.
We now stand for the question: how does the instruction of transformation M{x(r)} read,
with which we should transform the approach and all equations from the observation
domain into the model domain?
128 transformation table
Fig. 6.18: Transformation of the dependencies on radius
theory of objectivity 129
6.18 Transformation table
The attempt to write down at this point already a closed mathematical relation as instruction
of transformation, would be pure speculation. Such an instruction first must be
verified by means of numerous practical cases, i.e. be tested for its efficiency and
correctness. But we not even know the practical examples necessary for this purpose, if we
apply the transformation for the first time!
For his reason it unfortunately is not yet possible, to calculate absolute values in a direct
We have to be content to work with proportionalities and to carry out comparisons.
In fig. 6.18 the proportionalities are compared in the way, how they would have to be
transformed: on the left side, how they appear and can be observed in the view of the
special theory of relativity, and on the right side, how they can be represented and
calculated in the theory of objectivity.
The change, which here would have to be transformed, is the physical length contraction,
which is the change in length as it depends on the speed of light. For spherical symmetry
the length 1 becomes the radius r (eq. 6.26), of which is to be investigated the influence.
In the observation domain we had derived the proportionality (6.15 + 6.18):
E ~ 1/r2 and H ~ 1/r2.
The field of a point charge or of a spherical capacitor confirms this relation:
Because the speed of light in our observation is constant, also both constants of material
which are related to it (eq.5.6: = 1/c2), the dielectricity and the permeability are
to be taken constant.
With that the same proportionality as for the field strengths also holds for the induction B
and the dielectric displacement D:
B ~ 1/r2 and D ~ 1/r2.
In the model domain everything looks completely different. Here the radius and any length
stands in direct proportionality to the speed of light. In this way we get problems with our
usual system of units, the M-K-S-A-system (Meter-Kilogram-Second-Ampere). The basic
u n i t Meter [m] and as a consequence also the unit of mass Kilogram [kg = VAs3/m2]
appear here as variable. It would be advantageous, to introduce instead the Volt [V] as
basic unit.
But in any case does the dimension of a quantity show us, in which proportionality it
stands to the unit of length. This in the model domain then is authoritative! As an example
does the speed of light have the dimension Meter per Second. In the model domain there
consequently has to exist a proportionality to the length r [m].
The speed of light determines with equation 5.6 again the constants of material:
[Vs/Am] ~ 1/r and [As/Vm] ~ 1/r (6.28)
According to the model holds unchanged:
B [Vs/m2] ~ 1/r2 and D [As/m2] ~ 1/r2. (6.29)
But if we insert the proportionalities 6.28 and 6.29 into the equations of material 3.5 and
3.6, then holds for the field strengths:
H [A/m] ~ 1/r and E [V/m] ~ 1/r. (6.27)
Further dependencies of the radius can be read in the same manner either by inserting into
well-known laws or immediately from the dimension.
6.19 Interpretation of the transformation table
The transformation should tell us, what we would see if the variable speed of light would
be observable to us. Doing so highly interesting results come out.
The energy density of a field is as is known . (6.37)
In the observation domain will, according to fig. 6.19, decrease the energy density w
proportional to 1/r4. Multiplied with the respective volume we obtain for the energy itself
the proportionality: W ~ 1/r . (6.38)
If we make use of the Einstein relation W = m • c2
with c = constant holds also for the mass m: m ~ 1/r . (6.39)
In this manner we finally find out, why the small nucleons (protons and neutrons) subjectively
seen are heavier than the very much larger electrons. As a consequence does a relativistic
particle experience the increase of mass (with the length contraction according to
equation 6.24*):
(6.40)
This result is experimentally secured. Our considerations therefore are entirely in accord
with the Lorentz-transformation. There at least is no reason to doubt the correctness.
In the model domain we with advantage assume a spherical symmetry. As easily can be
shown with equations 6.4 and 6.31, are the capacity and charge of a spherical capacitor
independent of the radius (6.30 and 6.32). In that case also the from both values calculable
energy (6.1) must be constant. We come to the same conclusion, if take we the above
equation 6.37 for the energy density of a field or if we carry out a verification of
dimensions:
W [VAs] = konst. . (6.33)
This simple result is the physical basis for the law of conservation of energy! With that
we have eliminated an axiom.
The result states that the energy stays the same, even if the radius, the distance or the
speed of an object should change. To the subjectively observing person it shows itself
merely in various forms of expression. Consequently is the energy, as is dictated by the
here presented field theory, formed by binding in the inside of the quanta the same amount
of energy but of the opposite sign. The amount of energy therefore is bound to the number
of the present particles, as we already had derived.
Under the assumption of a constant time (6.35) there results for the electric conductivity
by calculating backwards over the equation of the relaxation time (5.3), the
proportionality: (6.36)
(6.36)
Maybe the result surprises, because it can't be observed. Actually we know that the
(microscopically observed conductivity in reality only represents an approximated
averaged measure for the mobility of free charge carriers. In a particle-free vacuum
however this well-known interpretation doesn't make sense anymore. Hence it is
recommended, to only work with the relaxation time constants. Who nevertheless wants to
eontinue to work with as a pure factor of description, can do this. But he mustn't be
surprised, if in the model domain with decreasing radius the conductivity suddenly
increases. But this is necessary, because otherwise the elementary particles would
collapse. Only by the increase of the conductivity, which is produced by the spherical
vortex itself, will the expanding eddy current build up in the inside of the particles, which
counteract the from the outside concentrating potential vortex.
132 ________________________________________________________ Particle decay
Approach:
a.The particles don't decay by themselves, but only by a
corresponding disturbance from the outside.
b.The decay time is the statistical average in which such a disturbance
can occur and take effect.
c.The elementary particles consist of an integral and finite
number of elementary vortices, which can't decay anymore for
their part.
d.If the compound particles get into the disturbing range of
influence of high-frequency alternating fields, then they are
stimulated to violent oscillations and in that way can be torn
apart into individual parts.
e.As disturbing factor the high-frequency fields of flying past
neutrinos are considered primarily.
f. Authoritative for the threshold of decay and with that also for
the rate of decay is the distance, in which the neutrinos fly past
the particle.
g.The distance becomes the larger, the smaller the particle is. If
the particle thus experiences a relativistic length contraction,
then it will, statistically seen, to the same extent become more
stable!
That has nothing to do at all with time dilatationl
We are entitled to demand a simultaneity, after all we are the ones,
who tell what that is!
Fig. 6.20: Proposal for an interpretation of the particle decay
: Walter Theimer: Die Relativitatstheorie, Seite 106,
Francke Verlag, Bern, 1977, ISBN 3-772O-126O-4
Theory of objectivity 133
6.20 Particle decay
We still have to get rid of a fundamental misunderstanding. It concerns the problem of the
time dilatation. Here the model domain doesn't give us any difficulty, because it dictates a
constant and therefore by us definable time. In the relativistic view however should in
moving systems clocks go wrong! But how does one want to explain a time dilatation
physically, if it merely represents a purely mathematical result of the actually taking place
length contraction on the one hand and the postulate of a constant speed of light on the
other hand?
Nobody has troubled more about the physical interpretation than Einstein himself. But he
had as less as we nowadays the possibility to verify the so-called phenomenon experimentally,
by accelerating a laboratory clock to values close to the speed of light.
Only atomic particles can, e.g. in accelerator systems, be brought on such high speeds and
then be observed for their properties. But also these experiments don't have any power of
proof, as long as we don't know the atomistic structure of the particles and there exists the
danger of misinterpretations.
So the slowing down of the rate of decay of instable. particles at high speeds willingly is
cited as "proof for time dilatation. "The most cited example for the time dilatation is
the "long-living" meson. The is a charged particle, which exists only 2,2 * 10-6
seconds if it is observed in rest. Then it decays ... About 10 % of the mesons reach the
earth' s surface. Even if they fly with approximately the speed of light, they at least must
have used 30 • 2,2 * 10-6 seconds, in order to reach the earth. Their "life" therefore by the
movement has been extended for a multiple... to the supporters of the theory of relativity
here the time dilatation is revealed..."
This "proof however is worthless, as long as "the structure and the mechanism of decay
of the particle are not known", like W. Theimer expresses himself.
On the basis of the new field theory the approach standing on the left page is dared (fig.
6.20). Accordingly the particles don't decay by themselves, but only by a corresponding
disturbance from the outside, which for instance is triggered by the high-frequency fields
of flying past neutrinos. The closer the neutrinos fly past the particle, the sooner it will
decay. But the distance becomes the larger, the smaller the particle is. If the particle thus
experiences a relativistic length contraction, then it will, statistically seen, to the same
extent become more stable!
That has nothing to do at all with time dilatation, as this proposal for an interpretation
shows (fig. 6.20). The same effect of course also occurs, if atomic clocks are taken for a
fly in a plane and compared to identically constructed clocks on earth.
The time was stipulated by us and therefore should be able to keep its universal validity.
We are entitled to demand a simultaneity, after all we are the ones, who tell what
simultaneity is!
An interesting technical use would be the acceleration of the rate of decay in order to
dispose of radioactively contaminated waste. For that the waste has to be irradiated by
collecting and focussing free neutrinos or with the help of a neutrino transmitter, like one
which will be discussed in chapter 9. After such a neutrino shower dangerous radioactive
waste would be reusable or at most be harmless domestic refuse.
