By Prof. Lefteris Kaliambos (Natural Philosopher in New Energy). He was born in Skotina of Olympus in 1944. (leutereskaliampos@gmail.com)
November 1, 2018
Writing in Google “Experiments rejecting Einstein” surprisingly we see that in this topic the articles are not related with the real experiments of atomic and nuclear physics rejecting Einstein's theories of relativity but with ideas influenced by the theory of relativity. For example among a large number of articles written under the influence of relativity there are dominant articles written under the assumptions that both special and general relativity are valid theories. In the article " Einstein's Most Famous Thought Experiment-University of Pittsburgh" one sees that such a thought experiment is criticized under the assuption that the fallacious concept of ether is correct, because Einstein in the same year (1895) wrote an essay to his uncle Koch on "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields". Moreover In the article "The Four Bigest Mistakes of Einstein's Scientific Life- Forbes" one sees that the famous equation of Einstein is criticized under the assumption that the hypothesis of rest energy is correct, while this hypothesis did much to retard the progress of nuclear physics. Also in the article “Albert Einstein began by rejecting the ether theory”.one can see that the criticism is based on the wrong assumption that the concept of ether is correct..Under this crisis of physics for the correct experiments rejecting the theories of relativity here you can see my presentation of the experiments rejecting Einstein in NCSR “Democritos” (2002). Although the experiments rejected the ether Einstein in 1915 in his invalid general relativity not only reintroduced such a fallacious medium but also introduced the strange hypothesis of the curvature of space, which later (1938) was revised by him. For example in his "The evolution of physics" (page 234) he wrote that light consists not of quanta of fields without mass (1905) but of photons having mass m = hν/c2 similar to corpuscles of Newton, who predicted the gravitational properties of light confirmed by Soldner in 1801. Nevertheless today under the influence of the contradicting relativity theories many physicists believe that the ether truly exists but it cannot be proven. Especially in the above article we read: “However various kinds of experiments had been made, among other was an experiment conducted by the American Scientists Michelson and Morley 19th century, and all of those experiments failed to detect the presence of luminiferous ether, so that the ether is deemed non-existent. There is a possibility that luminiferous ether truly exists, but it cannot be proven.”
Since this article contains misconceptions I clear that the ether was overthrown not only by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) but also by the experiments of the Doppler effect. For example in the sound waves moving through a medium we measure different results when the observer moves with respect to the source or the source with respect to the observer. However since in the case of photons the ether cannot exist we observe the same energy hν with the same frequency ν in both cases, as in the case of the same energy in a collision of two particles no matter which particle is moving. Under such inconsistencies of Einstein M. Barone and F. Sellery organized the international conference “Frontiers of fundamental physics” (1993), in which I presented not only the experiments of the American physicists French and Tessman (1963) who showed the fallacy of Maxwell’s fields (invalid Maxwell’s equations) but also my discovery of dipolic photons having energy E = hν and mass m = hν/c2 which invalidate Maxwell’s fields and Einstein’s relativity. Note that the fields violate Newton's third law of simultaneous action and reaction confirmed by the experiments of the Quantum Entanglement. (Quantum Entanglement rejects Einstein).
It is of interest to note that M. Barone and F. Selleri in the preface of the proceedings (1993) wrote:
“In relativity most people believe that the luminiferous ether of the XIXth century has been ruled out by Michelson-type experiments and by the development of the theory of special relativity. The situation is very different however, since Poincare and Lorentz were both defenders of the existence of ether, and Einstein himself, after 1916 radically modified his previously negative attitude. For example in 1924 he wrote that according to special relativity the ether remains still absolute because its influence on the inertia of bodies.”
Also for the inconsistencies of Einstein about the ether in “MODERN PHYSICS” (page 9) we read: “When Michelson and Einstein met briefly in 1931, Michelson remarked that he regretted that his experiment might have been responsible for giving birth to such a monster - referring to the theory of special relativity.”
In nuclear physics, after my published paper “ Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism” (2003) based on nuclear experiments, today it is well- known that all experiments of atomic and nuclear physics reject the theory of relativity and confirm Newton’s laws based on experiments. Actually today a number of physicists around the world based on experiments of modern physics abandoned the theory of relativity and apply the well-established laws of Newton, Coulomb, and Ampere, with forces acting at a distance in accordance with Newton’s third law of instantaneous action and reaction . Such unified forces of laws reject the so-called strong and weak interactions which did much to retard the progress of nuclear physics. In fact, the forces of laws and my discovery of the dipole nature of photon based on laws and experiments (1993) solve all the problems including the atomic and nuclear phenomena of non conservative forces. Note that the great physicist Richard Feynman (Nobel prize 1965 ) wrote: “Progress in science comes when experiments contradict theory” (Richard Feynman on twitter).
Historically, before the development of special relativity (1905) it had been found experimentally by W. Kaufmann (1901) that the electron mass of high-speed electrons (β-rays) increases with increasing speed. According to the history of special relativity Kaufmann tried to explain his experiment by using the hypothesis of electromagnetic mass introduced by J. J. Thomson and others. In the same way Bucherer in 1909 found experimentally that the increasing mass M at a speed u near the speed of light c of the β-rays with respect to the constant inertial mass Mo of the Newtonian mechanics is given by an equation which is similar to the equation of the theory of special relativity. That is
M/Mo = c/(c2- u2)0.5
Under this condition he believed that he confirmed experimentally, not the hypothesis of the electromagnetic mass, but the theory of special relativity, because Einstein in his last paper of 1905 differentiating the above formula and applying Newton’s second law (PRINCIPIA 1687) formulated his famous equation E = mc2. It is of interest to note that Newton’s second law F = d(Mu)/dt contains the variable mass M, while for the constant inertial mass Mo of the Newtonian mechanics of conservative forces (without absorption or emission of particles having mass) is applied the fundamental equation F = Mo (du/dt) formulized by the mathematician Euler in 1750. (“INTRODUCTION TO CONCEPTS AND THEORIES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE” page 118). Unfortunately in the absence of such a detailed knowledge Bucherer in 1909 did not know that the increasing mass of the electron is due to the absorption of the mass defect (like the electromagnetic mass) of the neutron, which was discovered later (1932).
Today in “MODERN PHYSICS” (page 452) we read that the mass of neutron (n) is equal to the mass of 1838.68 electrons, while the mass of proton (p) is equal to the mass of 1836,15 electrons. That is, when the neutron changes to proton we observe a mass defect Δm = mass of 2.53 electrons which gives the increasing mass ΔΜ of the emitting electron, (because the mass of the emitting antineutrino is negligible). So, after my paper of 2003 which led to my discovery of the new structure of protons and neutrons based on the experiments of the magnetic moments in nucleons and on the discovery of quarks by Gell-Mann (1964) one can describe the new structures of nucleons as
n = [ 92(dud) + 4u + 8d ] = 288 quarks = mass of 1838.68 electrons
p = [ 93(dud) + 5d + 4u ] = 288 quarks = mass of 1836.15 electrons
Hence in the neutron decay under the conservation law of energy we also observe that the unstable quark triad (ddd) of neutron turns to the stable quark triad (dud) of proton under quark-quark interactions based on the applications of the well-established electromagnetic laws giving an energy Δw = 1.293 MeV which becomes the energy ΔΕ = 1.293 MeV of the emitting electron. Such an experiment led to my discovery of the law of energy and mass given by
Δw/Δm = ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c2
This law is based on the two conservation laws of energy and mass confirmed by Joule (1847) and by Lavoisier (1789), while Einstein’s hypothesis of “mass –energy equivalence” violate them. Thus Einstein’s hypothesis of the invalid rest energy was overthrown by the experiments of atomic and nuclear physics . For example in the correct Bohr model the experiments of the ionization of energy showed that the energy Δw = 13.6 eV of the electron-proton interaction turns to the energy hν = 13.6 eV of the photon (Nobel prize1922), while the mass defect ΔΜ = ΔΕ/c2 becomes the mass m = hν/c2 of the same photon. In this case the law of energy and mass is given by
Δw/Δm = hν/m = c2
Today it is well known that Einstein in his first paper (1905) for interpreting the absorption of light by the electron under the influence of Maxwell’s fields violated not only Newton’s third law of instantaneous action and reaction but also the two conservation laws of mass. For example he believed that the photon absorption contributes only to the increase of the electron energy ΔΕ, That is, he wrote that hν = ΔE in accordance with the conservation law of energy while in the same year under his wrong interpretation of his equation E = mc2 changed his ideas of the conservation law of energy by introducing the wrong hypothesis that the mass turns to energy. That is, Einstein in a short period introduced contradicting assumptions. Therefore in the “Introduction..science” (page 503) we read: “ The complete absence of contact with professional physicists during this period was perhaps a blessing in disguise, for it permitted Einstein to develop his rather unorthodox approach to the problems of physics.” Whereas for the triumph of Newton’s PRINCIPIA in the same book (page 113) we read: “ Its publication in 1687 established Newton at once as one of the greatest thinkers in history.”
In fact, Einstein not only believed that PRINCIPIA was overthrown by his various hypotheses but also violated Newton’s laws based on experiments. For example in the conclusions of his book in 1938 wrote that science is not the collection of laws but of theories. Therefore under such violations of laws I discovered the law of Photon-Matter Interaction given by
hν/m = ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c2
According to this law the photon of energy E = hν and mass m = hν/c2 contributes not only to the increase of the electron energy ΔΕ but also to the increase of the electron mass ΔΜ. (Correct explanation of photoelectric effect). The same situation we observe also in the experiments of the Compton effect (Correct Compton effect), where the increase of the electron mass ΔΜ is due not to the relative motion (invalid theory of special relativity) but to the law of the absorption of photon (photon - matter interaction), in wich we observe a time dilation and length contraction. (Discovery of length contraction). Finally after my paper “Spin-spin interactions of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures" (2008) I showed that all experiments of atomic and nuclear physics reject Einstein, because we observe absorption of photons in the systems of non conservative forces. On the other hand in the Newtonian Mechanics of conservative forces we observe always a constant inertial mass, because the absorption of photons is absent. In other words the fundamental laws of the Newtonian Mechanics cannot be ovethrown by the theories.
Nevertheless under the influence of the theory of relativity today it is a great difficulty for a large number of physicists to accept the experiments of the beta decay and the law of the absorption of photon, which invalidate relativity. For example in the “Criticism of the theory of relativity- Wikipedia” one reads : “Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community”.
On this point of view in the preface of the proceedings of 1993 M. Barone and F. Selleri wrote: “The Olympia conference Frontiers of fundamental physics was a gathering of about hundred scientists who carry on their research in conceptual important areas of physical science (they do fundamental physics). Most of them were physicists but also historians and philosophers of science were well represented. An important fraction of the participants could be considered heretical because they disagreed with the validity of one or several fundamental assumptions of modern physics”
In addition at the conference I proved that when the bipolar photon is absorbed by the electron then we have a contraction not in the length ΔL of the electron, as Einstein believed, but a contraction dy in the distance that the electron travels when it interacts with the opposite charges of the photon for not to violate Newton's third law of instantaneous action from a distance, which invalidates Einstein's ideas of space-time. Here we clarify that in the introduction to the conference proceedings book the organizers wrote about the greatest contradiction of Einstein that they found between special relativity (1905) and general relativity (1915). As we know in 1904 the Dutch physicist Lorentz assumed that as the electron moves in the deceptive ether of Maxwell's theory then in addition to the increased mass ΔM of the electron we will have a contraction ΔL along the length of the electron to be affected by the ether. However, Einstein did not attribute the contraction ΔL to the ether but to the relative motion of the electron in relation to an observer. In fact, he justified this hypothesis with a mental experiment. That is, he thought about what exactly would happen if an observer moved at the speed c of light. As the years passed, however, he modified this hypothesis, bringing the ether back to the forefront in his new work on general relativity. Apart from that at the conference I proved that Einstein's mental experiment is also rejected by the rotating charged cylinder experiment. Today on page 421 of the book one can read that the observer moving at the same speed of the charges will be able to measure magnetic forces, while Einstein believed that in this case the observer can not measure magnetic forces because for him the charges will have zero velocity. Therefore with the rotating cylinder experiment I proved that if an observer were moving at the same speed c of the bipolar photon it would still be able to measure the electric attraction and the magnetic repulsion of the dipole photon charges.
It is indeed fortunate that after many years of research I have found that Einstein in the opening paragraph of his 1905 paper of special relativity was wrong, because he believed incorrectly that an observer measures the fallacious electric field E of Maxwell, when an observer is at rest with a conductor and the magnet is in motion. Note that the experiments of Faraday (1831) and of Neumann (1845) showed that the induced EMF is due always to the magnetic force because of the relative motion, no matter what is moving. Nevertheless in 1865 Maxwell in his electromagnetic theory introduced a fallacious electric field E. In fact according to the laws of Coulomb and Ampere also in the experiments of a rotating charged cylinder the observer always can measure magnetic forces.
Such an inconsistency of special relativity one can read in my paragraph of the proceedings of 1993 (page 421): “This inconsistency of special relativity in electromagnetism can be shown also in one experiment about the magnetic forces inside a rotating charged cylinder. If an observer is rotating with the cylinder (frame S’) he will measure only magnetic forces inside. Electric forces cannot appear, because the electrostatic equations say, there, will be no electric fields inside.”
To conclude I emphasize that although all atomic and nuclear experiments reject relativity the modern physics of the 21th century should include the theories of Einstein for historical purposes, because the famous equation E = mc2 led to my discovery of dipolic photons with energy E = hν and mass m = hν/c2 which did much for the progress of the quantum physics including the atomic and nuclear phenomena of non conservative forces.