V. I. Melnikov
The theory of relativity and the associated experiments were helpful, at first glance, in proving unambiguously the absence of the absolute frame in the descriptions of the propagation of electromagnetic oscillations (in particular, the absence of the aether) and, therefore, in vindicating the dependence of some parameters of the physical objects under consideration on the observer position. However, the solution of this specific problem has drawn our attention to much more complicated and general problems. Notwithstanding these facts, the theory of relativity (TR) is generally recognized as a complete theory. The theory of special relativity (TSR) and the major part of the theory of general relativity (TGR) are believed to have been verified experimentally.
As for the TSR, there was no other apparent alternative. Once the two fundamental postulates were admitted, the TSR implications were derived simply by evident formal and logical operations. Nevertheless, the lack of any substantial justification of the postulates points to some incompleteness of the TSR.
The TGR cannot be adopted as a fully elaborated theory because of a number of reasons. In particular, we would like to focus the reader’s attention to the following ones.
1. There is no (and, probably, there cannot exist any) universal form of the space-time law valid from the viewpoint of any observer.
2. General relativity cannot be unified with quantum mechanics. It cannot be used as a basis for the unified field theory (unification of different kinds of interaction).
3. The extension of the TSR and TGR conclusions to philosophy, biology, cosmology, etc. is open to question.
4. There is no consensus on the interpretation of changes in the parameters of moving objects and frames from the viewpoint of every observer. Are they virtual or real?
5. There is no valid reason for the mechanism of electromagnetic wave propagation to differ in essence from the mechanism of propagation of other physical waves.
6. There is no validation of the relationship between the general space-time concepts and the characteristics of particular physical processes such as electromagnetic wave propagation and gravity. It is not clear, in particular, why the space metric depends on gravity rather than on the whole family of attraction-repulsion laws.
7. There persists the problem of reducing the number of independent original explicit/implicit local/general concepts, definitions, conditions, statements, and postulates used to construct the theory. Their logical justification is also high on the agenda. The implicit concepts include the concepts of space, time, frame, etc. This problem is not even considered by physicists, although this can be the point crucial for the completion of the TGR. In particular, the meaning which is put into the TR concept of “time” is unclear, in view of the diversity of concepts which had been suggested by the beginning of the 21st century.
The present state of the TR is primarily due to the following reasons.
1. Absolutization of the speed of light as a universal constant.
2. Absolutization of the kinematic approach in the TSR and of gravity in the TGR when these theories are used to solve various physical problems.
3. The concept of the information on the object is not clearly separated from the object’s real state within the bounds of physics, informatics, and philosophy (the problem of objectivity and subjectivity).
4. The lack of the general definition of the “frame” concept in regard to an arbitrary process of any nature.
5. There is no logically consistent concept of “time” and “space”.
Various world-known workgroups in physics spent many years to solve the above-listed problems by traditional methods and achieved no success. Therefore, we need essentially new ideas, concepts, and methods. A new system of first principles and their relationships may be useful in this respect. The point is that the concepts of “space” and “time” are arbitrarily changed in the TR, inasmuch as they are related to general science and our everyday life rather than to physics. Otherwise the general basic human-related concepts are formulated on the basis of specific physical characteristics of a particular physical process. However, the validity of the latter scenario had not been proved by now.
The TCS we consider here may shed some light on these problems. To this end, we should use the TCS concepts of frame, time, and space. The frame suitable for describing some object or process is defined as the outer boundary of the CS to which this object or process belongs (Sec. 3.1.1). Time is defined as a tool for the informational comparison of the states (or characteristics) of the objects from different CSs (Sec. 2.5), with the dynamical CS model used as the frame of reference (this CS model was called the clocks).
Thus, time is the partial case of the frame which embraces the processes and objects of any nature and all their characteristics.
Space is considered as a special kind of medium for the objects located in it. This medium is characterized by an infinitesimal difference of states between its different parts as compared to the difference of states of the objects and the medium.
The concepts of “time” and “frame” are based on the concept of CS, which is the standard of constancy and self-sufficiency by definition. Hence we come to one of the most important attributes of these concepts, namely, the impossibility of any change in the frame scale (scale division value). Indeed, any change is the result of some external action on the CS, and any such action leads to the opening of the CS, in contradiction with the CS definition. Therefore, the acceleration or deceleration of time (the change of the scale division value of the frame as a standard) is impossible. The effects which are explained using these hypothetic features require other substantiation.
When some group of homogeneous objects is described within the context of some particular branch of science, it would be reasonable to adapt the general content of the TSC (Sec. 1) to the concepts used in it.
The TCS adaptation for the solution of physical problems can be performed by developing some unified model of the generalized physical process (Sec. 3.2). This unified model is hereafter referred to as “model”. The preliminary use of this model showed that it is an effective methodological tool for solving various physical problems.
In the case of the theory of relativity, the model turned out to be useful in solving a number of fundamental problems. In particular, it allowed us to
1) validate the both TSR postulates;
2) eliminate the contradictions in the approaches used in the TR and other branches of physics (electrodynamics, optics, acoustics, the theory of vibrations and waves, etc.);
3) propose an essentially novel unified and systematic interpretation of various well-known facts and experiments (the Michelson, Fresnel, and Fizeau experiments; stellar aberrations, double stars, etc.);
4) unveil and extend the content of the concept of inertial frame (IF).
Moreover, the TCS allows the concept of physical closed system to be generalized and the mechanisms of the origination of the inertial force, attraction–repulsion forces, etc. to be justified (Secs. 3.2 and 3.3).
According to our model, the state of a physical body and the state of the medium surrounding this body change when they interact. Some products of this interaction fill the physical vacuum, and its properties change. As a result, some new medium is formed around the body. Its properties are different from the properties of the original physical vacuum.
This new medium is bound (in particular, kinematically) to the physical body, inasmuch as they interact uninterruptedly. Since interaction flows cannot extend to infinity, the relative states and positions of the body in the new medium depend on the kind of its motion and the structure of the original media. The development of the interaction process and the action of the medium on the body also differ in each specific case. In particular, the inertial forces and attraction–repulsion forces (e.g., gravity) originate in the case of asymmetric medium (Fig. 11). For symmetric media, the resultant of mechanical components is equal to zero, and we get the inertial frame (IF) in the case of the “mass” interaction.
Generally speaking, the newly formed medium is some system with distributed parameters. Every element of this system has some connection with other elements. So, the action on one element will spread to other elements (with a finite velocity). Therefore, some secondary processes will go on in the medium. They will be determined by the original interaction of the physical body with the physical vacuum.
Since the interaction of a complex physical body is a complex process, the interaction area is filled with the flows of different structure, and some unique complex medium is formed around the body. The relationship between this medium and the body is expressed in terms of the velocity of the body with respect to the medium as a whole and the velocities of the flows with respect to the body. Hence the IF, which is the attribute of some part of the medium in the case of the “mass” interaction, is inseparably linked with the part of the composition medium formed by the electromagnetic interaction of the body and the physical vacuum.