Member

PART I

Previously, based on the law of energy conservation, embodying the mass & energy equivalence of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), thus inducing the rest mass decrease of a bound object, as much as the static binding energy coming into play, the first author developed a theory valid both for the atomic and celestial worlds, and yielding totally similar quantum mechanical deployments for both worlds. The application of the idea, however, to a rotating disc, which is Einstein's gedanken experiment, on which The Grand Master based his General Theory of Relativity (GTR), brings up two distinct effects: 1) Already, as observed by an observer located at the center of the disc and rotating with the same angular velocity as that of the disc, the clock placed at the edge, must, still owing to the law of relativistic law of energy conservation, embodying the mass & energy equivalence of the STR, experience, a rest mass decrease in the centrifugal force field, which in return, leads to a time dilation. 2) The clock according to an outside observer, further dilates by the usual Lorentz coefficient. The first effect is though as important as the second one. Einstein took into account the second one, but not the first one (as he specifies his thoughts about the problem, in the footnote of page 60 of his book, The Meaning of Relativity). The overall result is that, the time dilation an object placed at the edge of a rotating disc, would display, should be about twice as that predicted by Einstein. The law of conservation of angular momentum, constitutes a cross check of our finding. The recent measurements back us up firmly. At the same time and devilishly, the inexact analogy Einstein did set between the effect of rotational acceleration, and the effect of gravitation, leads to results which are the same as ours, up to a third order Taylor Expansion, thus well beyond any precision can intercept, with regards to actual gravitational measurements. The remedy of the mistake in uestion, leaves the GTR unfortunately, needless.

PART II

The present approach further leads to the derivation of de Broglie relationship, coming up to be coupled with the superluminal velocity U_t=(c²/v) SQRT (1-v²/c²), where v is the velocity of the bound object, say an electron moving around a nucleus, or a planet moving around a star, with respect to the source of attraction or repulsion of concern. This suggests that an interaction, such as that delineated by an optical interception, can of course take place with an ?energy exchange? (in that case, "electromagnetic energy exchange"), but it can also occur without any energy exchange. We propose to call the latter "wave-like interaction". An interaction with energy exchange can not evidently occur with a speed exceeding the speed of light, whereas an interaction without any energy exchange occurs with the superluminal speed U_t, were the object moving with a speed v, with respect to the attraction or repulsion center. Note that the present approach is, in full conformity with the STR. Our disclosure, seems to be capable to explain the spooky experimental results newly reported. Thus, it is not that, Non-Locality and STR are incompatible. It is that the STR, allows a type of interaction faster than the speed of light, were there no exchange of energy.

We base the present approach, on an alternative theory of gravitation, consisting essentially on the law of energy conservation broadened to embody the mass & energy equivalence of the Special Theory of Relativity, and remedying, known problems and incompatibilities, associated with the actually reigning conception. The mere rotation problem of say, a sphere, can well be undertaken, along the same idea. Accordingly, we consider the problem of gravity created by a rotating celestial body. Finally we apply our results to the case of a geosynchronous satellite, which is, schematically speaking, nothing but a clock placed on a considerably high tower. The approach ironically furnishes the >Newton's law of motion, which however we derive, based on just static forces, and not an acceleration, governing a motion. (There is anyway no motion for a geosynchronous satellite, when observed from Earth.) We predict accordingly that, the blue shift of light from a geosynchronous satellite on an orbit of radius r_Gs should be softened as much as omega²/(2c²)(r_Gs²-R²) compared to what is expected classically; here omega is Earth's self rotation angular momentum, R Earth's radius, and c the speed of light in empty space.  We hope, the validity of this unforeseen prediction, can soon be checked out.

In this article, we show that the analogy between the effect of acceleration and the effect of gravitation, making up the Classical (C) Principle of Equivalence (PE), which is the basis of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), constitutes a non-conform analogy, i.e. it does not embody a one to one correspondence between the two worlds coming into play. This will constitute a starting point to show the inadequacy of the Classical Principle of Equivalence (CPE). On the basis of a quantum mechanical theorem previously established, we prove that, the CPE is further inaccurate. For one thing, it happens to constitute a violation of the law of energy conservation. More specifically, owing to the law of energy conservation, broadened to embody the mass & energy equivalence of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), next to the usual mass dilation due to the movement in question, the force field too, is to alter the rest mass subject to an accelerational motion (which happens something totally overlooked by the GTR). This assertion is well compatible with the recent disclosure that the time dilation displayed by a rotating object is much greater than the one classically predicted on the basis of just the Lorentz factor, associated with the motion. Thence, we establish a Proper PE. The approach we present, leaves unnecessary the CPE, thus the GTR, and yields a whole new theory about gravitation, along with all end results of this theory, up to a third order Taylor expansion, yet with no singularity (thus, no black holes), and with an incomparable ease, with a different metric too. Our approach in fact is (not restricted to gravitation, thus is) extendable to all fields.