Abstracts Details

A ?gedanken' experiment is presented whereby two simultaneous events (from the point of view of an obesrver in a train) trigger an explosion which destroys a train. A stationary observer using the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) to determine simultaneity in the train concludes that no simultaneous events have occurred on the train, hence the train is intact. It is pointed out that the conclusion the stationary observer makes is incorrect because it is based on STR as a method to determine simultaneity.

An example of a classical system violating Bell's inequalities is discussed.

Existence of a classical system violating Bell's inequalities takes away the

?mysterious? property usually called ?non-locality? which according to

some characterizes quantum-mechanical systems.

This note discusses the fact that the Second Postulate in the Special

Theory of Relativity (STR) is an absolute statement which implicitly

acknowledges, despite the claim in [3] to the contrary, the existence of

what was known as ?ether?. The stated absolute property of light to have a

?definite velocity c independent of the emitting body? implicitly requires,

especially from the point of view of the stationary observer, propagation

of light to occur in an ubiquitous absolute medium external to any system

(ether). If the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, as is

widely accepted, then it is an experiment rejecting the Second Postulate,

respectively, disproving STR.

It is shown that there is one purely deterministic outcome when measurement is made on the state function chosen by EPR to describe the combined two-particle system - the distance between the two particles is preserved the same. Further, it is shown that, surprisingly, the psi-function designed according to QM leads to the following paradox - despite the fact that the two particles move in opposite directions, in time the distance between them becomes shorter and shorter.

There are well-established facts whose validity is beyond any doubt, such as the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 or the fact that, say, a lamp that can only flash once in its entire lifetime can only flash at a given coordinate x and at a given time t in a given system O. Such lamp cannot flash at a given moment t at two different coordinates x in this system O. A theory is physically inconsistent if it leads to conclusions which contradict such well-established facts. In this text arguments are given which show that STR leads to conclusions which are in contradiction with well-established facts and therefore it is physically inconsistent.

Analysis is presented of the derivation in [1] of what is popularly known as E = mc2. It is emphasized that once a relationship, describing a phenomenon in the stationary system, is known exactly and with certainty, any theory that would derive a different relationship regarding the same phenomenon in terms of the same stationary system should be rejected out of hand.

It is shown that, contrary to existing opinion, Maxwell?s equations are not invariant in form under Lorentz transformations.

In is shown that when two observers carry out a simultaneous measurement on a pair of spin-? particles in a ?singlet? state a possibility exists for an outcome that lacks physical meaning. More specifically, despite the fact that the two commuting operators formally possess simultaneous eigenvectors it is not possible for physical reasons these eigenvectors to exist simultaneously. It is pointed out that the possibility for such non-physical outcome is observed only in the case of ?singlet? state which puts into question the physical meaning of such state, and following from it exotic notions such as ?non-locality?. This hints that probably QM in its present form should be reconsidered with regard to its limitations.

Efforts to demonstrate that the application of Lorentz transformations leads to the form Y' = [Y - (v/c)N] (at least to the leading orders of approximation), which has been elevated to the criterion for the validity of STR , has been the main point in the founding paper on Special Theory of Relativity (STR). The text that follows shows that the said criterion for the validity of STR set forth in the mentioned paper is not fulfilled, despite the implication in it that it is.