Member

Science policy is an interference of obscure interests and mentalities affecting the efficiency of the act of science. If they cannot influence science policy, scientists can instead break mentalities, so substantially improving their performance. Consider our derivation of the LT (GED 05) as effect of the determination by light signals of the radius vectors changing systematically over time in direction and magnitude with respect to inertial observers. The initially assumed concepts of absolute rest (by coordinate systems at absolute rest with axes not determined by bodies of a reference frame), absolute time (by inertial identical clocks running at a rate independent of their speeds) and determinable absolute speeds -the opposite of Einstein?s- were validated by our derivation of the LT. They were validated in SRT by the explanation given to the manipulation of equations which led Einstein to the LT in 1905. In their turn, by b x=Cartesian coordinate and b t=Newtonian time, they validated the classical principle of the physical determination of equations in SRT and the relativistic quantum theories, raising genuine subquantum information with application to radically new technologies. Einstein?s development of SRT without his 1905 derivation of the LT (against its correctness and impact) proves the essential part played by revelation in the act of science, that scientists deliberate decisions disturb the revealed knowledge, involving, in the best case ?incomprehensible? works. Dirac?s and der Waerden?s failing in obtaining the subquantum information at their time supports this conclusion. The rationale we gave to Einstein?s 1905 derivation of the LT shows -for the first time- that rationales can be provided to some revealed knowledge. Therefore, scientists can, breaking the atheistic mentality (beneficiary of a formidable logistics), as well as the mentality that revealed knowledge cannot be turned into rational knowledge, to substantially improve their creative performance.

Reprinted in Proceedings of the NPA, V3, N1, pp. 95, 111, 130.

An "act of science' is the birth of any new idea, or set of coupled ideas, contributing to the advance of science. Today no role is granted to 'revelation', as disclosure by God, in an act of science. Science and secularization have worked together to establish this idea that science and divine work must be antimonies. This has led to a crisis in modern physics.

Most parts of modern physics were built on the special relativity theory (SRT), which was based on Einstein?s 1905 paper on relativity, less the derivation of the Lorentz transformation (LT) in that paper. My recent derivation of the LT [GED 16, pp. 3-11 (2005)] - tracing by light the radius vectors of moving geometrical points - discloses the objective physics warranting the ?mysterious? manipulation of some equations that led Einstein to the LT in 1905. The correctness of that derivation of the LT enables founding SRT on the whole of Einstein?s 1905 paper on relativity. The perennial criticism of the SRT fails. The meaning of Cartesian coordinate that results for the term of the LT [where ], and that of Newtonian time that results for the term (time in which light travels coordinate ), validated the classical principle of the physical determination of equations in SRT [11th Conf. NPA]. By the energy-momentum relationship, the principle is valid in the relativistic quantum theories, too. There results genuine information - condensed in models of ?elementary? particles (electron, photon, etc.) from the terms of their basic equations, which remains to be tested by new experimental techniques and applied to radically novel technologies.

We here deduce the Lorentz transformation (LT) as a member of a class of time-dependent coordinate transformations, complementary to those already known as spatial translations and rotations. This exercise validates the principle of physical determination of equations within special relativity theory (SRT), in accordance with the derivation of the LT in Einstein's original paper on relativity. This validation is possible because our LT deduction also discloses the real physics warranting Einstein's manipulation of several equations in that paper, thus proving the correctness of his derivation of the LT. Far from being an arbitrary dogmatic construction, SRT appears to be a revealed dogmatic theory that can be turned into a truly physical one like operational theory. Radically new technological applications of relativistic quantum field theories then result.

Radically new technologies, based on the sub-quantum structure of matter, should have been achieved by the middle of the 20th century.  This did not happen because, instead of disclosing the physics warranting some manipulations of equations leading to the Lorentz transformations (LT) in his original papaer on relativity, Einstein tacitly ignored that derivation.  Consequently, the classical principle of physical determination of equations was not implemented in the resulting official special relativity theory (SRT), or, implicitly, in the subsequent theories built on SRT.  Essential information on the sub-quantum structure of matter was missed, and that information provided by colliding relativistic particles was not enough to be understood.  Today, Einstein's original paper on relativity is considered to be of only historical and philosophical significance.  But an understanding of the sub-quantum nature of of matter can be reached when SRT's flaws are avoided.  Tracing radius vectors of moving geometrical points by light signals, I deduced the LT in a manner giving evidence for the physics behinds Einstein's 1905 manipulation of equations.  The resulting meaning of the terms of the LT [that of Cartesian coordinate...], validated the classical principle of physical determination in SRT and the relativistic theories, obtaining that otherwise missed information.