| 查看: 50 | 回复: 0 | |||
[交流]
187、A Paradigm Reflection on Special Relativity and the Dilemma
|
|
preprint of cern doi :10.5281/zenodo.21700507 or https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21700507 my academic identifier: orcid id: 0009-0005-2185-5790. you may go to the official academic website to retrieve and view relevant research content. readers may copy this number to search on the official zenodo website (search by english title or english keywords) to view the full english and chinese pdf texts. Abstract Lorentz derived the complete mathematical formulation of the Lorentz transformation, yet remained confined by conventional ideas of ether and absolute spacetime and failed to break free from the established theoretical framework. Einstein took a decisive step toward theoretical innovation and possessed undeniable pioneering historical value. Nevertheless, his deductions exceeded the scope supported by observational evidence available at that time. Over extended reasoning gave rise to inferences including length contraction, relativistic mass, spacetime curvature and cosmic singularities. Restricted by limited observational equipment and detection dimensions a century ago, early observational samples only yielded superficial agreement with relativity. With comprehensive advances in modern deep sky surveys, high energy collision experiments and black hole imaging, numerous measured phenomena cannot be explained consistently within this theoretical system, generating mutually exclusive logical contradictions. Only three fundamental forces exist in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force. Gravity and the strong force act exclusively on massive matter, while electromagnetism acts only upon charged particles. Photons are massless and uncharged; none of the three fundamental forces can drag, accelerate or decelerate free photons. No physical mechanism can compress the intrinsic size of matter merely through relative motion. The spacetime geometric hypothesis of relativity is intrinsically incompatible with the underlying operating rules of the three fundamental forces. So called length contraction is merely a computational artifact produced by custom defined measurement rules, analogous to the visual illusion that distant objects appear smaller, and does not represent real physical shrinkage of material entities. Solid objects maintain fixed intrinsic dimensions stabilized by strong force and electromagnetic interactions. This paper adopts the Primordial Photon Theory: high energy photons self lock via the strong force to form three fundamental particles, namely protons, neutrons and electrons. All macroscopic matter is composed of these three particles, and all arguments in this paper are built upon this material system. In vacuum, photons always propagate at constant light speed. The reduced light speed observed inside media is merely a macroscopic illusion; the intrinsic velocity of individual photons never changes. While travelling through media, photons are repeatedly temporarily absorbed and re emitted by medium particles. Detoured propagation paths prolong total transit time and create the impression of slower light speed. Photons lose luminal velocity only when absorbed and converted into material particles. As long as they remain in photon form, their propagation speed stays constant and cannot be altered by any physical agent. The core of scientific progress lies in evidence based reflection and iterative revision, rather than groundless speculation. Doubt must be supported by complete arguments derived from observational facts and underlying logic. Skepticism gains research value only when contradictions are widely acknowledged within the physics community and cannot be reasonably resolved by existing theories. Fundamental physical facts repeatedly verified by massive experiments possess stable objective authenticity and cannot be arbitrarily rejected. Systematic review and criticism are meaningful only for stage dependent theories suffering persistent observational conflicts and fundamental logical fractures. No theoretical model can perfectly match all observational scenarios forever. Meta scientific statistics over long time scales indicate that most high impact publications appearing in top journals are not products of academic fraud. Nevertheless, they are largely local, stage dependent patch work studies without fundamental paradigm breaking innovation. Most research fine tunes parameters and revises numerical values within the old paradigm, shifting outcomes from approximate misfit toward marginal improvement, for instance adjusting an equation result from five to six. Such minor numerical optimization never touches underlying axioms and core defects of the theory. These patch work results fit observations only within narrow experimental windows and temporarily mend superficial data conflicts. Once observational precision improves or detection ranges expand, such conclusions break down. Many highly cited top journal conclusions from ten years ago are no longer valid. Local fitting and minor revision cannot fix systemic root flaws. Superficially updated results merely postpone theoretical crises and even indirectly reveal inherent irreconcilable defects inside the dominant paradigm. Nowadays a rigid academic paradigm prevails within fundamental physics, and relativity is treated as unchallengeable orthodoxy. Large quantities of research are carried out within this framework. Whenever observational data conflict with theoretical predictions, scholars tend to introduce auxiliary hypotheses such as dark matter, dark energy and the cosmological constant to patch discrepancies, and seldom perform systematic re examination of underlying premises. The discipline gradually loses vitality for critical thinking and drifts toward closed dogmatism. Many theoretical systems construct closed logical loops using self invented terminology and obscure basic common sense. Learners must accept the whole conceptual system to comprehend texts and are easily trapped by preset logic, losing the ability to distinguish right from wrong. This paper differentiates objective observational facts from man made ontological hypotheses, compares two interpretative frameworks for the constancy of light speed, analyzes interaction boundaries between three fundamental forces and photons under the Primordial Photon Theory, clarifies inherent logical flaws of length contraction and singularity inferences, and discusses developmental obstacles caused by paradigm solidification and self created conceptual systems. Keywords: Lorentz transformation; special relativity; length contraction; three fundamental forces; proton; neutron; electron; Primordial Photon Theory; observational iteration; paradigm solidification 1. Introduction At the end of the 19th century, the Michelson Morley experiment falsified expectations of ether drift, marking a critical turning point for physics. Lorentz constructed the complete set of Lorentz transformation equations. This mathematical tool could fit most electromagnetic observations of that era, yet he could not free himself from conventional ideas about ether medium and absolute spacetime. He attributed scale changes under motion to material deformation squeezed by ether and treated time variables inside transformations merely as mathematical devices for simplifying calculations. He refused to carry out subversive innovation concerning the underlying logic of classical spacetime and remained confined inside the old paradigm. Using exactly the same transformation mathematics, Einstein discarded the ether hypothesis, postulated the constancy of light speed as an axiom, reconstructed fundamental conceptions of time and space, and founded special relativity. Against the historical background of the early 20th century, this theoretical breakthrough broke long established rigid mindsets in classical physics and possessed epoch making pioneering significance. Nonetheless, observational precision and cosmic detection range were severely limited at that time. Available samples for microphysics and astronomy only permitted superficial consistency with mathematical deductions of relativity, while deep seated logical loopholes remained hidden. Einstein’s theoretical deductions went far beyond reasonable boundaries supported by objective evidence. Assertions of length contraction and relativistic mass were artificially introduced to accommodate observational discrepancies. General relativity later extended these ideas to abstract concepts including spacetime curvature and cosmic singularities, planting persistent contradictions within the whole theoretical framework. From the viewpoint of underlying material interactions, all material motion and energy transfer in the universe are governed exclusively by gravity, electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force. Within the Primordial Photon Theory, high energy photons self lock via the strong force and form protons, neutrons and electrons; all macroscopic matter consists of these three particles. Gravity and the strong force act only on massive entities; electromagnetism acts only on charged particles. Photons have neither mass nor electric charge. None of the three fundamental forces can alter photon velocity. No physical pathway exists for relative motion alone to change intrinsic object size or bend spacetime. Relativity bypasses the well verified unified framework of fundamental forces and arbitrarily builds a geometric model of variable spacetime, generating irreconcilable theoretical rifts. The core of scientific progress lies in evidence based reflection and iterative revision, rather than groundless speculation. Doubt must be supported by complete arguments derived from observational facts and underlying logic. Skepticism gains research value only when contradictions are widely acknowledged within the physics community and cannot be reasonably resolved by existing theories. Fundamental physical facts repeatedly verified by massive experiments possess stable objective authenticity and cannot be arbitrarily rejected. Systematic review and criticism are meaningful only for stage dependent theories suffering persistent observational conflicts and fundamental logical fractures. No theoretical model can perfectly match all observational scenarios forever. Top journal publications nowadays display structural paradigm bias. High impact journal results are mostly locally oriented, patch work stage dependent conclusions without fundamental innovation or paradigm breakthrough. They achieve self consistency only under limited experimental conditions. A great many studies merely perform minor numerical revision and fitting optimization for old theories and cannot eliminate systemic logical defects. Their conclusions inevitably fail as observational techniques improve. Acceptance by a top journal represents only provisional approval from two or three reviewers who share the dominant paradigm. It does not equal ultimate consensus across the whole physics community and does not prove the correctness of theoretical foundations. Nevertheless, contemporary physical academia is heavily dependent on the relativistic paradigm. Curriculum design, research project approval and professional title evaluation all take this framework as core benchmark. Numerous researchers tie their papers, funding and academic influence to derivative research fields originating from relativity. Confronted with conflicts between theory and measurements, they tend to cover fundamental defects by adding ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses and deliberately evade fundamental rifts between spacetime hypotheses and three fundamental forces. Room for critical re examination keeps shrinking, and the discipline gradually slides toward closed dogmatism. All analyses in this paper are built upon the material framework where protons, neutrons and electrons are formed by self locking high energy photons.  |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有12人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有8人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有8人回复
