NEW ARGUMENT Shows That Relativity Suffers Momentum Limits! 

Abstract: The Principle of Relativity claims that absolute motion of weighty matter can’t be detected. However a simple thought experiment shows that there is an absolute limit to momentum: BLACK MOMENTUM MATTERS! It’s astounding that nobody noticed this before.


Poincaré on the Relativity of motion, claiming all motion is relative,1895, ten years before the Einstein parrot tried to grab it all (because that volatile was depressed): “L’expérience a révélé une foule de faits qui peuvent se résumer dans la formule suivante: il est impossible de rendre manifeste le mouvement absolu de la matière, ou mieux le mouvement relatif de la mati`ere par rapport `à l’éther; tout ce qu’on peut mettre en évidence, c’est le mouvement de la matière pondérable par rapport `à la matière pondérable.” 

Contracted translation: myriad facts show absolute motion of weighty matter can’t be detected, all we can know is relative motion.

OK, let’s suppose the universe is an infinite flat sea with frictionless ships. Consider ships A and B, each of mass m.  Poincaré says we can consider only relative speeds. Now accelerate A. According to the theory of Relativity and the equation: EE = ppcc + mmcccc, the energy of A will grow as pc, where p is its momentum, namely: mu/√(1-uu/cc)…

Let’s keep on accelerating. At some point, the energy will be so large that A will become a Black Hole. More exactly the length of the ship A will sit inside its Schwarschild radius. , 

Conclusion: all momenta are not the same: very high momenta are absolutely bounded… thanks to the Theory of Relativity itself!.

Quandary: Does that mean that the Theory of Relativity is… false? Not exactly, not that fast. 

The basic slowing down of local time, shrinkage of length in the direction of motion, Lorentz transformations, Poincaré group, additions of speeds and the relationships I used were all obtained from the dynamics of light, which has mass zero and can have arbitrary low energy. So all the equations and the conceptology remain valid. 

What gets hit is the Principle of Relativity of the motions of WEIGHTY matter in its most general form. The light cone: xx + yy + zz = cctt in the case of light remains unchanged and valid, and it’s all we need to derive the preceding entities and equations.

If there is a limit to momentum, as I simply demonstrated, then there is a notion of absolute rest. A consequence is that what I call the “Russian Dolls” universes can’t happen.

Another more mundane consequence is the de facto existence if not a sort of aether, of a sort of absolute cosmic reference frame [1].

Morality: theories are refinements. We further refined.

Patrice Ayme 


P/S 1: Cognoscenti may object that one may enter a Black Hole and see no physical change. That’s true if the Black Hole were galactic size. Namely, here is my preferred example: an object the size of the Milky Way and with the density of air would imprison light, so would be technically, from the outside, a Black Hole. One could enter such a Black Hole, in a kilometer long starship, without visible effect. However, in a smaller Black Hole, the full Ricci tensor comes into play, and lateral tearing forces (“tidal” effects) appear. Those effects would be blatant in a small BH, and the smaller the BH, the more blatant.


P/S 2: One may make to the preceding argument the following objection: it has long been known that the Theory of Gravitation (aka “Einstein General Relativity, GR”) “contradicts” Special Relativity, SR: light can go in circles in GR, light can come to a standstill in GR, etc. Einstein himself recognized this. However the contradiction is only apparent, going from local to global in a differentiable way. One could as well say, and the analogy is 100% exact, that global differential geometry “contradicts” local differential geometry: the global geometry (and topology!) of a manifold deviates from its own local geometry, because the former is integrated from the latter.

But this is not what the effect I showed does, as it contradicts the Principle of Relativity, LOCALLY… while, for the reason I explained, it leaves the basic equations of SR intact…


P/S 3: The observation above is not the Unruh effect. By the way, moving at high speed in one direction will make that side of the cabin hot, simply from hitting the Cosmic Background Radiation (this effect, which is also extremely elementary to anticipate, is much more basic than the Unruh effect…) One could disregard this situation by philosophically claiming the heat came from the outside. In the effect I brandished, the effect is inside, as the tidal forces caused by the formation of the black Hole permeate the inside of the enclosure.


[1] Poincaré struggled with the notion of aether, which was supposed to be the medium in which electromagnetic waves… waved. He finally concluded that the notion was useless, one could do all the computations without it. Einstein said so in September 1905, deducing all the Relativity equations from just the Principle of Relativity (Galileo- Poincaré) and the constancy of the speed of light in all cases (Poincaré). However, it’s not that simple. Poincaré, who had introduced relativistic gravitational waves (June 1905) was cautious about the aether, and Einstein would go back to it after 1921 (Poincaré died at 56 in 1912, too bad…) Mathematical theorems evolved after 1930 (Whitney) and 1960 (Nash) show that a manifold of dimension n can be embedded (technical meaning in differential topology is subjacent) in a larger Euclidean space of dimension 2n +1. I view this “simple” fact as more salient, and rich in consequences, than the String Theory divagations…

If there is a limit to momentum, as I simply demonstrated, then there is a notion of absolute rest… As there would be in the (2n+1) dimensional manifold. This conceptual framework enables mathematically SQPR, the Sub Quantum Physical Reality and its superluminal speed… Somewhat above 10^23c…


6 Responses to “RELATIVITY NOT ABSOLUTE! Black Holes Matter!”

  1. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    Poincare and Einstein had good reason to have aether in the back of their minds, all the while they could make most local, practical applications work without it. This is the conundrum – that practicality is the new basis of science, and philosophy has been dropped as irrelevant.

    My newest twist on the aether is that it is much like a self assembling lyotropic liquid crystal that conducts mostly point-source (longitudinal/torsiona) energies. In this schema, transverse energy is a secondary derivative. This explains how atoms can chase energy fields that are point-source (and not the 10,000X bigger transverse waves) – but the light we detect with polarizers (transverse) does indeed exist! The answer is not either-or but instead all of the above.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Ronald! There are two distinct questions: the global frame and the ether. They are related: if there is an aether, there is a global frame.

      In my own SQPR, particles are like amoebas spreading at speed TAU > 10^23c), establishing the Hilbert spaces of the usual Quantum Physics. So they form local, dynamical aethers. That scheme implies a global frame.
      Some physicists will scoff, because… they don’t know enough math, including, among their vast ignorance, the Whitney-Nash embedding theorems… (1930s-1960s)

      In SQPR there is no global aether. But there is a global frame… Which we have mathematically, anyway… In SQPR, the new atoms are these transluminal, dynamic, always unstable amoebas… In complete contradiction with Einstein 1905 intuition in his (gratuitous and not necessary) description of the “Lichtquanten” in his (correct) explanation of the photoelectric effect (for which he got the Nobel in 1021… NOT for Relativity, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Larmor-POINCARE theory established prior… Einstein’s contribution, ironically enough, was to do away with an absolute frame… And that is non sense as my Russian Doll theory shows…

      What’s a self assembling lyotropic liquid crystal?
      And what would it be made of?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    Hi Patrice, forgive me if it takes a day or two to digest want you’ve said about SQPR and local/global aether ideas. Relative to your question, some liquid crystals are self assembling. All it takes for assembly is the traveral of heat/light energy across the lyotropic material. Lyotropic means having ability to dissolve and reform. This is basis for LCD monitors.

    Some self-assembling liquid crystals build “tunnels” with hexagonally formed cylindrical “tubes”. As long as there is a source of heat and light, they will continue self-assembling to the end of the medium involved. Interestingly some nano-lipid self-assembling structures are LCD-like and take hexagonally formed cylindrical structure, but that’s another pretty wild story I’m sure you can infer … My quantumextinction wordpress has a recent writeup on all these (new to me) ideas …

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I think the deepest debate at this point in physics is whether NONLOCALITY is real, or an artefact (as friend Ian Miller believes).
      I have long held the position that nonlocality is real. (Hence the necessity for TAU, and an absolute frame… However that seems a given, considering the math… )
      But it’s a guess and QTT people (who, de facto, follow Einstein!) disagree, and they have experimental back-up data…

      Liked by 1 person

      • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

        RIght, but isn’t non-locality just a placeholder in the mathematics? I think for Einstein it was just that … a way to temporarily reconcile his overall theory with quirks he did not understand. Towards the end of his career he reportedly allowed for the aether, and unofficially disavowed his previous work. At the end of his life, he regretted having studied the photon for his entire adult life, and knowing no more than when he started.

        I am/was a programmer in my work days, so bit math is about as far as I go. But, to me non-locality is a placeholder that eventually will resolve to classical local theory with an underlying rationale that probably includes a provision for crystallographic aether echoes as the basis of “entanglement”. Consider that almost every known method for creating entangled photons depends at some point on the use of a hexagonally shaped crystal of some sort.

        Every contrivance for creating the QE stream uses materials which are so based … BBO (hexagonal barium/boron oxide crystal), Boron nitride (hex also), and silicon nitride (hexagonal crystal structure). The honeycomb seems to be synonymous with entanglement. Which … starts to feel new-age-ish – which I definitely am NOT – but there’s some truth to almost every rumor.

        Liked by 1 person

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: