andsm

Yes, a direct test of a hypothesis is impossible. Only an indirect test is possible. However, the possibility of an indirect test also means that the hypothesis is testable. So far, it seems that you are the only one on this forum who has understood some of the ideas of the hypothesis. The rest still think that this hypothesis can be easily disproved. I looked, in several answers there is a reference to STR, there is a mention of Minkowski space. I want to clarify the question of how this hypothesis and STR are connected. First, I will note that all modern physical theories, directly or indirectly, rely on the principle of causality. STR is no exception. I will copy part of the text from the article: Let's consider possible objections to the hypothesis: …. 3. In any space-time, an event, if it occurs, occurs in all IFRs. It is impossible to find such a space-time that the event occurs only in the part of IFRs. Therefore, the hypothesis is incorrect. 4. The special theory of relativity leads to the Minkowski space. In the Minkowski space, an event, if it occurs, occurs in all IFRs. Therefore, this hypothesis contradicts STR. … On objection #3. As already mentioned, the hypothesis indicates the existence of something that is more fundamental than spacetime, precisely because it is impossible to obtain different events in different IFRs in spacetime. On objection #4. The answer to it has already been given, but we will write again, in more detail. STR is dependent on the principle of causality. So, in the first postulate of STR, the laws of nature are mentioned. The laws of nature connect the initial state, which can be considered as a cause, and the state at some subsequent point in time, which can be considered as consequences. The second postulate of STR mentions the motion of light in a vacuum. That is, there is something that moves in some conditions at some point in time, and it is claimed that it will behave this way from now on. Here, too, the cause and effect are visible. There are no ways to formulate the postulates of STR without relying on the principle of causality. The hypothesis generalizes the principle of causality, and leads to two types of transformations. One of the transformations, transformations from the observer's point of view, conserves events during the transition between IFRs. According to the STR, the event, if it has occurred, occurs in all IFRs. Therefore, STR is consistent with transformations from the observer's point of view. STR, if the hypothesis is correct, describes only transformations of the first type, transformations from the point of view of the observer. The hypothesis, indeed, does not agree with Minkowski space, as with any other space-time, but this does not mean that it contradicts STR. The Minkowski space remains here as a useful tool describing only what the STR describes. STR does not describe transformations of the second type. Yes, there is a clear misunderstanding of what the hypothesis is. The hypothesis assumes that the principle of causality applies independently to different IFRs. Accordingly, different IFRs contain different events and different cause-and-effect relationships. In IFR 2, observer B experienced a muon collision. This IFR does not contain causal relationships that originate from a photon collision. In IFR 1, observer A experienced a photon collision. This IFR does not contain causal relationships that originate from a muon collision. Observers A and B, without changing their speed, can exchange signals with information about what they observed. However, both observers cannot receive information about events that did not occur in their IFRs, because this would violate the causality principle within their IFRs. Accordingly, observer A will receive a signal from B that he observed a photon collision, and B will receive a signal from A that he observed a photon collision. In order for information to arrive without distortion, it is necessary that the information be preserved during the transition between IFRs. And it cannot be preserved if there is a difference in the events between IFRs. Because in the IFR where observer B is, there are no cause-and-effect relationships from the collision of photons. In order for observer A, after changing speed and moving to the same IFR as B, to remember that he observed a collision of photons, it is necessary that in this IFR there be cause-and-effect relationships starting from the collision of photons. But they cannot be, because this would violate the principle of causality in this IFR.

The hypothesis, in my opinion, is testable. The hypothesis allows us to build a new class of theories. And the predictions of such a theory can be tested. Therefore, it can be stated that the hypothesis is, in principle, testable. The conclusion obtained above that, from the observer's point of view, events in all IFRs are the same, excludes the possibility of direct testing of the hypothesis by comparing events in different IFRs. There are theories of physics that expect the same events in all IFRs. If a pair of particles collided in some IFR, then all modern theories of physics expect that such a collision will occur in all reference frames. It turns out that all modern theories of physics agree with this hypothesis, although they satisfy only transformations from the observer's point of view. One can try to find other ways to test the hypothesis. One way is to build a theory based on a hypothesis. And then it would be possible to test the predictions of such a theory. We can see a way to indirectly test the hypothesis, try to find restrictions from above and below on how much events can differ in different IFRs. Exactly how to do this is not entirely clear, but some considerations can be made. A person changes his speed in a fairly wide range. At the same time, a person exists in all these IFRs. Using this fact, and based on various models about how events change between IFRs, by chance or otherwise, it is possible to get a restriction from above on how different events are between IFRs. This idea of indirect verification is quite simple. This may mean that one can find a number of indirect ways to test the hypothesis. Perhaps a detailed analysis will allow us to find ways to also find opportunities to check the restriction from below.

To move to another IFR, the observer needs to change his speed. In the new IFR, according to the hypothesis, the causality principle is applied independently of the previous IFR. Accordingly, in the new IFR there may be different causal relationships between events, and different events. If in the first IFR there was a photon collision, and in the second IFR a muon collision, then after the observer moves to the second IFR there can be no causal relationships starting from the photon collision. The observer will think that in the first IFR he observed a muon collision. Is there an understanding that with the described application of the causality principle, events, from the observer's point of view, are the same in all IFRs, even if in fact they are different? This is one of the key conclusions of the hypothesis, on which everything else is based. If this is not clear, then I suggest first discussing this issue before discussing other issues. Yes No. My task is to prove that the hypothesis does not contradict existing well-tested theories of physics when they are applied within one IFR. Including that it does not contradict the lepton number conservation law. I do not need to prove that some law is or is not satisfied when switching between IFRs, because a new type of transformation is at work here, which is not described by any of the existing theories. If it is not clear why it does not contradict, I suggest first considering the question of whether events in different IFRs are the same from the point of view of an observer, if the causality principle is applied independently for different IFRs.

The answer consists of two parts. First, from the observer's point of view, the events in all IFRs are the same. This is what I have already written about above. The observer observed a collision of two photons in one IFR, after which he changed its speed and moved to another IFR, where instead of a collision of photons there was a collision of muons. Here, there are different cause-and-effect relationships, which include the observer. There cannot be information about a collision of photons, because this would violate the principle of causality in this IFR. Accordingly, according to all the observer's data, it will follow that in the previous IFR he observed a collision of muons. The second part, about the lepton number conservation law. The hypothesis implies two types of transformations. The first is transformations from the observer's point of view. This type of transformation preserves events during the transition. It is important to understand that it preserves them from the observer's point of view only, for the reasons described above. The second type of transformation is direct transformations that take into account the difference in events. If the hypothesis is true, then all modern theories existing in physics take into account only the first type of transformations. This means that all theories widely accepted in modern physics, including the lepton number conservation law, operate only within one IFR.

I would like to discuss the hypothesis. Hypothesis: the principle of causality is applied separately and independently for each different inertial reference frame (IFR). Inertial reference frames are considered different if they have a non-zero relative velocity. We consider only inertial reference frames. For space-time with gravity, we consider local inertial reference frames. Independent application of the causality principle for different IFRs means that events in different IFRs may differ. The events here are events described by the causality principle, not events in special relativity. The difference in events here is not related to the difference in the simultaneity of events. The difference in events in different IFRs means that in one IFR, for example, a collision of two photons may occur. And in another IFR, this collision will not occur or, for example, there will be a collision of two muons. With a sufficiently large difference in events between two IFRs, the Moon may exist in the first IFR and be absent in the second. The independent application of the principle of causality to different IFRs means that the transition between IFRs is not simply a change of coordinate system in the space-time continuum. If we analyze this hypothesis, it is easy to obtain that from the observer's point of view, events in all IFRs are the same. In what frame of reference does the observer observe? The answer to this question is quite obvious. The observer observes in the frame of reference relative to which he is stationary. If this were not so, then, for example, receiving a signal from a satellite about his observations, it would be impossible to say that the signal from the satellite carries information about what is happening in the frame of reference relative to which the satellite is stationary. The conclusion immediately follows from this: An observer cannot have information about an event that did not occur in his IFR, the IFR relative to which he is stationary. You can try to build various schemes on how to get information from more than one IFR, but they all run into one insurmountable problem. The problem is that to get information from some other IFR, you need to eliminate the transition transformation between IFRs, which is impossible. If we analyze this a little further, we can conclude that from the observer's point of view, events in all IFRs are the same, even if in reality they are different. From this it follows that there must be two types of transformations when moving between IFRs. The first type is transformations from the observer's point of view. Such transformations must preserve events. And such a type of transformation exists, it is special theory of relativity. The second type of transformations is direct transformations, taking into account the difference in events. This is a new type of transformation that the hypothesis predicts. A little about where this hypothesis came from, to understand the context. I have a theory that, if true, is a unified field theory. This theory has not yet been published. We will not consider the theory in this topic, we will only consider the hypothesis described above. The theory assumes that causality is absent at the fundamental level. It is clear that the phenomena we observe have a cause-and-effect relationships. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain causality. I have obtained causality in my theory, but there is only one way to obtain it, and from it the conclusion clearly follows that the principle of causality is applied separately and independently for each different inertial reference frame. Events in different IFRs may differ. I have formulated this conclusion from the theory as a separate hypothesis, and now I am trying to publish it, without references to the main theory. So far, it has not worked. At the same time, I have not received any reasonable objections from reviewers. Several reviews that I received contained obvious errors. In one case, the reviewer privately called me by phone and said that he did not see any errors in the article, but was not ready to approve the article, since there would definitely be a lot of criticism from authoritative scientists. Appeals are simply not accepted for consideration. In general, there is a feeling that the main objection is metaphysical - this cannot be, because this can never be. I would like some substantive criticism of the hypothesis. In advance, for those who suggest going to study physics. I studied, I have a master's degree in physics, there are articles from my postgraduate studies, for example in Physics Review Letters. Now I do not work in academia. The full text of the article with the hypothesis can be found here: https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0089. Also, added it to attachment to the post. To start a discussion, you don’t need to read the entire article; what I’ve already written in the topic is enough. PrincipleOfCausalityGeneralization_en.pdf