Einstein's Relativity contains a HUGE Loophole. Its Implications Can't Be Ignored.

An extraordinary misunderstanding lies at the heart of relativity, born in the overlooked distinction between the empirical verifiability of the two-way speed of light and the presumed isotropy of one-way light speed. What is this distinction exactly, and how might making it explicit shake the foundations of our entire paradigm of modern physics?

References and Sources:

Einstein, Albert. (1905). "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"

Reichenbach, Hans. (1927). "The Philosophy of Space and Time"

Mansouri, Reza & Sexl, Roman. (1977). "A test theory of special relativity: I. Simultaneity and clock synchronization." General Relativity and Gravitation. 8. 497-513. 10.1007/BF00762634.

Anderson, R., Vetharaniam, I., & Stedman, G.E. (1998). "Conventionality of synchronisation, gauge dependence and test theories of relativity." Physics Reports, 295, 93-180.

Contents:
00:00 - Intro
01:06 - The Caveat to Einstein's Postulate
03:33 - The One-Way Speed of Light Problem
08:33 - The Epsilon Value
11:23 - The Loophole
14:07 - Invariance of Laws of Physics
16:17 - Absolute Simultaneity/Anisotropic Light
18:16 - New Directions

[ScienceClicEN]

Again an interesting video, but I don't really see why this would be a loophole in the theory. In particular, this doesn't have any implications about how the theory accurately describes the universe. You seem to be opposing "reality" on the one hand, and "narratives" on the other hand. But I would argue that all theories are just narratives, models, which we use to describe the world. Two different models / narratives can describe one same physical world, just like we can devise different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

I had a similar issue with Veritasium's video about the two-way speed of light : the only thing which matters in relativity is the causality web that connects events. Once you have that, the way in which you embed this web using coordinates is arbitrary, and in particular you can distort the embedding without changing the underlying structure (which amounts to changing the value of "epsilon", or the balance of the one-way speeds). Choosing different epsilons yields different equations, but still describes exactly the same physics. In the end we simply choose the solution with most symmetries, because it leads to easier descriptions.

I think your videos are actually questioning the way we communicate about relativity, rather than the theory itself. You are raising an interesting question though : should we present the model as being "truth", or instead just a "useful narrative". Science communicators (including myself) tend to choose the first option in what regards relativity. But we also tend to select the second option in what regards quantum mechanics. So this is indeed an interesting question to raise. I am curious to see however how this would all fit with general relativity. In special relativity you can indeed choose any single frame as your "absolute frame" and define an absolute simultaneity etc. But within general relativity, I believe this would be far more difficult. I am also wondering how this would fit with modern particle physics and Yang-Mills theories ? In both general relativity and Yang-Mills theories we use the invariance of physical laws (local symmetries) to write elegant laws which are as simple as they probably could be. This allowed us to describe all fundamental interactions.

[FunkyDexter]

This is related to c being equal to 1/√e0u0, the electric and permittivity constants of empty space. If we allow those values to vary in a gradient across space (like in a gravitational field), the effective speed of light can change, but each observer will still measure the same speed regardless because light has first to climb the gradient (going slower) and then descend the gradient (going faster). The matter is complicated a bit by the fundamental non inertial nature of gravitational fields, but it's a good enough line of thought. The question really boils down to choosing "beautiful" mathematics (simple to treat, but with weird philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality) or choosing sensible philosophy (space being a physical thing, capable of deformations and oscillations) with very complex and headachy mathematical descriptions.

[ranisharoni]

The video is basically about "Lorentz ether theory" assumed to be indistinguishable from special-relativity

[Jim-uqmc]

c=1/sqrt(e0u0) and thus is a scalar valued entity. Some anisotopy induced via direction dependent propagation velocities of light contradicts the scalar property of the relation c=1/sqrt(e0u0). The speed of light thus needs to be isotropic in any reference frame, closing the alleged loophole.

[hsasser]

AT An explanation for "Relativity" that makes PRACTICAL SENSE!!! Thank you!!

[justuseodysee]

One major issue:
Observers arent free to choose epsilon. They're obligated to pick one in agreement with the rest of the framework.

[spyro]

Don't keep us waiting with what's next, man. I haven't been this excited about absolute space and time for several years. Very much like what you are putting out here!

[mathoph]

I have the feeling you are building something strong... your last video on time dilation with Pyhagorean theorem for gamma and the wave front delay was astonishingly simple and brillant.
When I see this, I wonder: why nobody thinks about that before ? Or maybe there is a big mistake we dont see ? I dont Know.

[digguscience]

The visual animation is very easy to understand. Learn a lot from here

[TheoWerewolf]

Oh soooo close! You're right - the important word is "measured", but the loophole is that you can't prove that the measuring tools (clocks, rulers) are consistent. In fact, we KNOW they aren't - that's literally what the Lorentz transform is transforming - the rulers and clocks. Buit we tend to equate the rulers and clocks with space and time as if they were the same thing.

[roy]

Astronomers have witnessed the same supernova explosion more than once due to gravitational lensing and were able to accurately calculate when the next observation was going to occur utilizing the speed of light. Is this not an example of measuring the speed of light in one direction?

[darrennew]

I don't think it's "equally probable" that the light travels at a different speed in each direction. I think it's simply a possibility that hasn't been accounted for. We don't know how probable a thing is if we never measured it, so to assert anything about the probability seems off.

That said, very interesting take. I'm now curious how the "curvature" of spacetime due to mass plays into this.

[Loreweavver]

Omg. Thank you. I've been trying to think of a way to word my thoughts about how "bullet time" would work in an online multiplayer game and this is it.
Ones perspective can be sped up for a fraction of time so long as it is slowed down relatively to the amount of time spent sped up.

[Mr_Kyle_]

Now THIS is what I'm talking about! I saw that Veritasium episode and I've been binge deep diving into all things space time trying to deepen my unanswered questions and my own theories - and this channel is like a god send for where my mind has been going! One million thank yous! 🙏

[JosephLMcCord]

You guys are ON THE BALL with this. I have been wracking my brains over all of this - the paradoxes and the *purported* explanations of them, etc. - for a very long time. I've been intending to do some serious in-depth scholarly work on it someday - mostly approaching it through study of the history - but I think you're way ahead of me, here. This is *very* satisfying to see. I have the feeling that you're on exactly the right track.

Incidentally - I at first intended to send you an email - but for someone reason the youtube feature that's supposed to give that doesn't seem to be working...

[YeahBoy]

Been loving this series! As someone who’s always loved physics I’ve been really curious about your final conclusion/proposition, since as far as I can tell you might be proposing some kind of “aether”. I could be wrong of course. I appreciate the amount of ground work that needs to be layed out before you can even begin to give us your idea, and I look forward to the next installment!

[TerranIV]

Great thought-provoking video! I wish more people did this sort of well researched speculative science/philosophy. Looking forward to your next one!

[peterpalmadesso]

Maxwell seems to have derived the speed of electromagnetic waves in vacuum at 300, 000 km/s without using any synchronized clocks if I understand correctly. Wouldn't that tend to suggest epsilon at 1/2 is probably real and not arbitrary?

[eduardocolin]

This series on relativity is truly amazing, I can't wait to see what comes next.

However, I'm having trouble understanding how the Michelson-Morley experiment fits into all this, since it seems to favor the view of the isotropic behavior of light. I hope you address that in a future video.

[rwmcgwier]

It is wonderful to have the true logic and underlying mathematical consequences of the assumptions made by Einstein and taken as fact by others called into consideration.