International Journal of Physics
Volume 6, 2018 - Issue 3
Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/ijp

ISSN(Print): 2333-4568
ISSN(Online): 2333-4576

Article Versions

Export Article

Cite this article

- Normal Style
- MLA Style
- APA Style
- Chicago Style

Research Article

Open Access Peer-reviewed

Hutu^{ }

Published online: May 18, 2018

**1**. Amend the two postulates of the special relativity. **2**. Set “the measurement is founded to change the object by destroying the original quantum coherence between the object and its environment” as *the third postulate*. **3**. From *the third postulate** **(n**ew added postulate**)* educe: the concept of the reference system’s referenced weight and perhaps the reference system’s space is something nearby the referenced weight; time coordinate should be something as space coordinate there is not the problem to have to synchronize the clocks of the two reference systems before simultaneous time measurement; the essence of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; the “actual length” of the same measurement unit in different case is different; it is the reference system’s taking measurement instead of the ether or the object’s motion that changes the being measured object; two reference systems (e.g. Σ and Σ_{a} and their relative motion may be uniform or not) taking simultaneously measure of the same quantity of the same object their measurement will disturb each other and “the numerical values before Σ’s unit” ≠ “the numerical values before Σ_{a}’s unit” (only when the relative motion speed *v*≡0 or uniform relative speed *v*=0 can the sign ≠ just turn into =); even in uniform relative motion Σ and Σ_{a} still are different for the relative motion and they may have different referenced weight, in taking simultaneously measure of the same speed of relative motion the speed numerical values of Σ_{a} is *v* while of Σ is *va*_{11}/*a*_{44}. **4**. From the three postulates express the relation between the numerical values of the two reference systems taking simultaneous measurement of the same speed by matrix and the same small moving particle’s mass by the element of the matrix; determine the speed of the photon which come from “in motion” light source by the photon’s speed when light source “in stationary” and the reference systems’ coordinate relation; determine two reference systems’ coordinates relation when reduced the case educe generally there is not the invariant interval and then there is not the proper time, re-reduced the case and re-re-reduced the case then educe the essence of *“in motion” time dilate or contract meanwhil**e** space contract or dilate in all directions, moving micro-particle’s time to dilate and space to contract in all directions, superluminal photonic tunneling experiment, **quasar**’s super-luminal expansion and fine structure constant’s lessening, took Michelson-Morley experiment with the light from the sun or **quasars** or high-speed (close to C) moving micro-particle **all **obtained zero result*.

From the Special Relativity people hold opinion “the laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, no inertial reference system is special”, “no signal can be transmitted by any means whatsoever, in free space or in a material medium, at a speed faster than the speed of light C”. However, 1965’s discovery 3K background radiation left over from the “big bang” (1978 Nobel prize) ^{ 1} and the farther discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (2006 Nobel prize) ^{ 2} show us it seems that the reference system of the 3K background radiation left over from the “big bang” should be a special reference system; since 1970 as many as hundred quasars’ apparent superluminal expansions observed in astrophysics ^{ 3, 4}; since 1993 reports on superluminal photonic tunneling experiments ^{ 5, 6, 7, 8}; they all set the Special Relativity on trial.

In the past years a number of studious persons had made efforts to amend the special relativity more perfect. Among them such as: In 1949 Robertson proposed a more general transformation ^{ 9}. In 1963 Edwards replaced “the universal speed of light (one–way speed of light)” with the “two–way average speed of light” found his “generalized Lorentz transformation” ^{ 10}. In 1970 Winnie started from his three postulates (the principle of average light speed over a closed path, the principle of the same space interval and the same time interval, the principle of linearity) found his “–Lorentz transformation” ^{ 11}. In 1977 Mansouri and Sexl proposed another more general transformation ^{ 12}. After that time, many papers on this topic, such as Bertotti (1979) ^{ 13}, Tan Shu–Sheng (1984) ^{ 14}, MacArthur (1986) ^{ 15}, Haugan and Will (1987) ^{ 16}, Abolghasem, Khajehpour and Mansouri (1988) ^{ 17}, Riis et al. (1988, 1989) ^{ 18}, Bay and White (1989) ^{ 19}, Gabriel and Haugan (1990) ^{ 20}, Krisheret al. (1990) ^{ 21}, and Will (1992) ^{ 22}, were published. Also there are other form of space-time theory which continue to use the invariant interval ^{ 23}, still other form of *generalized Lorentz transformation* not educed from basic postulates ^{ 24}. But all of them are far from to harmonize Einstein special relativity and the recent progress in quantum mechanics. As Nobel prize winner Britain physical scientist P. A. M. Dirac said: ……*(**to harmonize special relativity a**nd q**uantum **m**echanics**)* *is** the main problem in the recent 40-years.* *A great deal of efforts had made for it, we still cannot find out a way to solve the problem*.

However, in 1998 several new physics experiments about quantum theory were performed and analyzed at European laboratory for particle physics (CERN). These new experiments associate with John C. Mather and George F. Smoot’s discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation have laid the foundation to harmonize special relativity and quantum mechanics. This paper appears: In the light of John C. Mather and George F. Smoot’s discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation we amend “the principle of relativity”, in the light of the reasonable part in all the studious person’s efforts had made to amend the special relativity we amend “the universal speed of light”, in the light of the progress in quantum theory since 1998 we set an “new added postulate”, reasoning from the three postulates (two amended postulates and a new added postulate) by mathematics as Einstein in special relativity, we can educe entirely new** **conclusions.

Next will be expressed by four steps.

The first postulate of Einstein special relativity i.e. the principle of relativity: “The laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems” ^{ 25}. It can be checked even with the event of everyday life. It makes people firmly believe “no inertial reference system is special, any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are identical for the laws of physics”. It seems to be absolutely right. However, John C. Mather and George F. Smoot’s discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (2006 Nobel prize) distinctly tell us: “Two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different”. Therefore, we have no choice but to amend the principle of relativity to *new principle of relativity*: “The laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, while any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different” (the *different* is the data of the two reference systems taking simultaneous measurement of the same physical quantity of the same body are different, please see later in 3.2 and 3.4, while using his own measurement data of the physical quantities to build laws of physics the two reference systems are identical). ——Two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different, in different reference system taking measure of the anisotropy of the 3K background radiation’s radiation temperature is different, being in accord with John C. Mather and George F. Smoot’s discovery. Although as formerly theory when the reference system’s speed relative to the 3K background radiation field is *v*, because of Doppler effect, this reference system’s measurement data of the background radiation temperature will be* * ^{ 26}. Only in the 3K background radiation field reference system , the radiation temperature’s anisotropy disappears. However, does this mean we can take the 3K background radiation field reference system as an absolute rest system in violation of relativity? Of course not! Because the movement still must be one relative to the other.

The second postulate of Einstein special relativity i.e. the universal speed of light: “The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source, the observer, or any assumed of propagation” ^{ 25}. ——The speed is the same regardless of the motion of the source or the observer etc is contrary to the common practice. Many studious persons have proposed many amended means before (see ref. ^{ 9, 10} etc). Different from Einstein, also different from any persons had made before, we fix the light source on to a reference system. Because “the average speed measured over a closed path is constant C” is a conclusion on a large numbers of experiments ^{ 27}, we amend the universal speed of light to *new postulate of light speed*: “The average speed of any light ray from a stationary light source measured over a closed path in vacuum is always constant ”. Our amendment is either obeying with the result of the experiments or able to give the light speed more freedom: “the average speed over a closed path is constant *C*” allows the local speed of light over each short line segment component which build the closed path may not equal to *C*. The “light ray from a stationary light source” and cast off “regardless of the motion of the source, the observer, or any assumed of propagation” set our heart at rest. ——Our light source is fixed in the reference system, “the light ray come from the source” will be more clear, more unassailable.

Here* new postulate of light speed*’s “the average speed over a closed path is constant *C*” while the local speed of light over each short line segment component which build the closed path may not equal to *C*, is something as* new principle of relativity*’s “using his own measurement data of the physical quantities to build laws of physics the two reference systems in uniform relative motion are identical” while the measurement data of the two reference systems taking simultaneous measurement of the same physical quantity of the same body may not identical.

The new physics experiments were performed and analyzed at CERN in 1998 relating this paper are: 1) Direct test of wave-particle duality (complementarity) by a “which-way” experiment in an atom interferometer ^{ 28}. 2) Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiments were performed in two-photon entangled state to show the violation of Bell inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions ^{ 29} or to show ^{ 30} the quantum correlation over long distance (>10km). Also an EPR experiment was achieved at CERN to test the non-separability of entangled neutral-kaon wave function ^{ 31}. 3) First direct observation of time-reversal non-invariance in the neutral-kaon system ^{ 32}. The experiments 1) and 2) are directly related to reveals the essence of the measurement which can be summarized as three propositions: a) The measurement is founded to change the state of the object. b) The measurement is also quantum in essence. The quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) between the measurement apparatus (with its reference system) and the object (with its environment) is founded to destroy the quantum correlation (quantum coherence) originally existing in the object and its environment. c) There is not any information (experimental data) existed before the measurement is taken. Now, “*the measurement is founded to change the object by destroying the original quantum coherence between the object and object’s environment*” is already general knowledge in physics circles ^{ 33}. Therefore, this paper set it as a basic postulate:* the third postulate** (n**ew added postulate**)*.

It must be pointed out that: 1) The “measurement is founded to change” in *the third postulate* is on both sides. ——Not only the being measured object been changed by the reference system’s taking measurement, but the reference system in taking measurement also been changed by the being measured object. Because it is the quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) between the measurement apparatus (with its reference system) and the object been founded that destroies the quantum correlation (quantum coherence) originally existing between the object and its environment, of course it also destroies the quantum correlation (quantum coherence) originally (before the measurement is taken) existing between the reference system and the reference system's measurement apparatus. 2) If two reference systems (for example and ) simultaneously take measure of the same object, because of *the third postulate*, the simultaneous measurements of and will disturb each other, leading that both the measurement data of and of _{ }contain the interactional impact of simultaneous measurement come one from the other (more precisely** **the interactional impact is among and and the being measured object three sides come one from the other instead of only between and two sides). 3) If many reference systems (for example , , et al) joining in simultaneously taking measure of the same object, each reference system’s measurement data will contain all of the interactional impact come from all of the other reference systems’ simultaneous measurement, it will be very complex. Of course the first simple case would be only one reference system (for example ) in measuring, the interactional impact is only between and the being measured object. The second simple case would be only two reference systems (for example and ) in simultaneously measuring, only two simultaneous measurements of and disturb each other ——or perhaps there are other reference system et al while et al do not join to measure with and , or there are et al joining in simultaneous measurement with and while et al are far (>>10km) off the place so that the interactional impact of simultaneous measurement from et al are too weak to be neglected. 4)If two (or more) reference systems are not simultaneously taking measure of, the joining measurement of new reference system (or in simultaneous measurement reference system’s stopping measurement) will change the reference system(s) being in taking measurement and the being measured object by destroying the original quantum coherence between the reference system(s) and the being measured object.

To express simply, in the following and will be always in this case: is moving along the positive direction of the -axis of itself relative to the , the moving speed measured by is constant *v* (the *v* is not limited i.e. may be or＞*C* or＞＞*C*), both the *x*-axis of and the -axis of are on the same horizontal line and the positive directions are from left to right, both the *y*-axis of and the -axis of are horizontal lines and the positive directions are from the paper point to the reader, both the *z*-axis of and the -axis of are vertical line and the positive directions are from below to above.

Considering and are simultaneously measuring the same a horizontal photon from the light source fixed at the origin, we fix a glass plate on to the -axis to reflect the photon come from the origin back to the origin. How long time does it take that a photon to make this trip? The light source is in stationary relative to the and the glass plate on to the -axis is also in stationary relative to the so the light source’s mirror image is also in stationary relative to the . Because the light ray pass to and fro through the same path on the -axis is a special case over a closed path, as *new postulate of light speed*, in the average speed of the light ray should be the constant *C*. Using the absolute value to list the time equation in is (assume the is a constant and the is another constant), Reduced the it becomes . While in mathematics it always is_{ }≥0 combine it with we can get ≥C bring into we can get . It tells us: at least or is higher than *C*, then we can guess: if nobody nearby and , it must be that the and *C*_{x} just are and , in mathematics if and only if can we get they are . Of course when and are simultaneously measuring the same a horizontal photon from the light source fixed at the origin the measurement data of light speed must be and (just opposite to and ). While the (or ) breaks “*C* is the maximal and unsurpassable speed”.

Of course in * *the two speed of light and must be: the more the one, the small the other. For example _{ } at maximal is , and then the must be at lowest . i.e. when light source is “in stationary” the photon’s speed will always between .

In 3.1, in and measuring the same a horizontal photon from the light source fixed at the origin when no other body nearby, the measurement data of the horizontal photon’s speed along the positive direction of the -axis would be * *and along the opposite direction be . As *new added postulate*, besides experienced the Newtonian universal gravitation and other actions it is originally because the measurement data of is disturbed by the simultaneous measurement of . It is evident that different will bring different disturbing then result in different and , only being unchanged in form. It is in accord with the* new principle **of relativity*: “The laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, while any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different”.

“Two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different”. Of course the most acceptable difference between two reference systems is the mass rest in the reference systems (more precisely the mass joining in the quantum correlation of taking the measurement). Therefore, we define the mass rest in the reference system (joining in the quantum correlation) as the reference system’s referenced weight, define the center of the mass as the reference system’s origin. Then, as the *new added postulate* and “the measurement is founded to change” in the *new added postulate* actually is on both sides, we can consequently get: In taking measure of, the greater the referenced weight a)the stronger the reference system destroies the original (before the measurement is taken) quantum coherence between the being measured object and its environment, b)the less the reference systemself being changed by the being measured object, c) the stronger the reference system disturbs the other reference system’s measurement data of taking simultaneously measure of the same object, d)the less the reference systemself’s measurement data be disturbed by other reference system’s taking simultaneously measure of the same object; on the opposite, the less the referenced weight, it is just the reversed case of a), of b), of c), of d). Then we think: it perhaps that the reference system’s space is something nearby the referenced weight, no referenced weight saying nothing of the space nearby.

As above, for example we (on earth) take measure of a micro-particle, is our earth’s reference system, while is the particle’s reference system (the particle is “stationary” in it and its moving speed measured by is constant *v*). Compared with our earth’s mass the particle’s mass is infinitely small. Therefore, the particle’s taking measure of us disturbs our earth infinitely small. However, our earth taking measure of the particle disturbs the particle infinitely great, almost type of deciding the particle’s there be or there not be. Then we educe: In taking measurement of a micro-particle, because the micro-particle’s mass is too small, the “on” or “off” of the quantum correlations (i.e. entanglements) between the micro-particle and the other objects in the environment make the micro-particle’s behaviour uncertainty. Perhaps it is the essence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The physical meanings of the Lorentz transformation even Einstein and Lorentz himself as oil and vinegar each stuck to his own opinion until they past away ^{ 26}. In fact, off a physical quantity’s measurement process to discuss its physics meanings is a thing cannot exist without its basis. Therefore, as the *new added postulate*’s suggestion, we establish the coordinates relation of the two inertial reference systems and from and (there may be other reference systems et al and perhaps some of the et al are joining in) simultaneously take measure of the same object’s process of a physics event taking place——

First of all, we stipulate “the definition of measurement unit of and of is the same”. For example one second is the time in which there occur 9192631770 oscillations of the cesium atom “stationary” in the reference system, one centimeter is 165076373 wavelengths of red light from *Kr*^{86} “stationary” in the reference system etc. We suppose the mass rest in the is , the center of is origin; the mass rest in the is , the center of is the origin. We must remind you: A) The “actual length” of time of the same cesium atom “stationary” in being measured alone by occur 9192631770 oscillations is not equal to “stationary” in being measured alone by occur 9192631770 oscillations, because they are different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement). B) Also because they are different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement), the “actual length” of time of the same cesium atom “stationary” in being measured alone by occur 9192631770 oscillations is not equal to being simultaneously measured by and occur 9192631770 oscillations. So do other unit——only the measurement unit’s “definition” is unchanged, while the measurement unit’s “actual length” can change or be changed ——in different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) is different. C) Although the “actual length” of the same unit in different case (for example as above in A) and in B)) is different, while the reference system himslef is not aware of it ——using his own unit taking measure of himslef cannot obtain his own change, he thinks the “actual length” of his unit is always the same and unchanged in different case.

Now, we set and “start his own clock” ( and ) at the moment coordinate axis frame origin and coordinate axis frame origin coincide. It must be especially pointed out: Now that the reference systems “start his own clock” and the stipulation “the definition of measurement unit of the two reference systems is the same”, time coordinate should be something as space coordinate, each the reference systems is severally using his own clock to determine his own time coordinate in simultaneously measuring the same object’s physics process taking place, it must be that there is not the problem to have to synchronize the clocks of the two reference systems before simultaneous time measurement (do you think you need to synchronize the and to , or and to , or and to etc before space coordinate measurement?).

We suppose the and are in the simultaneous measurement of the same object’s process of a physics event taking place, the measurement data are from (0,0,0,0) to and the are from (0,0,0,0) to . Namely, time and time are at the same instant of time, while time and the time are at the another same instant of time. It seems that *with unit it must be “** t second (i.e. t** one second)=** ** second (i.e. **s one second)” because ** **and ** **are simultaneously measuring the same object’s process taking place; while the numerical value before the unit is “**” because ** and **, from the new added postulate, the disturbing of ** **and of ** **in simultaneous measurement are different, leading the “actual length” of time unit to be “** one second ≠** one second”, though both the definition of “one second” of ** **and of ** **is the same*. No. That is not the case. In fact, even with unit it still is* “** t second (i.e. t** one second)≠** second (i.e. ** one second)”, *the “actual length” of the same definition of time’s unit in ≠in , because the same definition of time’s unit in and in are different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement). Even it still will be that the “actual length” of the same definition of time’s unit in ≠ in , because the same definition of time’s unit in and in still are different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement). For example, when , and taking simultaneous measurement of the same time of an object’s process of a physics event taking place, it must be that both measurement data and measurement data are second, however, one second ≠ one second (only the numerical values before the time unit and before the time unit are the same ) because the same definition of time’s unit in and in are different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement). Of course the space length unit is also something as time unit: the “actual length” of space length unit of one meter ≠ of one meter for , so do other physical quantities’ units.

However, in fact, from the C) of “we must remind you” before, we can see: We need not to pay attention to the “actual length” of the same definition of an unit in ≠ in and in alone measuring ≠ in and simultaneous measuring etc (we have stipulated “the definition of measurement’s unit of and of is the same” is enough). What we interested in are that: in and simultaneous measuring the same physical quantity of the same object, the numerical value before unit of of , and what the relation between the numerical value before unit of and of is? Generally, we suppose the relation about and is

Why it is (1)a? please see ref. ^{ 34}. Though our definiens and postulates are different from ref. ^{ 34}, while the reasons or principles are analogous. Where actually is function , where is the rest mass of the being measured object and is its speed measurement data of while , ,…… are the other objects’ rest mass (including the rest mass of referenced weight of other reference systems joining simultaneous measurement with and _{ }or not joining simultaneous measurement but joining quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) with and _{ }) and , ,…… are the corresponding speed of ,…… ——measurement data of and ,…… are variable representing the simultaneous measurements’ disturbance and the other actions, we denote for shot. Of course different being measured object will result in different , different reference systems joining to measure simultaneously with and will also result in different , different , different for simultaneous measurement’s interactional impact.

However, we must remind you: (1)a is only the space-time coordinates numerical values relation, the units they use in measurement are not involved in (1)a (only we have stipulated “the definition of measurement unit of and of is the same”), i.e. the axis frames of and of only are number axis. So do other physical quantities in the following.

In taking measure of the same a stationary space-length or a time-length or a mass when : 1) alone ( and other reference system do not join) in taking measure of, the measurement changes _{ }self and the being measured object in the same scale (for the being measured object is “stationary” in ), measurement data is or or . 2) alone ( and other reference system do not join in) taking measure of, the measurement changes * *self and the being measured object in the same another scale (for ). Because a)the definition of measurement unit in and in is the same, b)the being measured object’s atoms number is the same, although “ measurement changes both * *self and being measured object” in 2) is different from “ measurement changes both self and the being measured object” in 1) (for ) , while the measurement data is the same or or as in 1) (Please note: only* the numerical values before ** unit in 2)= the numerical values before ** unit in 1)* while the actual length of unit in 2) *≠* the actual length of unit in 1), for ). 3) joins simultaneous measurement with in taking measure of, the measurement data will still be the same or or as in 1), although here “ measurement changes _{ }self and the being measured object in the same scale” is different from in 1) for measurement disturbing. It is because and the being measured object are equally changed i.e. are changed in the same scale (because the object being “stationary” in ) by the disturbing of simultaneous measurement and by the _{ }self’s measurement. Therefore, although here unit and being measured object have been changed into not the same as alone taking measure of in 1), however, the measurement data is still the same as in 1) (please note: only* the numerical values before ** unit in 3) *=* the numerical values before ** unit in 1)*, while *the actual length of ** unit in 3) *≠* the actual length of ** unit in 1)*, because “ joins simultaneous measurement with ” changes and being measured object). 4)In 3) on hand, because of *v*=0, the being measured object also is “stationary” in as in , “ and being measured object stationary in ” are equally changed (i.e. are changed in the same scale) by the disturbing from simultaneous measurement and by the _{ }self’s measurement, therefore, although both unit and the being measured object have been changed into not the same as in 2), however, the measurement data is still the same or or as alone taking measure of in 2). Namely, when , whether simultaneous measurement or alone measurement, both and can accurately get that not only origins be coincident but also any other corresponding points on axis frames be coincident as well, although the “actual length” of the reference system’s unit and the being measured object have been changed (dilate or contract) by his own measurement or both by his own and by the disturbing from another reference system’s simultaneous measurement, the measurement data of the being measured object is always the same and not different from the . Represented by (1)a (of course (1)a only represents space and time) it will be stipulation: *When **, the coefficient matrix of (1)a becomes identity matrix (the coefficient matrix’s element is Kronecker symbol **; ** for **, ** for **) *i.e.

We remind you again: a) Though “both and can accurately get that not only origins to be coincident but also any other corresponding points on axis frames to be coincident as well”, however, “the actual length” of the same unit of and of are not identical (in taking measure of the same object one second ≠ one second, one meter ≠ one meter etc) because of . b)The “actual length” of the same unit of the same reference system is different in different case (for example one second in alone measurement ≠one second in and simultaneous measurement, one second in alone taking measure of ≠one second in alone taking measure of if etc). Different measurement will result in different change (dilation or contraction) of the reference system and the being measured object, only “the numerical values before unit” = “the numerical values before unit” when .

In taking measure of the same a stationary space-length or a time-length or a mass when : 5)The being measured object is stationary in and alone ( and other reference system do not join) taking measure of, the measurement data also will be the same or or as in 1) (there ). Because and other reference system do not join, the quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) between and the being measured object is the same as in 1). 6)The being measured object is stationary in , and alone ( and other reference system do not join) taking measure of, the measurement data will be the same or or as in 2) (there ), the same data as the in 5) and the in 1), also because and other reference system do not join, the quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) between and the being measured object is the same as in 2). 7)The being measured object is “stationary” in , and join simultaneous measurement with in taking measure of, the measurement data will still be the same or or , although this time both the measurement unit and being measured object have been changed into not as the same as in 3) (the quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) is not the same as in 3) for there here ). It is because the measurement unit and the being measured object are equally changed i.e. are changed in the same scale (for the object “stationary” in ) by the self’s measurement and by the disturbing from (or and other reference system’s) simultaneous measurement. However, this time on hand, because of the being measured object is “in motion” (with ) in , therefore, this time the unit and the “in motion” being measured object in are not equally changed (i.e. are changed not in the same scale) by the * *self’s measurement and by the disturbing from (or and other reference systems’ simultaneous) measurement! Therefore, this time the measurement data will not be the same or or as in 6)! 8)The object “stationary” in , and (or _{ }and other reference systems) join(s) simultaneous measurement with in taking measure of, the measurement data is *the same ** or ** or ** **as in 3) on ** **hand *(there here ), although different measurement state result in different change (dilation or contraction) of the reference system and the reference system’s being measured object, however, here measurement unit and being measured object are equally changed or changed in the same scale (for the object “stationary” in ), therefore, measurement data still be the same or or as in 3), in 2), in 6) on hand. However, this time on hand, because being measured object is “in motion” in , the measurement unit and the being measured object are not equally changed (i.e. are changed not in the same scale) by the self’s measurement and by the disturbing from (or and other reference systems’ simultaneous) measurement, therefore, this time the measurement data will not be the same or or as in 3) (there ) and in 7). Both 7) and 8) show us: *in a reference system the measurement data of the same being measured object’s physical quantity, the object “in motion” is different from “in stationary”**;** two reference systems’ simultaneous measurement is different from one reference system’s alone measurement*. Namely when in and taking simultaneously measure of the same a physical quantity, the numerical value before unit ≠ the numerical value before unit, both and can accurately get that at the two axis frames coincide moment ( and ) only origin and origin coincide while any other corresponding points on axis frames do not coincide (though the two axis frames coincide)! Namely “when the coefficient matrix of (1)a is not identity matrix”.

From above we can see: When , the reference system taking measure of a stationary object cannot see that his measurement have changed both himself and the being measured object, cannot see that he and another reference system’s simultaneous measurement disturb each other, for the numerical value before unit = the numerical value before unit (though the measurement data of the same being measured object “in motion” is different from “in stationary”). If and only if , can the simultaneous measurement of and disturbing each other be seen by and themselves ——the measurement data different from the , the difference on the space-time coordinates between and (there may be other reference systems et al and perhaps some of the et al are joining) in simultaneously taking measure of the same object’s process of a physics event taking place as shown in (1)a, the coefficient matrix of (1)a is not identity matrix when .

Now, we can see: In explaining the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in ending of 3.2, the uncertainty must occur and only occurs in taking measure of the “in motion” micro-particle. We also can see: In taking measure of an “in motion” micro-particle, our simultaneous measurement disturb the micro-particle infinitely great is of course measurable phenomenon ourselves, while the micro-particle himself is not aware of it ——using his own unit taking measure of itself cannot obtain his own change. We still can see: When , only if is the difference between the simultaneous measurement data (numerical value before unit) of and of close to zero (actually only can we get “the measurement data (numerical value before unit) of = of ”).

Of course whether or not and , we can compare the same physical quantities of his own reference system, for example, compare the speed of a light ray from a stationary source to some direction with to the opposite direction. If the light speed in this direction is greatter than in the opposite direction, he can guess: from the stationary light source to some not far away place in this direction there may be a big mass object. Or comparing the speed of a light ray from a stationary source to the same direction in different time, if the speed is increscent (more and more great), he can guess: in this direction from the stationary light source to some not far away place, there may be a big mass object is closing to the stationary light source.

The *new added postulate* endues the two reference systems coordinates relation with new physics meanings neither all the same as Einstein endues special relativity’s Lorentz transformation, nor all the same as Lorentz endues Lorentz transformation’s physics meanings. Now, because speed measured by is constant * *on -axis, it must be and hence , and except and the other space-time crossed element (why? please see ref. ^{ 26}, although our definiens and postulates are different from the ref. ^{ 26}, while the reasons or principles are analogous). (1)a goes to

On the other hand, in mathematics we always can solve the equation (1)b get

(where ). Of course we also can solve (1)b′ back to (1)b, (1)b and (1)b′ analogous as and actually are only one equation’s two different forms. Compared the first row of (1)b i.e. with the first row of (1)b′ i.e. we can see: The speed of moving along -axes measured by is *v*, while the speed of moving along *x*-axes measured by is instead of (–*v*), although it is and take simultaneous measure of the same speed of relative motion. Actually, it reminds us again: and are different (something as and *v* are different)——it proofs and are different on the hand of the same speed’s measurement data. In and simultaneously taking measure of the same physical quantity of the same object, the measurement data of and of are different (because and are different for and ) while using his own measurement data of the physical quantities to build laws of physics (of course physics law is built by the physical quantities such as distance, time interval, speed etc.) the and are identical (therefore *the laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, while any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different*).

As known in 2.3* *and 3.3, the element of (1)b** **coefficient matrix also depends on the being measured object’s state. If the being measured object is in stationary in we denote the element of (1)a by , stationary in we denote of (1)a by , in motion in both and we denote of (1)a by , it of course is , (because they are different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement)). As 3.2 only if the mass of the being measured object is small enough, can the reference system (taking measurement) been changed by the being measured object be slight enough, can the reference systems’ measurement data been changed by the reference systems themselves simultaneous measurements interactional impact become main part, will it be approximately be (the more the mass of the being measured object close to zero and two reference systems origins in a more short way off, the more the accurate). To reduce the case, in the following we will only consider the mass of the being measured object is sufficiently small and two reference systems origins in a sufficiently short way off, it always approximately is in except particular explanation. (Special remind: here “the moving speed measured by is constant *v*” the *v* is not limited i.e. may be →0 or* *>*C* or >>*C*).

and (there may be other reference systems et al and perhaps some of the et al joining in) taking simultaneous measurement of a radiate element’s half life, considering “stationary” at origin their *measurement numerical value* will be (0,0,0,) and (,0,0,) (in the radiate element is “in motion” we sign“→”at the right up corner of its numerical value, the same below). Bring into (1)b we get “(1)borigin”

From the 1st row and the 4th row of “(1)borigin” we get and , we solve these two simultaneous equations get

If stationary at origin their *measurement numerical value* will be (in the radiate element is “in motion”) and (0,0,0,). Bring into (1)b we get “(1)b origin”

From the 4th row of “(1)borigin” we get

(It must be pointed out: actually the in (3) ≠the in (2) etc, it approximately is only, for the mass of the being measured object is small enough as expressed at the front and the same below without explanation).

In taking simultaneous measurement of a piece of space-length, if stationary on the -axis, their *measurement numerical value* will be and (,0,0,0) (in the piece of space-length is “in motion”, we must take measure all parts of it at one instant of time of ). Bring into (1)b we get “(1)b*x*-axis”

From the 1st row of “(1)b*x*-axis” we can get i.e.

If stationary on -axis their *measurement numerical value* will be (, 0, 0, 0) (in the piece of space-length is “in motion” we must take measure all parts of it at one instant of time of ) and . Bring into (1)b we get “(1)b-axis”

From the 1st and the 4th row of “(1)b -axis” we get and . We solve these two simultaneous equations get

If stationary on the *y*-axis vertical the reference system moves it must be and (0,, 0, 0) (in the piece of space-length is in motion, we must take measure all parts of it at one instant of time of ). Bring into (1)b we get “(1)b*y*-axis”

From the 2nd row of “(1)b*y*-axis” we get i.e.

If stationary on -axis instead of -axis it must be (0,,0,0) (in the piece of space-length is in motion, we must take measurement all parts of it at one instant of time of ) and . Bring into (1)b we get “(1)b-axis”

From the 2nd row of “(1)b-axis” we get

Being nalogous getting (6) and (7) we can get

The equations (1)-(9) have not involved all of the three basic physical quantities in mechanics. All of involved only space-length or time-length, the mass quantity not being involved. Suppose the results of and simultaneously measuring the same a mass particle’s velocity measurement data of to be and of to be . For approximately i.e. is constant as , from the quotient of differential of (1)b we can get

Taking note of that simultaneously measuring the same a mass, as known in 3.3*,* no matter or the mass is stationary in or stationary in , the measurement data of the stationary mass is the same . However, when , being stationary in one reference system and it’s measurement data must be , what the other’s measurement data is (must not be )? Now that the same mass is stationary in or in the measurement data is the same , we multiply the (10) by get “”

In simultaneously measuring the same small mass particle’s speed when it must be and goes to

(where and here ). Compared it with (1)b, we can see that when measurement data is , in simultaneously measuring the same a mass particle’s mass measurement data is . It reminds us that when measurement data of a moving mass particle’s velocity is , the measurement data of the moving mass particle’s mass must be

(we replace the variable in by the particle’s speed * *where ). As , when the particle’s speed is 0, (11) will go to i.e. i.e. , it is just the right result. Here (11) is educed from the coordinates relation (1)b instead of from a particular collision as G. N. Lewis and R. C. Tolman ^{ 26, 35, 36, 37}, and (11) is more universal ——Later in the ending of 5.2 we will see: under (1)c the (11) becomes , just being the same formula as in the special relativity when becomes Lorentz transformation.

In simultaneously taking measure of the speed of the same a horizontal rightward photon coming from the light source being stationary in , the measurement data, of must be and of must be (,0,0) (in the light source is “in motion”). Bring into (10) we get “(10)Rp1”

From the 1st row of (10)Rp1 we get i.e.

If the light source being stationary in , the measurement data must be (,0,0) (in the light source is “in motion”) and . Bring into (10) we get “(10)Rp2”

From the 1st row of “(10)Rp2” we get

In simultaneously taking measure of the speed of the same a horizontal leftward photon coming from the light source being stationary in , the measurement data must be and (–,0,0) (in the light source is “in motion”). Bring into (10) we get “(10)Lp1”

From the 1st row of the “(10)Lp1” we get i.e.

If the light source being stationary in , the measurement data must be (–,0,0) (in the light source is “in motion”) and . Bring into (10) we get “(10)Lp2”

From the 1st row of the “(10)Lp2”

Taking note of that as 3.2, *how much t**he “interactional impact of simultaneous measurement” **in** these two groups **data of **measurement of photon **is* we don’t know, but we can confirm they should be direct ratio of each other! The horizontal rightward photon the quotient of photon 1’s speed should be equal to of photon 2’s . When (12) and (13) are placed in = we get

The horizontal leftward photon the quotient of photon 1’s speed (i.e. /) should be equal to of photon 2’s (i.e. /). When (14) and (15) being placed in /=/* *we get

Taking , , , as known quantities, and _{ }as unknown quantities, we can solve the simultaneous equations (16) and (17) get (please see appendix I)

Note in (18) and are still quotients, and cannot be determined. If adding close to *M*_{a0} i.e. =, can we find out the element of (1)b? (there may be other reference systems et al and perhaps some of the et al joining in)

In 4.1 and take simultaneous measurement of a radiate element's half life: stationary at origin obtained (2), at origin obtained (3). As the new added postulate the results of “stationary” in and “stationary” in are the same i.e. both on right side of (2) and on right side of (3) are equal to . Still now as , thus on left side of (3) and _{ }on left side of (2) are equal to each other. We divide (2) by (3) i.e. . Bring =_{ }and into it we get .

In 4.1 and take simultaneous measurement of the same a piece of space length: “stationary” on -axis obtained (4), “stationary” on -axis obtained (5). As the *new added postulate *the results of “stationary” in and “stationary” in _{ }are the same , i.e. both on rightside of (4) and on rightside of (5) are equal to . Still as now , then on leftside of (5) and on leftside of (4) are equal to each other. We divide (4) by (5) i.e. /={/[]}. Bring =and into it we get .

In* *4.1 and take simultaneous measurement of the same a piece of space length: “stationary” on *y*-axis obtained (6), “stationary” on -axis obtained (7), both on right side of (6) and on right side of (7) are equal to , on left side of (6) and on left side of (7) are equal to each other. We divide (6) by (7) i.e. , for =, , we get 1=(1/). Analogously we can get .

From 1=(1/) and 1=(1/) we can get and (abnegate the negative root). From simultaneous equations . and we get _{ }and (abnegate the negative root). Bring , , _{ } and _{ }into (1)b we get

Under (1)c′: ①from = abnegating the negative root we can get ; ②from =abnegating the negative root we can get =; ③from = abnegating the negative root we get . As = it must be and then = and is reduced to =. Abnegating and , bring into (1)c′ we get

Where* * and (just opposite to and , please see the ending of 3.1), of course * *and are between (see the ending of 3.1), *v* is not limited i.e. may be→0 or＞*C* or＞＞*C*; if (as known in 3.1 it must be ,* *actually be in 5.3) the (1)c just becomes Lorentz transformation. The variables of and are ,……, ,……, ,…… actually; is the rest mass of the being measured object (i.e. the photon coming from the origin or origin), , ,……are the other objects’ rest mass (including the rest mass of referenced weight of other reference systems joining simultaneous measurement or not joining simultaneous measurement but joining quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) with and _{ }) and ,……are the corresponding speed of ,……measured by , while ,……are variable representting the simultaneous measurements’ disturbance and the other action..

Although the determinant value of the coefficient matrix of (1)c is 1, it is not orthogonal matrix. Denoted by , we rewrite (1)c into

Here (1)c″ is actually (1)c, while its coefficient matrix *A* is orthogonal matrix for , so, we can get scalar product * *=, here the equal mark’s left equal to the equal mark’s right, however, we cannot regard it as the same as Einstein special relativity’s invariant interval, for the numerical value of is not as the invariant interval’s constant i.e. generally there is not the invariant interval and then there is not the proper time.

A little generally it may be : on right side of (2)’s and of (3)’s are the same but on left side of (2)’s and of (3)’s it may be ≠ we cannot get ; on right side of (4), (6), (8)’s and (5), (7), (9)’s are the same but on left side of (4)’s and (5)’s it may be ≠ we cannot get , (6)’s and (7)’s may be *≠* we cannot get , (8)’s and (9)’s may be *≠* we cannot get , i.e. generally a little we cannot get (1)c.

It must be pointed out that and is not analogous to and taking simultaneous measurement of the same distance between two reference system’s origins, i.e. measurement data of and . Because the rest length of and are the same “stationary” length , while and are the same “in motion” length ——of course the “in stationary” length of and of (*t*_{a}*v*) are impossible the same. Therefore, / is not equal to . So, taking /= as an added equation is a wrong idea. Therefore, generally the equations (2)∼(9) are useless to determine the element of (1)b’s coefficient matrix, generally determining the element of the (1)b’s coefficient matrix is very difficult or impossible. We have no more better choice but to re-reduce the case (we have reduced the case since **4.**): If nobody nearby and (except and the other Newtonian universal gravitation and simultaneous measurements’ disturbing being neglected), the object being measured only are photon coming from the light source stationary in or , both and close to zero only keeping as an arbitrary constant had been determined like , i.e. all the Newtonian universal gravitation even from and would be reduced, it seems that only the interactional impact of simultaneous measurement of the reference systems and becomes main part, it must be: at any where except the two infinitely small regions (one infinitely small region contains the origin, the other contains the origin) the is a constant and the is another constant, the is some constant and the is some another constant; then and , therefore, it must be in this case (of course when it must be and ) when it must be at any where except the two infinitely small regions (only when or , or both and not close to zero and then are not constants). Can we find out the element of the (1)b’s coefficient matrix in this case?

At first let us take simultaneous measure of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin: In we set some stationary glass plates on to the points at appropriate angle to reflect the light ray come from the origin back to the origin, it can change the light ray’s direction from origin into from any other point of stationary light source (we neglect the two infinitely small regions one contains the origin and the other contains the origin because in the two infinitely small regions the Newtonian universal gravitation cannot be neglected): From the origin along the -axis’ positive direction to the stationary point and then along the opposite direction back to the origin, on this a closed path, as *new postulate of light speed*, in the average speed of the light ray should be the constant *C*. Using the absolute value to list the time equation in we get , reduced the *x* it goes to

As known in 3.1 the two speed of light and in (19) must be: the more the one, the small the other. For example _{ }at maximal is , and then the must be at lowest . However, does this mean that the photon’s speed will always between cannot be zero? Of course not! It is because the light source is “in stationary”. When the light source is “in motion” it will be not the case. ——Please see late the discussion after (23) and (24)|_{under(25)}, (27) and (28)|_{under(29)}: although when *v*＜＜*C* the 1/+1/ (or 1/+1/) always is equal to almost as because it always is* *, while when is sufficiently great, in (24) the may be→0 or=0 or＜0 (meanwhile ＞*C *or＞＞*C*) when or (please see late in ); in (28) the may be→0 or=0 or＜0 (meanwhile ＞*C *or＞＞*C*) when or→∞ taking the micro-particle as , even* *, it still is* * (please see late in ).

From the origin along the *r*’s positive direction to the stationary point *p* and then along the opposite direction back to the origin on this a closed path, as *new **postulate of light speed*, in the average speed of the light ray should be the constant *C*. Using the absolute value to list the time equation in we get

From the origin along the *r*’s positive direction to the stationary point *p* and then along the *z*-axis’opposite direction, the *y*-axis’opposite direction, the *z*-axis’opposite direction back to the origin. As *new postulate of light speed*, using the absolute value to list the time equation in we get

From the origin along the *x*-axis’ positive direction, the *y*-axis’ positive direction, the *z*-axis’ positive direction to the stationary point *p* and then along the *r*’s opposite direction back to the origin. As *new postulate of light speed*, using the absolute value to list the time equation in we get

Now, from (21) minus (22) plus (20) (please note and ) we get

Although in different octant (21) and (22) will change while (23)″ is unchanged in form (please see appendix II). Bring (19) into (23)″ (please see appendix III) the (23)″ will go into

Here (23)′ appears: If and have been determined, would have been determined, and on the *x*-*y* plane will be .

If we bring (19) and , into (23)″, the (23)″ will turn not into (23)′, but into (please see the appendix IV)

The (23) is an ellipsoid and as known in 3.1 here . Analytic geometry tells us: the origin (light source) is just on the right focus of the ellipsoid (23). while the origin, as 3.2, ①may on the ellipsoid’s two focus join-line (when (the is “ being in motion”) light be disturbed greatly by * *so that two focus join-line longer than two origins join-line, great mass object being wrapped in (23)), ②may on the ellipsoid’s two focus join-line’s leftward extended line out of the two focus join-line but still being wrapped in (23) (when and is in low speed, light be disturbed lightly by _{ }so that two focus join-line shorter than two origins join-line i.e. with low speed small mass object still being wrapped in (23)), ③may on the (23)’s two focus join-line’s leftward extended re-extended even out of the ellipsoid (when not only but also the speed of the relative motion is great enough, i.e. with high speed small mass object may not being wrapped in (23))——*If the speed **of** a small mass object** **is great enough, **the** small mass object can go beyond the light which coming from the light source being stationary in a big referenced weight reference system*.

Since it is and take simultaneous measurement of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, the measurement result is (23). What result the is? (Note in the light source is “in motion”). Bring (1)b and into (23) we get (please see appendix V and VI)

(where _{ } is shown in (12) and_{ } is shown in (14)). Since (23) and (24) are and take simultaneous measurement of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, the measurement result (23) is that the light source is on the right focus of ellipsoid, the principle of relativity pledge: it must be that the measurement result (24) is also that the light source is on the right focus of the ellipsoid (24)! Consequently it must be

Because only_{ }(25) can let the half minor axis’ square of (24) become , let the (24) become

then from the (+)/2= [(–*v*)+(+*v*)]/2 can the analytic geometry pledge: The measurement result also is that the origin (light source) is just on the right focus of the ellipsoid (24) as (23); while the origin, ①may on the (24)’s two focus join-line, ②may on the left drawn-out line out of the two focus join-line, ③may on the left re-drawn-out line out of the (24), analogically as the measurement result (23).

Please note that the (24)|_{under(25)} is still different from (23) for , being in accord with the new principle of relativity “*The laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, while any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different*”. Special remind ——as Einstein special relativity =_{ }covariant the (24)|_{under(25)} into (23) i.e. besides it must be (–v)= and =(+v) i.e. origin and origin just on each one of the same ellipsoid’s two focus. It only is in a very very special case: not only and nobody nearby and , but also the simultaneous measurements of and disturb each other just right. Generally we can only conclude: Taking simultaneous measure of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, both the measurement results of and of are that the light source ( origin) is just on the right focus of the ellipsoid; while the origin, ① may on the ellipsoid’s two focus join-line, ② may on the left drawn-out line out of the two focus join-line, ③ may on the left re-drawn-out line out of the ellipsoid.

From (25) we do get that analytic geometry pledges: both (23) and (24), and taking simultaneous measurement of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, are that the origin (light source) is on the right focus of the ellipsoid. However, from (25) we also do get (abnegate the negative root) and hence and then we know: *If the space length contract it must contract in all directions (instead of Einstein special relativity’s only contract in the direction of motion)*! Of coursee if dilate it will dilate in all directions, as quasars’ apparent superluminal expansion observed in astrophysics (see ref.^{ 3, 4}).

In taking simultaneous measurement of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, analogically as in * *we install some stationary glass plates on to the points at appropriate angle to reflect the light ray come from the origin back to the origin, with the absolute value we list the time equation in we can get:

① Analogous as “……from reduced the *x* we get (19)” in *,* in we can get

② Analogous as“……from (21) minus (22) plus (20) we get (23)” in *,* in we get

③ Analogous in , bring (26) into (27)″, the (27)″ can be turned into

(Special remind: as known in 3.1 here is just opposite to of (23)′). Analogously, here (27)′ appears: If *C*_{-ax} and have been determined, any will have been determined; on the plane will become . Analogously if we bring (26), _{ } and into (27)″, (27)″ will not go to (27)′, but go to

Analogous (23) in , here (27) is an ellipsoid and analytic geometry tell us: The origin (light source) is just on the left focus of the ellipsoid (27). While the origin, ① may on the ellipsoid’s two focus join-line (when (the *M* is “ being in motion”) light be disturbed greatly by *M* so that two focus join-line longer than two origins join-line), ② may on the rightward extended line out of the two focus join-line (when , light be disturbed lightly by *M* so that two focus’ join-line is shortter than two origins join-line). ③ may on the rightward extended line re-extended even out of the ellipsoid (when not only but also the speed of the relative motion is great enough ——if the speed of a small mass object is great enough, the small mass object can go beyond the light which comes from the light source *being stationary *in a big referenced weight reference system).

Being analogous in , since it is and taking simultaneous measurement of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, the result is (27). What result the is? (in the light source is in motion). Bring (1)b′ and into (27) we get (please see appendix VII and VIII)

(where_{ } is shown in (13) and_{ } is shown in (15)). Analogously since (27) and (28) are and taking simultaneous measurement of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, the light source ( origin) is on the left focus of ellipsoid (27), the principle of relativity pledge: it must be that the light source ( origin) is also on the left focus of ellipsoid (28), consequently it must be

Because only (29) can let the half minor axis’ square of (28) be , and then let the (28) become

then from the , can analytic geometry pledge: The measurement result is that the light source ( origin) is also on the left focus of ellipsoid (28); while the origin, ① may on the ellipsoid two focus join-line, ② may on the rightward extended line out of the two focus join-line, ③ may on the rightward extended line re-extended even out of the ellipsoid ——if the speed (or kinetic energy) is great enough, a small mass object can go beyond the light which comes from the light source *being **stationary* in a big referenced weight reference system, analogically as the measurement result (27). Please note that the (28)|_{under(29)} is still different from (27) for , being in accord with the* new principle of relativity**:* “*The laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, while any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different*”.

Bring (13), (15) into (29), we solve the equation get (please see appendix IX). As it approximately is , we can bring* * in into in 5.3.2, leading . Bring and into (1)b we get

Considering on position, besides simultaneously measuring the same photon coming from the source stationary at origin we also simultaneously measuring the another same photon coming from the source stationary at origin: As *the third postulate*, if there is not measurement, both the wave front surface of light emitted from the origin and from the origin must be radius sphere, the centre of the sphere from the origin is at the origin but the centre of the sphere from the origin is at the origin “in motion” with . When there are simultaneous measurement of and , the wave front surface of light emitted from the origin being changed by the simultaneous measurement of and , the wave front surface sphere is changed into ellipsoid and the centre of the sphere from the origin is rightward divided another focus of the ellipsoid (please note the distance between the two focuses of measurement data is ; analogously the wave front surface of light emitted from the origin is changed into ellipsoid, the centre of the sphere from the origin is leftward divided another focus of the ellipsoid (please note the distance between the two focuses of measurement data is . On the other hand, on position the mass center of the two referenced weights and is on the length of (the measurement data of the distance between the two origins in and simultaneous measurement) and incises the length of to* ** *and , where is the distance between the (at origin) and the mass center of the and *M*. The seeing sphere centre being leftward divided another focus and self’s sphere centre being rightward divided another focus, are only because the simultaneous measurements of and (nobody nearby and both and close to zero). However, how much the interactional impact of the simultaneous measurements of and is? We do not know. From the* **new added postulate* we only confirm: the measurement data of the two focuses’ and 2 show the magnitude of the interactional impact of simultaneous measurement of and on position. In 4.2 we have known“we can consequently get”’s a), b), c), d) and the reversed case of a), of b), of c), of d), however, whether it is “* is in inverse ratio of the ** self’s referenced weight ** and in direct ratio of the ** referenced weight **, 2**is in direct ratio of the ** referenced weight ** and in inverse ratio of the **self’s referenced weight M*” or “* is in inverse square ratio of the ** self’s referenced weight ** and in direct square ratio of the ** referenced weight M, 2**is in direct square ratio of the ** referenced weight ** and in inverse square ratio of the **self’s referenced weight M*” we do not know. On position we can only confirm “ and *M* who is bigger, the mass center of the and *M* will drift off the middle of the to whom, whom’s measurement data will be disturbed less, whom’s ellipsoid two focus length will be less” i.e. on position the simultaneous measurements of and disturb shown in and 2 should be in accord with . While on position the mass center of and *M* must be in accord with i.e. , then we get /2. When , , (12), (14), being placed in , under (1)d we get (please see appendix X)

However, taking (30)′ as an added equation to , (19), (26) as four simultaneous equations to determine , , , is not a good idea, for (30)′ contains unknown quantity (please note: adding will add more unknown quantities and ). Although having gone through reduce the case since **4** only when = can we get (1)c. A little generally it may be we cannot get (1)c, even re-reduce the case since 5.3, we still cannot find out the element of (1)b coefficient matrix, we can only confirm: 1) The light source is just on one focus of the wave front ellipsoid surface of light. 2) If the speed of a small mass object is great enough, the small mass object can go beyond the light which coming from the light source *being stationary* in a big referenced weight reference system. 3) In this case it must be and in (1)b i.e. (1)b becomes (1)d and then we know: *If the space length contract it must contract in all directions (instead of Einstein special relativity’s only contract in the direction of motion)*.

It must be pointed out that the Lorentz transformation of the special relativity is merely an approximate formula of the (1)c ignore the new added postulate to assume . Please note although in (1)c while the factor like is infinitely small when . Therefore, the Lorentz transformation of the special relativity is not contrary to (1)c, not contrary to the of (1)d.

It also must be pointed out that in general the referenced weight mass may be not a particle ——the reference system’s origin is on the center of the referenced weight mass, there are other objects and other reference systems joining to measure simultaneously with and , the speed of a photon from a stationary light source is associated with all of the mass’ space distribution and all of the reference systems joining to measure with and , leading the are the function of not only ,…… , the corresponding speeds ,……in , ,…… variable representing the simultaneous measurements’ disturbance, but also _{ }and , there is not “it approximately is , the and in * *≠the and in 5.3.2 we cannot “*bring * *in *5.3.1* into* *in *5.3.2*, leading* ”, (please see the explanation after (3) in 4.1). Therefore the relation about and generally is (1)a, and the of (1)a may analogous the in (1)c, the *t* in (1)a may analogous the in (1)c might go to time-reversal in some case, as the observation of time-reversal non-invariance in the neutral-kaon system published by CERN in 1998 (please see the ref ^{ 32}). But we still believe that (1)a will still not disobey the conclusions “*if the speed (or kinetic energy) is great enough, a small mass object can go beyond the light which comes from the light source rest in a big referenced weight reference system*” and “*if the space length contract it must contract in all directions instead of Einstein special relativity’s only contract in the direction of motion*” etc educed from 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, though determining the of (1)a is impossible.

Please note in 5.1 because two reference system’s origins are in a short way off then (16) and (17) are in action, there (i.e.* *), the is not limited i.e. it may be or >*C* or >>*C*. While usually it may be* v*<<*C* or but leading and , only can allow . Therefore, in the ending of* *5.2 abnegating _{ }and , adopt to get (1)c is right. The physical meanings of i.e. i.e. * *is clear. However, with , (19) and (26) three simultaneous equations we still cannot determine four unknown quantities (please note: adding will add more unknown quantities and ). Now, the and of the (1)d still are unknown quantities. If we re-re-reduce the case: adding* *, can we find out them?

Taking note of that only both the *time length in motion dilate* and the *space length in motion contract* are in action, can we be able to completely explain the Michelson-Morley experiment ^{ 26} and almost all of these experiments are taken under . So, under re-re-reduce the case (i.e. adding ), we can from (2) and (4) get

(or from (3) and (5) it must be i.e. ). Here * *is a constant waiting to be determined. From (31) /* *we get , . As when *v*=0 it must be (please see (1) in 3.3) and* *, then , it must be . Bring , ,* * into (1)d, (1)d goes to

(where is shown in (18), please note that with i.e. the _{ }can be reduced please see appendix XI) In (1)e the element of the coefficient matrix of (1)e is completely determined by . Bring into (30)′, (30)′ goes to

Now, in mathematics, with four simultaneous equations , (19), (26), (30), we can determine four unknown quantities , and then from (18) get (actually it is with , (19), (26), (30), , and (31) i.e. six simultaneous equations we can determine six unknown quantities in mathematics theory).

However, when we stand with ., (19), (26) three simultaneous equations, get , , bring into (30), the equation about* * is higher than 5 degree (so do we stand or or ). Therefore, we have no more better choice but to determine the approximate value of when *v*＜＜*C*. In fact, with simultaneous , (19), (26), (30) we can get , , , , , and (please see appendix XI). Then, when , approximate formula of Taylor series expansion are (neglected more higher order infinitely small) (where )

(32) |

From (32) we can see: when the are in accord with: as known in 3.2, greater referenced weight reference system’s measurement data be disturbed less (be changed less away from *C*), less referenced weight reference system’s measurement data be disturbed greater (be changed greater away from *C*). Under (1)e, if (or ) therefore and then , in (1)e. Then (2) i.e.

It appears: In the bigger referenced weight reference system take measure of the other “in motion” small referenced weight reference system , will see that the small referenced weight reference system’s time length to dilate (please note the same time “stationary” in and “stationary” in are the same _{ }i.e. ). (4), (6) and (8) i.e.

It appears: Under (1)e, because of , in the bigger referenced weight reference system take measure of the other “in motion” small referenced weight reference system , will see that the small referenced weight reference system’s space length contract in all directions. For example, we (on earth) take measure of a micro-particle, is our earth’s reference system (the earth is “stationary” in ) and is the particle’s reference system (the particle is “stationary” in and the moving speed measured by is constant v) here (or→), because of (2) and (4) (or (6) or (8)) will become

It is just the same as Einstein special relativity’s formula, while what in distinction from Einstein special relativity is here space contract in all directions. But, what just on the contrary to Einstein special relativity is: the (3) i.e.

It appears: In the small referenced weight reference system take measure of the other “in motion” bigger referenced weight reference system, will see that the bigger referenced weight reference system’s time length contract! And the (5), (7) and (9) i.e.

It appears: Under (1)e, because of , in the small referenced weight reference system take measure of the other “in motion” bigger referenced weight reference system, will see that the bigger referenced weight reference system’s space dilate in all directions analogous as quasars’ apparent superluminal expansions observed in astrophysics (see ref. ^{ 3, 4}).

In (32), please note (1)e must be that nobody nearby and , both and close to zero only keeping as a constant had been determined like *v* and the being measured object only are photon coming from the source stationary in or , the more the constant *v* close to zero and two reference system’s origins in a more short way off, the more (1)e accurate. But we can roughly take both and as arbitrary quantities, there are other body in the world besides and , and (two reference system’s origins) may in a long way off, then educe rough conclusion as follows:

a). We (on earth) take measure of the light come from quasar ( moving speed measured by is the constant ) is just in a small referenced weight reference system take measure of the “in motion” bigger referenced weight reference system’s thing (it is said that the mass of any quasar is far more bigger than the sun need not to say our earth), in (32) it will be , (2) and (4) (or (6) or (8)) become

It also appears: *On earth (small referenced weight reference system) take measure of the other “in motion” quasar (bigger referenced weight reference system), will see that the “in motion” quasar’s time contract and space dilate (in all directions)*. Perhaps the light speed in the quasar is constant C≈3×10^{8}ms^{-1}. But l_{0}=3×10^{8}m the quasar measurement data, our (on earth) measurement data is ＞; time the quasar measurement data, our (on earth) measurement data is ＜t_{0}; obviously the light speed of our’s (on earth) measurement data as quotient / will greatter than 3×10^{8}ms^{-1}. Therefore, astronomical observatory discover the quasars’ super-luminal expansion.

In addition, in 3.4 we have known and take measure of the same speed of relative motion, the measurement data is *v* while the measurement data is . As above our is *v* while the quasar’s measurement data is ——taking measure of the same speed our measurement data is greatter than the quasar . Perhaps the light speed on the quasar is 3×10^{8 }*m* *s*^{-1}, however, our measurement data will be greatter than 3×10^{8}*ms*^{-1}, also can explain the quasar’s super-luminal expansion. And our measurement data of the speed of the light from quasars to be greatter than 3×10^{8 }*m* *s*^{-1} will result in the fine structure constant lessening, for and as well as are “stationary” quantities’ numerical value before unit (being the same in different referenced weight reference system), only *C* express the photon “in motion”. Here lessening can explain J. K. Webb et. al.’s results ^{ 38} (as they said: “we find no systematic effects which can explain our results”).

b). As known in 2.2, and , or and , the “to and fro” light ray’s speed (from a stationary source), accord with the average speed is a constant *C* as shown in (26) and (19). Does and or and , the “to and fro” light ray’s speed from an “in motion” source accord with the average speed is a constant *C* as and in (26) or as and in (19)? As* *the* new postulate of light speed* it is the average speed of “stationary” light source’s light ray over a closed path is constant *C* while “in motion” light source’s light ray may be not. ——In and taking simultaneous measurement of the same wave front surface of light emitted from the origin, we making experiment with Michelson interferometer at some where on (the light ray comes from an “in motion” source) -axis, the glass plate is stationary in the Michelson interferometer with us. We suppose the light ray past from the right end of the line segment , to the left end of the , will cost time (the light ray’s direction opposite to the light source’s speed *v*). How long time does it take that the reflected light ray past from the left end of the line segment to the right end of the ? Taking note of that the light source’s mirror image is “in motion” with speed on* *-axis, also is in *the light ray’s direction opposite to the light source’s speed*, it should be that we replace the variable of the by or replace the (–*v*) in the by *v*, i.e. /. We also can think: as the glass plate is stationary on* *-axis, the same photon come from “in motion” light source with speed , after being reflected, should with speed (of course when the light source stops, the photon’s speed will be and after being reflected becomes ). Then the total time cost will be . Bring (12) and (14) into it and neglect more higher order infinitely small than we get

where

(to count the * *please see appendix XII). It is obvious that when .

Roughly neglecting other body, taking the sun as and our earth as , not only nobody nearby and but also (please note is speed measured by ), bring (i.e. ) into *λ*we get

Then , for neglected more higher order infinitely small than in (33) then will be almost as and in (26). This is why R. C. Tolman adopted the light from the two ends of the equator diameter of the sun took Michelson-Morley experiment obtained zero result ^{ 39}. As the sun’s rest mass is far bigger than our earth’s rest mass . It obviously is that the of a quasar is more close to because the rest mass of a quasar is far more bigger than of the sun.

When we (on earth) take measure of the photons coming from an “in motion” micro-particle we get

We can see here the coefficient of is 0 (here taking the micro-particle as so ) is more close to 1 than the in the before (there taking the sun as so ), the micro-particle’s is more close to . This is why T. Alväger et al took Michelson-Morley experiment with the light from high-speed moving particle and still obtained zero result ^{ 40}, although here the coefficient of being 0 is educed from* *.

Of course all *v*/*C*^{2} above should be replaced by more precisely, as (1)c is more precise than the Lorentz transformation.

Now, we sum up the conclusions:

1) We should amend the principle of relativity to *new principle of relativity*: “*t**he laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, while any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different*” (the *different* is the data of the two reference systems taking simultaneous measurement of the same physical quantity of the same body are different while using his own measurement data of the physical quantities to build laws of physics the two reference systems are identical, it is in accord with John C. Mather and George F. Smoot’s discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation) (see 2.1).

2) We should amend the universal speed of light to* new postulate of light speed*: “*t**he average speed of a light ray from a**ny** stationary light source measured over a closed path in vacuum is always constant *^{ }*ms*^{-1}” (it lets “the light ray come from the source” be more clear, more unassailable and lets we know that the speed of any photon from stationary light source will always between i.e. may ＜*C* or ＞*C*) (see 2.2 & 3.1).

3) We should set *the measurement is founded to change the object by destroying the original quantum coherence between the object and object’s environment *as one of the basic postulates——*the third postulate* (*new added postulate*) (in accord with the new physics experiments were performed and analyzed since 1998). Then we can educe: ①The “measurement is founded to change” in *the third postulate* is on both sides ——not only the being measured object been changed by the reference system’s taking measurement, but the reference system in taking measurement also been changed by the being measured object. It is the reference system’s taking measurement (*more precisely the quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement)** between the measurement apparatus (with its reference system) and the being measured object been founded*) instead of the ether or the motion of the being measured object that changes the being measured object. Only the measurement unit’s “definition” is unchanged while the measurement unit’s “actual length” can change or be changed ——in different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) is different (note the reference system himslef is not aware of it ——using his own unit taking measure of himslef cannot get his own change and he thinks the “actual length” of his unit is always the same and unchanged in different case). The measurement data of the same object’s physical quantity in a reference system the object “in motion” is different from “in stationary”, while *stationary* in different reference system, different reference system’s *measurement data* of the same *stationary* physical quantity are the same, although the “actual length” of the same unit in different reference system is different. ② The mass stationary in the reference system (more precisely joining in the quantum correlation) is the reference system’s referenced weight; perhaps the reference system’s space is something nearby the referenced weight, no referenced weight saying nothing of the space nearby. In taking measurement, the greater the referenced weight a)the stronger the reference system destroies the original (before the measurement is taken) quantum coherence between the being measured object and its environment, b)the less the reference system-self being changed by the being measured object, c) the stronger the reference system disturbs the other reference system’s measurement data of taking simultaneously measure of the same object, d)the less the reference systemslef’s measurement data be disturbed by other reference system’s simultaneously taking measure of the same object; on the opposite, the less the referenced weight, it is just the reversed case in a), in b), in c), in d) (therefore the micro-particle’s uncertainty must be that because the micro-particle’s mass is too small then the “on” or “off” of the quantum correlations (i.e. entanglements) between the micro-particle and the other objects in the environment make the micro-particle behaviour uncertainty) (see 3.2). ③Two reference systems (for example and and their relative motion may be uniform or not) taking simultaneously measure of the same quantity of the same object their measurement will disturb each other and “the numerical values before unit” ≠ “the numerical values before unit”, if and only if their relative motion speed can the simultaneous measurement of and disturbing each other be seen by and themselves ——the measurement data is different from the (note when or uniform relative speed then it must be “the numerical values before unit” = “the numerical values before unit” although they may have different referenced weight, so, the micro-particle’s uncertainty must occur and only occurs in our taking measure of the “in motion” micro-particle). Even in uniform relative motion and still are different for a)the relative motion (taking one as *in stationary* the other must be *in motion*), b)they may have different referenced weight; for example taking simultaneously measure of the same speed of relative motion, the speed of moving along -axes measured by is while the same speed of moving along -axes measured by is instead of (see 3.4), however, in using his own physical quantities’ measurement data to build laws of physics the two reference systems in uniform relative motion are identical (therefore *the laws of physics apply in all inertial reference systems, while any two reference systems in uniform relative motion are different*)(see 3.3).

4) From the definition of the unit of time we can educe: The reference system’s time coordinate should be something as space coordinate, each the reference systems severally using his own clock to determine his own time coordinate in simultaneously measuring the same object’s physics process taking place, it must be that there is not the problem to have to synchronize the clocks of the two reference systems before simultaneous time measurement.

5) Different quantum correlation (i.e. entanglement) will result in different different , different , generally determining the element of the (1)b coefficient matrix is very difficult or impossible. Only when the mass of the being measured object is sufficiently small and two reference systems origins in a sufficiently short way off, it always approximately is in , and (i.e. =) can we get (1)c. a)In (1)c the and and the *v* is not limited (i.e.* * may be→0 or＞*C* or＞＞*C*). b) When (it must be as known in 3.1,* *actually be in 5.3), the (1)c just becomes Lorentz transformation i.e. the special relativity’s Lorentz transformation is merely (1)c been reduced when . c) Under (1)c when , (11) i.e. goes to (more distinct in (1)c′) is the same formula as in the special relativity. d) Generally (at least when = (1)b goes to (1)c) there is not the invariant interval and then there is not the proper time(see 3.3-5.2). A little generally it may be , even nobody nearby and , each the and is mass particle stationary at and origin, both and close to zero only keeping as an arbitrary constant had been determined like *v* and the being measured object only are photon coming from the source stationary in or origin, we still cannot find out the element of (1)b coefficient matrix, we can only confirm: ①The the light speed can change or be changed and be allowable to be exceeded——a small mass object can go beyond the light which coming from the light source *being stationary *in a big referenced weight reference system (i.e. although the speed of a photon from stationary light source will always between while when light source being in motion photon’s speed may be→0 or=0 or<0 if light source’s speed sufficiently great), however, the average speed of the light ray from an “in motion” source like the sun or a quasar or a high-speed moving particle measured over a closed path in vacuum is *Cλ *while usually it always is , the light source is just on one focus of the wave front ellipsoid surface of light. ②In this case it must be and in (1)b i.e. (1)b becomes (1)d, then we know: *If the “in motion” space length contract it must contract in all directions (instead of Einstein special relativity’s only contract in the direction of motion* (of course if dilate it will dilate in all directions). ③Under (1)d and from adding then we can think the conditions which let us be able to completely explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, then we can find out the and _{ }in (1)d in mathematics theory, actually we only approximately get (1)e. From (1)e we know: the why of “*moving micro-particle’s time to dilate and space to contract, superluminal photonic tunneling experiment, quasar’s super-luminal expansion and fine structure constant’s lessening, took Michelson-Morley experiment with the light from the sun or quasar or high-speed (close to C) moving micro-particle obtained zero result*” is that: between two reference systems, in the greater referenced weight system taking measure of the other “in motion” less referenced weight system will see that the less referenced weight system’s time length dilate and space length contract in all directions, while in the less referenced weight system taking measure of the other “in motion” greater referenced weight system will see the reversed case(see 5.3 & 5.4).

6)Generally from the three postulates (two amended postulates of the special relativity and one *new added postulate (the third postulate)*) by mathematics as Einstein in special relativity because (see 4.), (1)a cannot go to (1)b even (1)c or (1)d but may go to time-reversal in some case(see ref ^{ 32}), while it still does not disobey the conclusions shown in 1), in 2), in 3), in 4), in 5). Of course generally the “in motion” system’s space length may contract or dilate (meanwhile the time length dilate or contract) may not uniformly at any where, generally determining the element of the (1)a coefficient matrix is very very difficult or impossible (see 5.4 & 6.).

Some a gentleman thinks: a check on the transformation given in (1)e shows that the group properties are not satisfied, and he said: “However, to have group property is a strong physical requirement”. We answer: Lorentz transformation is accurate formula under Einstein special relativity’s two postulates, whether or not there are other reference systems et al joining simultaneous measurement with and do not disturb the measurement data of and . While our (1)e only is approximate formula under our three postulates having gone through “reduce”, “re-reduce” and “re-re-reduce”, only being roughly results, any other reference system’s (for example ) joining simultaneous measurement with and will disturb and (of course if the being measured object is “in stationary” in the numerical values before the unit of the measurement data of will not be changed, so does in ). Therefore, the group properties are not satisfied with (1)e.

The author wish to thank colleague Li Xiang-Hui prof for discussions; thank sublibrarian Wu Zhi-Wen, prof Tang zhi and Luo Zheng-Long for giving a lot of help; thank Hunan Science Technologe College prof Wu Da-Fei for reading-through the manuscript and giving suggestions.

[1] | http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1978/. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[2] | http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[3] | R D Blandford, C F Mckee and M J Rees Nature 267 211-6 (1977). | ||

In article | |||

[4] | M H Cohen, K I Kellermann, D B Shaffer, R P Linfield, A T Moffet, J D Romney, G A Seielstad, I I K Pauliny-Toth, E Preuss, A Witzel, R T Schilizzi & B J Geldzahler Nature 268 404-9 (1977). | ||

In article | |||

[5] | A M Steinber, P G Kwait and R Y Chiao Phys. Rev. Lett. 71(5) 708-11 (1993). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[6] | Ch Spielmann, R Szipöcs, A Stingl and F Krausz Phys. Rev. Lett. 73(20) 2308-11 (1994). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[7] | A Enders and G Nimtz J. Phys. 1 France, (2) 1693-8 (1992). | ||

In article | |||

[8] | G Nimtz and W Heitmann Prog. Quant. Electr. 21(2) 81-108 (1977). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[9] | H. P. Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys 21 378 (1949). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[10] | W F Edwards Amer. J. of Phys 31 482-9 (1963). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[11] | J A Winne Philosophy of Sci. 37 81-99, 223-38 (1970). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[12] | R. Mansouri and R. U. Sexl, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 8 497 (1977); 8 515 (1977); 8 809 (1977). | ||

In article | |||

[13] | B. Bertotti, Radio Sci. 14, 621 (1979). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[14] | S S Tan J. of Natl. Univ. of Defense Tech. 1 151-202 (1984) (in Chinese); Matter Regularity 4 1-31 (2004). | ||

In article | |||

[15] | D. W. MacArthur, Phys. Rev. A 33, 1 (1986). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[16] | M. P. Haugan and C. M. Will, Phys. Today 40(5), 69 (1987). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[17] | G. Abolghasem, M. R. H. Khajehpour and R. Mansouri, Phys. Lett. A 132, 310 (1988). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[18] | E. Riis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 81 (1988); 62, 842 (1989). | ||

In article | |||

[19] | Z. Bay and J. A. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 841 (1989). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[20] | M. D. Gabriel and M.P.Haugan, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2943 (1990). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[21] | T. P. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D 42, 731 (1990). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[22] | C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 45, 403 (1992). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[23] | Y X Gui Chinese Phys. Lett. 9 505 (1992). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[24] | N Bahreyni and K H Knuth Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS March Meeting 56(1) (2011) | ||

In article | |||

[25] | A. Einstein Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 17 891 (1905). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[26] | S S Tan From Special Relativity to Standard Space-time Theory (Changsha: Hunan keji press) 219, 84, 254, 295-7, 79 (2007) (in Chinese). | ||

In article | |||

[27] | M F Ahmed, B M Quine, S Sargoytchev, A D Stauffer Indian J. Phys. 86(11) 835-49 (2012). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[28] | Durr S, Nonn T, Rempe G, Nature 395(3): 336 37 (1998); Phys Rev Lett, 81(26): 57056 5709 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[29] | Weihs G, Jennewein T, Simon C, Weinfurter H, Zeilinger A, Phys Rev Lett. 81(23): 50396 5043 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[30] | Tittel W, et al, Phys Rev(A) 57(5): 3396 3232 (1998); Tittel W, Brende J, Zhinden H, Gisin N, Phys Rev Lett 81(17): 33636 3366 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[31] | A Apostolakis, et al, CPLEAR collabo, Phys Lett(B). 422(16 4): 3396 348 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[32] | A Angelopoulos, et al, CPLEAR collabo, Phys Lett(B). 444(16 2): 436 51: 526 60 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[33] | G L Long, S Y Pei and J Y Zeng Recent Progress in Quantum Mechanics Volume 4 (Beijin: Qing-Hua University Press) 261 (2007) (in Chinese). | ||

In article | |||

[34] | B A Fuke Space, time and gravitation theory (Beijing: Science Press) 25-9 & 503-10 (1965) (in Chinese). | ||

In article | |||

[35] | D J Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc Englewood Cliffs) 422-4 (1981). | ||

In article | |||

[36] | C Møller The Theory of Relativity (The International Series of Monographs on Physics)ed Kapitza P and Bullard E(Amen House London E C4: Oxford University Press) 67-9 (1952). | ||

In article | |||

[37] | C Kittle, W D Knight and M A Ruderman Mechanics (Berkeley Physics Course Volume 1) Second Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill) 350-5 (1973). | ||

In article | |||

[38] | J. K. Webb et. al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 091301 (2001). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[39] | R. C. Tolman Phys. Rev., 31, 33 (1910). | ||

In article | |||

[40] | T. Alväger et al Arkiv Fysik. 31 145 (1966). | ||

In article | |||

Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2018 Hutu

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Hutu. On Space, Time and Reference System. *International Journal of Physics*. Vol. 6, No. 3, 2018, pp 64-84. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/6/3/3

Hutu. "On Space, Time and Reference System." *International Journal of Physics* 6.3 (2018): 64-84.

Hutu. (2018). On Space, Time and Reference System. *International Journal of Physics*, *6*(3), 64-84.

Hutu. "On Space, Time and Reference System." *International Journal of Physics* 6, no. 3 (2018): 64-84.

Share

[1] | http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1978/. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[2] | http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[3] | R D Blandford, C F Mckee and M J Rees Nature 267 211-6 (1977). | ||

In article | |||

[4] | M H Cohen, K I Kellermann, D B Shaffer, R P Linfield, A T Moffet, J D Romney, G A Seielstad, I I K Pauliny-Toth, E Preuss, A Witzel, R T Schilizzi & B J Geldzahler Nature 268 404-9 (1977). | ||

In article | |||

[5] | A M Steinber, P G Kwait and R Y Chiao Phys. Rev. Lett. 71(5) 708-11 (1993). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[6] | Ch Spielmann, R Szipöcs, A Stingl and F Krausz Phys. Rev. Lett. 73(20) 2308-11 (1994). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[7] | A Enders and G Nimtz J. Phys. 1 France, (2) 1693-8 (1992). | ||

In article | |||

[8] | G Nimtz and W Heitmann Prog. Quant. Electr. 21(2) 81-108 (1977). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[9] | H. P. Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys 21 378 (1949). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[10] | W F Edwards Amer. J. of Phys 31 482-9 (1963). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[11] | J A Winne Philosophy of Sci. 37 81-99, 223-38 (1970). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[12] | R. Mansouri and R. U. Sexl, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 8 497 (1977); 8 515 (1977); 8 809 (1977). | ||

In article | |||

[13] | B. Bertotti, Radio Sci. 14, 621 (1979). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[14] | S S Tan J. of Natl. Univ. of Defense Tech. 1 151-202 (1984) (in Chinese); Matter Regularity 4 1-31 (2004). | ||

In article | |||

[15] | D. W. MacArthur, Phys. Rev. A 33, 1 (1986). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[16] | M. P. Haugan and C. M. Will, Phys. Today 40(5), 69 (1987). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[17] | G. Abolghasem, M. R. H. Khajehpour and R. Mansouri, Phys. Lett. A 132, 310 (1988). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[18] | E. Riis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 81 (1988); 62, 842 (1989). | ||

In article | |||

[19] | Z. Bay and J. A. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 841 (1989). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[20] | M. D. Gabriel and M.P.Haugan, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2943 (1990). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[21] | T. P. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D 42, 731 (1990). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[22] | C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 45, 403 (1992). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[23] | Y X Gui Chinese Phys. Lett. 9 505 (1992). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[24] | N Bahreyni and K H Knuth Bulletin of the American Physical Society APS March Meeting 56(1) (2011) | ||

In article | |||

[25] | A. Einstein Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 17 891 (1905). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[26] | S S Tan From Special Relativity to Standard Space-time Theory (Changsha: Hunan keji press) 219, 84, 254, 295-7, 79 (2007) (in Chinese). | ||

In article | |||

[27] | M F Ahmed, B M Quine, S Sargoytchev, A D Stauffer Indian J. Phys. 86(11) 835-49 (2012). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[28] | Durr S, Nonn T, Rempe G, Nature 395(3): 336 37 (1998); Phys Rev Lett, 81(26): 57056 5709 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[29] | Weihs G, Jennewein T, Simon C, Weinfurter H, Zeilinger A, Phys Rev Lett. 81(23): 50396 5043 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[30] | Tittel W, et al, Phys Rev(A) 57(5): 3396 3232 (1998); Tittel W, Brende J, Zhinden H, Gisin N, Phys Rev Lett 81(17): 33636 3366 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[31] | A Apostolakis, et al, CPLEAR collabo, Phys Lett(B). 422(16 4): 3396 348 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[32] | A Angelopoulos, et al, CPLEAR collabo, Phys Lett(B). 444(16 2): 436 51: 526 60 (1998). | ||

In article | |||

[33] | G L Long, S Y Pei and J Y Zeng Recent Progress in Quantum Mechanics Volume 4 (Beijin: Qing-Hua University Press) 261 (2007) (in Chinese). | ||

In article | |||

[34] | B A Fuke Space, time and gravitation theory (Beijing: Science Press) 25-9 & 503-10 (1965) (in Chinese). | ||

In article | |||

[35] | D J Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc Englewood Cliffs) 422-4 (1981). | ||

In article | |||

[36] | C Møller The Theory of Relativity (The International Series of Monographs on Physics)ed Kapitza P and Bullard E(Amen House London E C4: Oxford University Press) 67-9 (1952). | ||

In article | |||

[37] | C Kittle, W D Knight and M A Ruderman Mechanics (Berkeley Physics Course Volume 1) Second Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill) 350-5 (1973). | ||

In article | |||

[38] | J. K. Webb et. al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 091301 (2001). | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[39] | R. C. Tolman Phys. Rev., 31, 33 (1910). | ||

In article | |||

[40] | T. Alväger et al Arkiv Fysik. 31 145 (1966). | ||

In article | |||