sent work, this aberration contains an additional feature that arises from the refraction rate Equation (8a) of light propagating from distant objects toward the sun. This refraction rate creates a velocity component of the light signal toward −f and thereby reduces the radial velocity component to ${c}^{\prime }={\left({c}_{\text{HQS}}^{2}-{V}^{2}\right)}^{1/2}$ . Correspondingly it slants the wave fronts by and angle b, so that the wave fronts arrive earth inclined, reaching first the leading part of earth and only 4.2 msec later the rear part. Note that GR too predicts reduction of the velocity of light, propagating toward the sun. This reduction however is imputed to stretching of the radial coordinate and not to effective velocity.

5.7. The Perihelion Precession

An analogous differentiated refraction rate of the propagation velocity $v$ of an orbiting body as in the preceding Section 5.6 must be responsible for the perihelion precession of elliptical orbits. At the aphelion the direction of the effective velocity ${v}_{\text{eff}}$ , with respect to the HQS, is opposite (retrograde) to the velocity field of the HQS as well as to the orbital motion. This increases the time of permanence in this region of the orbit. As the refraction rate is a characteristic of the position, the effective velocity vector of the particle ${v}_{\text{eff}}$ refracts during a longer time. However, at the perihelion ${v}_{\text{eff}}$ is parallel to the velocity field (prograde) and to the orbital velocity, which displaces it more rapidly (than the HQS), so that it has not time enough to recover the tangential direction. It recovers it only somewhat beyond the ideal perihelion point. In this way the perihelion advances a little bit in the prograde sense in each orbital round-trip.

5.8. Absence of Effects of the Solar Gravitational Field on the GPS Clocks

In the view of the present HQS-dynamics gravitational mechanism, the slowing of clocks is caused by velocity with respect to the local HQS (and with respect to the local LFs) and not by relative velocity. Hence, clocks, stationary with respect to the local moving HQS, do not run slow. They show proper time. The effective velocity of the GPS clocks with respect to the local moving HQS, commoving with earth round the sun, is zero, given by:

${v}_{\text{eff}}=V\left(r\right)-{v}_{\text{orb}}\cong {\left(GM/r\right)}^{1/2}{e}_{\varphi }-{\left(GM/r\right)}^{1/2}{e}_{\varphi }\approx 0$ (34)

All clocks orbiting in circular equatorial orbits round an astronomical body, which normally is moving itself in a regular circular equatorial orbit round a larger body (star or galaxy), are stationary with respect to the local HQS. Such clocks all are naturally synchronous with respect to each other and all show closely the same proper time throughout the universe.

5.9. Effects of the Velocity Field of the HQS Equation (6) on Clocks Moving in Non-Equatorial Circular Orbits

AS discussed in Section 2, the GPS satellites move at $2.02×{10}^{4}\text{km}$ of altitude, along circular orbits inclined 55 degrees with respect to the earth’s equator and hence have a considerable velocity with respect to the local HQS in the Keplerian velocity field, creating the earth’s gravitational field. The GPS clocks have velocity components, given by ${v}_{0}\left(1-\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right)$ along −f and ${v}_{0}\mathrm{sin}\alpha$ along $±\theta$ , where ${v}_{0}=3.87\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{km}/\mathrm{sec}$ and a is the angle of the orbital velocity ${v}_{0}$ with respect to the equator or parallels. The effective velocity at the equator is ${v}_{0}{\left[2\left(1-\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right)\right]}^{1/2}=\text{3}\text{.574km/sec}$ and the estimated average velocity of the GPS satellites with respect to the local HQS over the entire orbit is $~0.8×3.574=2.86\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{km}/\mathrm{sec}$ . Analogously the Westward velocity of the earth-based station at Colorado highs with respect to the local HQS is about 7.4 km/sec. In addition, the velocity of the Cs atoms of 0.255 km/sec within the atomic clocks as well as a small transverse Doppler shift, due to the implicit velocity of the earth-based stations with respect to the local HQS must be considered. Altogether these effects achieve closely the observed $4.5×{10}^{-10}$ sec/sec  .

5.10. The Astronomical Motions Closely Track the Motion of the HQS throughout the Universe

The null results of the light anisotropy experiments, due to the orbital and cosmic motion of earth and the absence of the gravitational time dilation on the GPS clocks, due to the solar gravitational field, proves that the planet earth is stationary with respect to the local HQS that rules the propagation of light. From the HQS-dynamics point of view, the planetary orbits lie all closely within the equatorial plane of the solar Keplerian velocity field of the HQS and the orbit of the solar system lies closely within the galactic disk, which is the equatorial plane of the galactic velocity field of the HQS. The reason is that this configuration of the orbital motions minimizes the velocity of these astronomical bodies with respect to the local HQS, which is the result of the wavelength stretching of particles and light. Wavelength stretching reduces the kinetic energy of particles with respect to the local HQS, and reduces the energy of radiation, as is well known from the cosmic microwave background radiation. However the averaging down of velocity, during gravitational agglomeration into large matter bodies too has very significantly contributed. Observations indicate that not only the planets of the solar system, not only the solar system in the Milky-Way galaxy however astronomical bodies in general throughout the universe are very closely stationary with respect to the local HQS in the respective gravitational fields, which predicts the universality of the laws of physics.

5.11. Black-Hole Singularities

From the present HQS-dynamics point of view, black holes are Keplerian velocity fields of the HQS in which the velocity of the HQS along the +f spherical coordinate, achieves velocities equal to the velocity of light $V\left(r\right)=c$ . In this velocity field, the radial component of the velocity of a light signal, propagating directly toward the black-hole, falls gradually and effectively becomes zero at the event horizon. The reason for this reduction is the fact that, due to the refraction rate Equation (8a), light develops an orthogonal implicit velocity component along −f, that achieves itself the velocity of light. Also in the view of an external observer, a clock, stationary at the event horizon ${r}_{g}$ , will seem to be stopped, because the time standard, by which it counts time, will take an infinite time to complete one period of oscillation. In GR the velocity of light propagating directly toward the black-hole too falls gradually to zero. However the reason is completely different. It is the increasing length of the geometrical distances along the radial coordinate that tend to infinity. GR, instead of slowing the velocity component, stretches the street.

From the present HQS dynamics viewpoint, the event horizon of black-holes is anisotropic. For light propagating along −f the escape velocity is given by $c-V=\sqrt{2}V$ , which means that the event horizon lies at a radial distance where the velocity of the local HQS is $V=0.4142c$ and that the event horizon is a spherical surface, located at $r=2.9144{r}_{g}$ , where ${r}_{g}$ is the gravitational radius of the black-hole, from the viewpoint of GR. However, a light signal, propagating along +f, has an ordinary (orbital) velocity $c+V$ that achieves 2c at the conventional event horizon and thus can escape along an outward hyperbolic path. For such a light pulse the event horizon lies lower than ${r}_{g}$,defined by $c+V=\sqrt{2}V$ , where $V=2.4142c$ and the event horizon is a spherical surface located at $r=0.08578{r}_{g}$ . Above this event horizon, the direct orbit of light becomes outward elliptic and eventually hyperbolic. From the present view, a black-hole is black at the retrograde side and is bright at the prograde side.

This work has discussed the problems with Einstein’s assumptions in the special and general theories of relativity and showed their correct solution within the Higgs quantum space (HQS) dynamics. The Higgs theory introduces profound changes in Einstein’s view about the empty space (vacuum) and the meaning of motions. The HQS constitutes not only a local ultimate (locally absolute) reference for rest and for motions of matter-energy; however literally governs these motions. It materializes the local Lorentz frames (LFs) turning them into local proper LFs, intrinsically stationary with respect to the local HQS and thus moving with it in its motions. Motions with respect to the local HQS (LFs) and not relative motions are responsible for all effects of motion. However, Lorentz frames moving with respect to the local HQS (LFs) are not proper LFs.

In the scenario of the Higgs theory, the local HQS (local proper LFs) can itself move in the ordinary three-dimensional space, thereby giving rise to implicit motions for matter bodies, stationary in the ordinary space. Therefore, the present work associates together the central idea of the Higgs theory, according to which the HQS governs the inertial motion of matter-energy and the central idea of GR, according to which the gravitational dynamics is an inertial dynamics and replaces Einstein’s static curved spacetime by a Keplerian velocity field $V\left(r\right)={\left(GM/r\right)}^{1/2}{e}_{\varphi }$ of the HQS. This Keplerian velocity field of the HQS is the quintessence of the gravitational fields. It has the crucial property of giving rise to the outside inside centrifuge phenomenon, observed within gravitational fields, in which the gravitational pull is identically a centrifugal pull. It causes hyperbolic rotation of the implicit r and f velocity components (with respect to the local HQS); that is shown to appropriately create the observed gravitational dynamics and all the observed effects of the gravitational fields on light and on clocks.

Viewing that the gravitational dynamics of the astronomical systems throughout the universe (planetary satellite systems, solar system, galaxies etc.) all are governed by velocity field of the HQS, moving concomitantly with the astronomical bodies, these bodies all are very nearly stationary with respect to the local HQS, which directly leads to the universality of the laws of physics.

Cite this paper
Schaf, J. (2018) Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in the Scenario of the Higgs Quantum Space Dynamics. Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 1111-1143. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2018.95068.
References
   Von Laue, M. (1955) Annalen der Physik, 38.

   Lorentz, H.A., Einstein, A., Minkowski, H. and Weyl, H. (1923) The Principle of Relativity. Dover Publications, New York.

   Ashby, N. (1996) Mercury, 23-27.

   Bailey, H., Borer, K., Combley, F., Drumm, H. and Krienen, F. (1977) Nature, 268, 301-305.
https://doi.org/10.1038/268301a0

   Rubin, V. and Ford Jr., W.K. (1970) The Astrophysical Journal, 159, 379.
https://doi.org/10.1086/150317

   Rubin, V., Thonnard, N. and Ford Jr., W.K. (1980) The Astrophysical Journal, 238, 471-487.
https://doi.org/10.1086/158003

   Riess, A., et al. (1998) The Astrophysical Journal, 116, 1009.

   Perlmutter, S., et al. (1999) The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565.
https://doi.org/10.1086/307221

   Schaf, J. (2017) The True Origin of the Gravitational Dynamics. Scientific Research Publishing, Inc., USA.

   Schaf, J. (2017) World Journal of Research and Review, 4, 68.

   Schaf, J. (2017) International Journal of Advanced Research in Physical Science, 4, 1.

   Anderson, P.W. (1963) Physical Review, 130, 439.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.130.439

   Ginzburg, V.L. and Landau, L.D. (1950) Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics (JETP), 20, 1064.

   Meissner, W. and Ochsenfeld, R. (1933) Naturwissenschaften, 21, 787-788.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01504252

   Higgs, P.W. (1964) Physical Review Letters, 13, 508.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

   Englert, F. and Brout, R. (1964) Physical Review Letters, 13, 321.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

   Carrol, S.M. (2001) Living Reviews in Relativity, 4, 1.
https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2001-1

   Sola, J. (2013) Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 453, Article ID: 012015.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/453/1/012015

   Hatch, R.R. (2004) GPS Solutions, 8, 67-73.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-004-0092-8

   Hatch, R.R. (2004) Foundations of Physics, 34, 1725-1739.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1313-2

   Hatch, R.R. (2007) Physics Essays, 20, 83.
https://doi.org/10.4006/1.3073811

   Schaf, J. (2018) Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 395-418.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.93028

   Schaf, J. (2015) Universal Journal of Physics and Applications, 9, 141.

   Schaf, J. (2014) Recent Progress in Space Technology, 4, 44.

   Schaf, J. (2014) Journal of Modern Physics, 5, 407-448.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.56053

   Miller, D.C. (1933) Review of Modern Physics, 5, 203.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.5.203

   Pound, R.V. and Snider, J.L. (1965) Physical Review B, 140, B788.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.140.B788

   Brault, J.W. (1963) Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 8, 28.

   Shapiro, I.I., et al. (1971) Physical Review Letters, 26, 1132.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.1132

Top