Research Papers Relativity Theory Science Journal 6947

Extended Relativity Theory
Javier Joglar Alcubilla

Avionics Department, Barajas Institute, Avda. Amrica 119, 28042 Madrid, Espaa
[email protected]
June 1st , 2017
Abstract:
It is intended to demonstrate that the speed limit of light c, imposed by Contemporary

Physics, comes from the Observers inability to perform absolute measures; that is, the
Observers relative measures in Space-Time are those making it appears that material bodies,
those transmiting some type of information, can not reach or exceed this speed.
The speed of light c constant and invariant is the basis of the principles of Special
Relativity Theory (SR). It is considered in these terms by the results obtained experimentally.
When no material body is detected moving at speeds equal to or greater than it, it is imposed
as maximum material velocity not attainable.
While the observation provides us with some characteristics for c, with them appear some
paradoxes that make, at least, doubt its full correction. For example, the tunnel effect or the
quantum particle entanglement paradoxes, spatial (EPR) or temporal type (ESW), represent
situations that can be explained considering transmission of information at speeds higher than
c. Contemporary Theories incorporate the concept of universe expansion at superluminal
velocities: we see that the initial hypothesis established by the SR has already been refined
in order to justify this crushing observation.
The Extended Relativity Theory (ER) aims to be an extension of the SR. It wants to show
why there may be material particles and associated waves moving at speeds greater than c
and, why until now they have gone unnoticed. The ER will give the keys to look for a
particle with these characteristics.
1st of
june Extended Relativity Theory
Contents
Page
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1 Quantization of Information Transmission (Inf_Tx) ..................................................................... 7
Experiment 1-1: Obtaining Lorentz transformations in SR....................................................8
Experiment 1-2: Relativity of distances and times in SR ......................................................11
Experiment 1-3: Influence of relative motion on wavelength with SR ............................12
Experiment 1-4: Disturbances displacement diagrams with SR .........................................14
Experiment 1-5: Lorentz transformations in ER, speed 1_coordinate ...........................16
Experiment 1-5B: Lorentz transformations in ER, speed n_coordinate ........................18
Experiment 1-6: Relativity of distances and times in ER, 1_coordinate .........................22
Experiment 1-6B: Relativity of distances and times in ER, n_coordinate......................25
Experiment 1-7: Disturbances displacement diagrams with ER. Incident, reflected

and trasmitted signals. Interpretation of observed redshifts ................................................29
Relative Jets ............................................................................................................................................42
Gamma ray bursts, GRB ...................................................................................................................42
Cerenkov radiation ..............................................................................................................................44
Experiment 1-8: Influence of relative motion on wavelength with ER ...........................44
Experiment 1-9: Determination of actual subluminal or superluminal velocity ..........47
Superluminal apparent movement ................................................................................................49
Experiment 1-10: Relativity of distances and times in ER ...................................................49
Experiment 1-11: Relativity of distances and times in ER applying Hypothesis 3 ....54
2 Minkowski Diagrams ......................................................................................................................................57
Experiment 2-1: Tachyonic Antitelephone paradox: solution with ER ....................60
Experiment 2-2: MD for subluminal and superluminal events.........................................61
2
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Event intervale invariance .............................................................................................................63
Velocities at speed 0_coordinate .................................................................................................65
3 Harmonic wave analysis ................................................................................................................................67
Experiment 3-1: Wave equation according to SR ...............................................................67
Experiment 3-2: Introduction to harmonic analysis according to ER .........................70
Experiment 3-3: Wave equation according to ER ...............................................................73
Experiment 3-4: Harmonic analysis according to ER generically ................................75
4 Theory of the radiant cavity ..........................................................................................................................77
References ..............................................................................................................................................................83
3
1st of
Introduction
We are defining a relativistic theory that will later be used as justification for the
quantization of speeds. As the Special Relativity Theory (SR) [Pascual and Latorre, 2005] is
a non-quantum theory and, later on, we have sought its compatibility with Quantum
Mechanics (QM), with the theory presented here, named as Extended Relativity (ER) the
same thing happens; it has a non-quantum base, but with its results we will search application
to a quantum theory of broader conclusions.
The speed of light (c), constant and invariable, is the basis of SR principles [Einstein,
1905]. It is considered in these terms by the results obtained experimentally. In addition,
since no material body, that is, those transmitting some type of information, is finding
moving at speeds equal to or greater than c, it is imposed as maximum material speed not
achievable. However, direct observation provides examples of measures apparently correct
but, revealing inconsistencies in their environment, evidence the possibility that the measure
is not adequate and has not been taken into account some important consideration for it. The
concepts of dark mass or dark energy are current examples associated with global
measures of mass and energy, respectively, in principle correct, although incompatible with
the known development of the whole of reality, which have forced its introduction despite
what is observed.
While observation provides determined characteristics for c, with them appear some
paradoxes that make, at least, doubting of its full correction. For example, the tunnel effect
that arises in certain semiconductor devices, or even in macroscopic-sized barriers, or the
paradoxes of quantum particles entanglement, space (EPR) or temporal type (ESW), to name
a few: they represent situations that can be explained by considering data transmission at
speeds higher than c.
The superluminal tunnel effect, supported by G. Nimtz, has attempted to be rebutted by

authors such as [Steinberg et al., 1993], arguing that in proposals on information transmission
faster than light is implicit violation of the causality principle, without Nimtz giving an
adequate response to it; or [Winful, 2002] that proposes the cavity model in response to an
apparent superluminal tunneling, stating that the energy stored in a barrier, by destructive
interference, is lower than that stored in a zone of barrier free space of same size; so that, the
group speed of the signal, when crossing the barrier is greater than in the free space. On the
other hand, authors like [Perel'man, 2005] propose that there is a violation of relativistic
causality when evanescent particles are handled in tunneling processes, but they must be
considered as violation of conservation laws in virtual transitions, for sufficiently short times
as if to be allowed by the uncertainty principle; although, above all G. Nimtz asserts that the
tunnel effect does not violate relativistic causality, indicating, for example in [Nimtz, 2006],
that a superluminal signal, considering that its real temporal duration is always finite, begins
where it begins, in all cases will end in the future; or in [Nimtz and Stahlhofen, 2007], that
evanescent modes fit well with virtual photons, as predicted by early calculations of quantum
electrodynamics; also, he assures in [Nimtz, 2010] that the different experiments with
evanescent modes on particles crossing barriers, suggest that their velocity is greater than that
of light, they can be described through non-local virtual particles, that act at a distance and
the properties characterizing the evanescent modes are not compatible with SR. In a
compilation of the known tunnel effect, [Aichmann and Nimtz, 2013] affect physical signals
are always limited in frequency, in fact, a signal occupying unlimited bandwidth is
impossible, since it requires infinite energy, considering that at each frequency at least one
quantum of energy must be assigned; remember that according to Shannon's theory of
4
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
information, the information contained in a signal consists of the product of its temporal
duration by its bandwidth and, this is what must be observed when a signal supposedly
transmitted superluminally is recovered; in a tunneling process always the sum of the
transmitted signal and the reflected signal is the signal injected to the barrier; besides, the
signal transmitted at the output of the barrier is attenuated from the initial injected signal, but
contains the same information, defined by the parameter full duration at half amplitude.
Regarding the quantum entanglement, firstly [Einstein et al., 1935] propose that,
considering that the wave function provides a complete description of the physical reality, it
is concluded that two physical quantities with non-commutative operators can have
simultaneous realities and, moreover, the transmission of information between them is
apparently instantaneous. Explanations have been made for this spooky action at a distance,
as in [Ghirardi et al., 1988] where it is justified by the use of two separate measurement
equipment, which interact at the same time with the two subsystems that are intended to be
compared; or authors who introduce superluminal distance action as in [Yin et al., 2013],
describing an experiment in which the violation of Bell's inequality is observed continuously
for 12 hours, resulting in a speed for the action at a distance of at least four orders of
magnitude with respect to c.
Contemporary theories in the twentieth century incorporate the concept of universe

expansion at superluminal velocities: they say that does not contravene SR, considering that
the maximum of c is only applicable to transfer of information/material that space-time,
referred to this expansion, does not contain. But, we can see that the initial hypothesis
established by the SR [Darrigol, 2005] has been refined in order to justify this
overwhelming observation. On the other hand, the empty space-time has got energy, being
necessary to resort to the concept of virtual particles to not break, among others, the above
hypothesis on c, sufficiently refined already, but requires stretching the uncertainty
principle to a point at which, at least, appears a reasonable doubt of its correct application.
However, if there are virtual particles, there is no consistent formal enough model to explain
its kinematics, in some cases, superluminal.
For example, H. Javadi defines so-called non-rest particles of superluminal virtual

character, indicating in [Javadi and Forouzbakhsh, 2014] that c is the boundary between
visible and non-visible particles, such as virtual photons and graviton; introduces a virtual
space-time where the particles are superluminal and demands going beyond, overcoming the
limitations imposed by special relativity; or in [Javadi and Forouzbakhsh, 2017] that a non-
rest particle such as graviton has a particular mass, moving at speed greater than c with
respect to any inertial reference system.
[Liberati et al., 2002] ensures that virtual photons can interact between particles faster
than the speed of light, specifically in the Cassimir vacuum. Other authors propose relativity
studies beyond the speed of light, as (Hill and Cox, 2002) through two transformations
between inertial references, complementary to the Lorentz transformations and, applicable at
speeds higher than that of light; although such transformations do not require the introduction
of imaginary masses or complex formalisms, [Andr'eka et al., 2013] establishes restrictions
for them, indicating that they are only consistent with Einstein's principle of relativity, if
space-time is two-dimensional.
On the other hand, experiments related to the propagation of signals with superluminal
velocities have been developed in the laboratory; for example, [Recami et al., 2000], or
considering back propagation [Gehring, 2006], with results as in [Schweinsberg, 2006],
where he measured propagation velocities of senoidally modulated signals and Gaussian
5
1st of
pulses, extremely slow and also superluminal using EDF fiber; the degree of delay or
advance of the signal depends on the intensity of pumping applied.
Other authors focus the problem of the superluminal signals propagation in the distinction
between group, phase and frontal velocities [Wang et al., 2000], concluding that the
information transmission is a function of the frontal velocity, never greater than c. Even so,
the discussion continues, as in [Chiao, 2011], where the propagation of superluminal wave
packets is described; in choosing between two events an arbitrary time interval, the existence
of three distinct wave packets is observed: the set of waves propagating forward in the
medium used between events, a second set of waves propagating back reflected in the
medium and one third wave packet coming out, as a result of the difference of the previous
two; also in this regard, [Nimtz and Haibel, 2001] indicate that it is important to consider that
the actual signals are frequency limited and, thus, their bandwidth is the adequate description
of the information they contain; besides, superluminal signals can shorten the time interval
between cause and effect, but never violate the principle of causality, since in all cases, a
signal develops to cause a corresponding effect.
The ER is intended to be an extension of SR. It wants to show formally why there may be
material particles moving at speeds greater than c and, above all, why they have so far gone
unnoticed. The ER will give the keys to look for a particle with these characteristics.
In chapter 1, we will initially develop 4 basic experiments that summarize SR concepts,

based on Lorentz transformations [Poincar, 1900]. As a complement to these, we propose 9
more experiments that represent all the concepts of ER, which include its application in the
so-called superluminal apparent movement [Mirabel and Rodriguez, 1994], explanation of
the phenomena, relativistic jets [Beall, 2015], gamma ray bursts [Paczynski, 1995] and
Cherenkov's radiation [Cerenkov, 1937], as well as, how to localize superluminal particles
overcoming current constraints as inertial observers. In chapter 2, the Minkowski Diagrams
will be modified in order to represent graphically the spatio-temporal events proposed by the
ER, so that the different SR paradoxes are solved [Boya and Santander, 2005]. In chapter 3, a
harmonic wave analysis will be performed applying the ER concepts; the result will provide
the justify why up to now speed c has been considered as maximal and constant and, in fact,
it is only apparently so. Finally, chapter 4 discusses the radiant cavity theory [Eisberg and
Resnick, 1989] and the photoelectric effect [Einstein, 1905b], incorporating the results of
chapters 1 and 3 above; the application of ER in the theory of black body considering
photons, offers surprising results on those obtained by Planck in the discretization of radiated
waves energy.
As an introduction to the problem, the following initial question is asked: what will be the
fundamental difference between the SR and ER basic concepts? The answer is that SR does
not distinguish between physical parameters associated with material displacement and
those observable parameters of information transmission from such displacement. The ER
is going to consider them as different. What does this mean?
Any moving particle generates a disturbance in the environment in which it moves that
contains the information of said displacement. To this disturbance, propagated in an isotropic
medium in the form of a spherical wavefront around each point through which the particle in
question passes, we will call it spatial displacement information transmission (Inf_Tx). The
Inf_Tx can be, for example, the generic light (electromagnetic interaction) that we see of the
moving particle.
There are two typical ways to measure the speed of a moving particle:
6
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
1. Use physical parameters associated with material displacement, accurately defining

lengths and times: for example, measure the distance a particle is traveling through
and determine the time for its travel, synchronizing the clocks at the departure and
arrival.
2. Use Inf_Tx observable parameters of material displacement: use the Doppler effect
by measuring frequency shifts associated with the movement of the observed
particle. This procedure is to be used if the observer is distant from the body on
which the velocity is intended to be measured: for example, in the case of celestial
bodies, such as stars.
For velocities smaller than c the results obtained by applying one or the other procedure
do not differ and, therefore, the SR does not need to distinguish between them. It will be
shown that this is because the SR always works with inertial observers which are compatible1
with the propagation speed of the Inf_Tx, that is, with c. With the ER we will see that
different types of situations appear with results regarding the application of different
measurement procedures of speeds 1 and 2 above:
Particle cases with velocities greater than c will be proposed, where the compatibility
between inertial observer and Inf_Tx will make the application of one or the other
procedure do not differ in the results obtained.
Also, we will propose particle cases with velocities greater than c, where the
incompatibility between inertial observer and Inf_Tx will make the application of one
or the other procedure differ in the results obtained.
1. Quantization of Information Transmission (Inf_Tx)

Hypothesis 1: Assuming that the light, as Inf_Tx of material displacement, is quantized in
quantization intervals of size c, so it can move as c,2c,3c,.., (n + 1)c,.. , named as the speed
0,1,2,.., n,.. coordinates 2.
Light moving in a speed coordinate or other will depend on the material displacement
generated, so that propagated disturbance in the form of spherical wavefront always go ahead
of the object which produces it. Thus, a material object moving with v < c leads to c
(belonging to the speed 0_coordinate); if it moves with c v < 2c produces light (Inf_Tx) to
2c (belongs to speed 1_coordinate) and so on.
Hypothesis 1-B: Applying the hypothesis_1, it defines apparent speed as the detected
speed an observer can see at a different speed coordinate to the one the vehicle with such
speed belongs to.
Hypothesis 2: We will say that an inertial observer is compatible with the Inf_Tx speed,
when its speed coordinate is equivalent to the corresponding of the Inf_Tx speed.
1
The compatibility hypothesis of the inertial observer with the propagation velocity of the considered Inf_Tx, will
be concretely presented later (hypothesis 2).
2
Hypothesis 1 is confirmed in experiment_3-3 and chapter 4.
7
1st of
For example, if an inertial observer is located in a vehicle moving with 4.3c, will be
compatible with the 5c Inf_Tx speed, since its speed coordinate_4 is defined as 4c v < 5c ;
such an inertial observer will not be compatible with the Inf_Tx given in speed 0_coordinate,
for example.
Experiment 1-1: Obtaining Lorentz transformations in SR.
Assuming an observer O ' ( x ' , y ' , z ' , t ') inside a vehicle moving with relative velocity v < c
respect to another observer O ( x, y , z , t ) in the positive direction of axis x' and x. Both
observers are in the speed 0_coordinate, their planes x ' y ' and xy always match and, at the
origin, t ' = t = 0 . In the beginning t = 0 , O' emits omnidirectional light producing a spherical
wavefront that is transmitted with speed c, origin O' and radius r ' = ct ' . The coordinates of
any point on the wavefront satisfy the equation:
x' 2 + y ' 2 + z ' 2 = c 2 t ' 2 (1-1)
From the point of view of O, light propagates also with speed c in the form of spherical
wavefront, with origin O and radius r = ct . The coordinates of any point on this wavefront
satisfy the next equation:
x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = c 2t 2 (1-2)
Figure 1.1 Context of the experiment 1-1
Now we are finding transformation equations that allow both previous equations, (1-1)
and (1-2) are valid at a time. Assumed in the following form, which allows compatibility
with Galilean transformations, for very small velocities:
x ' = 0 ( x vt )
y' = y
(1-3)
z' = z
t ' = 0 (t + 0 )
8
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
The factor 0 is used to correct the temporal mismatch between O and O' when the value
v / c is great. The factor 0 must explain the difference between times and distances in the
direction of relative motion, measured by O and O'.
Substituting (1-3) to (1-1), we obtain the equivalence with the equation (1-2):
02 (x 2 2vxt + v 2 t 2 ) + y 2 + z 2 = c 2 02 (t 2 + 2 0 t + 02 ) (1-4)
For hence the equation (1-2), in (1-4) there should be no term of xt variables, therefore:
vx
02 2vxt = c 2 02 2 0 t , ie, 0 = (1-5)
c2
Its application in (1-4) leads to:
02 x 2 (1 v 2 / c 2 ) + y 2 + z 2 = c 2 02 t 2 (1 v 2 / c 2 ) (1-5b)
Therefore,
02 (1 v 2 / c 2 ) = 1 (1-5c)
That is,
0 = (1 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-6)
Lorentz transformations obtained will be in the form:
(
x' = ( x vt ) 1 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
y' = y
(1-7)
z' = z
( )(
t ' = t vx / c 2 1 v 2 / c 2 )1 / 2
The first and fourth equations of (1-7) can be set as,
= + (1-7b)
= +
9
1st of
Introducing the variable t of the 2nd equation of (1-7b) in the 1st equation of x,
= + + = =( + ) (1-7c)
Introducing the variable x of the 1st equation of (1-7b) in the 2nd equation of t,
= + + = + (1-7d)
If we now propose (1-7), (1-7c) and (1-7d), in terms of coordinate differences between
two simultaneous observations from O, (x1, y1, z1, t1) and (x2, y2, z2, t2), and from O, (x1, y1,
z1, t1) and (x2, y2, z2, t2), we get:
= ( )
= (1-7e)
= ( + )
= +
With = , = , = , = , = ,
= , = , = , (1-7e) gives rise to the following phenomena:
If = 0 is considered, then,
= (1-7f)
Equation (1-7f) is known as the time dilation ( > 1 for > 0 ) in the measure of the
observer O, when from O no spatial position changes are seen.
= / (1-7g)
Equation (1-7g) is described as the spatial contraction in the measure of the observer O
instantaneously, this is with = .
If a particle moves with relative velocity u = (u x , u y , u z ) respect to O and for O' with
( )
speed u ' = u x' , u 'y , u z ' , such that ux = dx/ dt , u y = dy / dt , uz = dz/ dt and u' x = dx' / dt' ,
10
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
u' y = dy' / dt' , u' z = dz' / dt' , by applying (1-7) gives the composition of velocities between the
two reference systems:
(dx vdt ) 0 dx / dt v u v
u' x = = = x
(
dt vdx / c 0 2
)
1 2
vdx v
1 2 ux
c dt c
dy dy / dt uy
u' y = = = (1-7h)
(
dt vdx / c 2 0 ) vdx v
(1 2 ) 0 (1 2 u x ) 0
c dt c
dz dz / dt uz
u' z = = =
(
dt vdx / c 0
2
) vdx v
(1 2 ) 0 (1 2 u x ) 0
c dt c
The angular composition of the particle velocity vector between both reference systems is
obtained as follows; for example, if it is defined as the angle formed by the velocity vector
u on the x axis and ' as the angle formed by the velocity vector u' respect to the x' axis,
being then tg = u y / u x and tg '= u ' y / u ' x . Therefore:
usen
tg ' = , where usen = u y and u cos = u x (1-7i)
(u cos v ) 0
Experiment 1-2: Relativity of distances and times in SR.
Assuming an observer O ' ( x ' , y ' , t ') moving with relative velocity v < c respect to another
observer O (x, y, t ) , in the positive direction of axis x' and x. O' is in a vehicle with a mirror in
the roof. At one point O' throws a beam of light towards the mirror and tries to measure the
time it takes to go and to come reflected. O, from the outside, looks at the fact and tries to
make the same temporary measure (See Figure 1.2).
For O', being l' the distance to the mirror, it will be,
2l ' = ct ' (1-8)
For O, however, we have:
c 2 (t / 2) 2 = v 2 (t / 2) 2 + l 2 (1-9)
Where l is the distance between O' and the mirror, measured by O. Solving for t in (1-9):
4l 2 4l 2 1 2l 1
t2 = = and, therefore t = (1-10)
2
c v 2
c 1 v2 /c2
2
c (1 v / c 2 )1 / 2
2
11
1st of
As observers do not differ between the perpendicular distances to their relative motions,
we can use l = l ' , so that:
t = t ' (1 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
> , for 0 (1-11)
Moreover, as to both observers their relative speed is the same, i.e.
v = L / t = L' / t ' , with v < c (1-12)
Where L and L' are distances in the direction of relative motion between observers,
measured by each of them.
Given that L / L ' = t / t ' , it can be said that:
L = L' (1 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
> , for 0 (1-13)
Experiment 1-3: Influence of relative motion on wavelength with SR.
Supposed an observer O ( x,t , ) emitting omnidirectional light with wavelength , and

two observers O ' ( x ' , t ' , 1 ) and O ' ' ( x ' ' , t ' ' , 2 ) in two separate vehicles moving respect to O
with relative velocity v < c , both in the same direction x, x', x'' and in the same sense, one
approaching to O and the other separating from O, respectively. Both observers O' and O''
detect the light emitted by O with wavelengths 1 and 2 , respectively. This situation is used
to search the relative velocity of the observers O' and O'' respect to O and see if they are
approaching or separating on the observer O. Using the equation of relative times (1-7):
12
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
vt v+c
t ' ' = t + 0 = t 0
c c
(1-14)
vt cv
t ' = t 0 = t 0
c c
And applying in (1-14) the equation (1-12) for v < c , it has for the distances in the
direction of relative movement L with L' and L'', between observers O with O' and O'',
respectively:
v + c
L''= L 0
c (1-15)
c v
L'= L 0
c
The distances in the direction of relative movement L with L' and L'', between observers O
with O' and O'', respectively, can be related to the wavelengths 1 and 2 viewed by O' and
O'', respectively, as to the light emitted by O, as follows:
L' L' ' 2

= 1 and = (1-16)
L L
Thus, for the light detected by O' and O'', respectively, we have:
c v
1 = 0 (1-17)
c
v+c
2 = 0 (1-18)
c
Graphically, it can be expressed as follows in Figure 1.3:
(O approaches to O) (O separates from O)
O 1 , v O O 2 , v
cv v+c
O detects light from O with: 1 = 0 O detects light from O with: 2 = 0
c c
Figure 1.3 Observation of mobile O' and O'' of the light emitted by O, from the detected wavelengths
1 and 2 .
13
1st of
Observing the displacements of the wavelengths 1 and 2 , detected respect to the initial
value of the generated light with , one can know the relative speed of each observer and its
sense of approach/separation.
The above results can be obtained studying the so-called disturbance displacement
diagrams for the previous experiment with some modifications, as related in next
experiment_1-4.
Experiment 1-4: Disturbances displacement diagrams with SR.
Assuming two observers at rest, O1 ( x1 , t ) and O2 (x 2 , t ) ,separated by a fixed distance r.

Between the ends of r segment moves with relative velocity v < c another observer
O ' ( x ' , t ' , ) inside a vehicle, emitting omnidirectional light with wavelength . Now, note
that light is emitted from the reference O' in movement, unlike the case of the experiment_1-
3. The disturbance displacement diagram in the described environment is shown below in
Figure 1.4.
In general, the displacement diagrams mark various spatial positions of the observer O'
moving, separated at regular intervals, in addition to the disturbances (spherical wavefronts
of light) generated in each of these positions and their temporal progress at the instants of
time that O' covers a new spatial interval.
Figure 1.4 Disturbance displacement diagram for the context of the experiment 1-4
Thus, for example, when O' is in position 4, the disturbances generated at positions 0 to 3
have propagated each concentrically to its equivalent position also marked as 4.
14
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
In the experiment, O' moves approaching to O1 and going away from O2. How do O1 and
O2 wacht the light emitted by O'? To determine this, it will be used patterns of
Spatial_Position(O)_Time(Disturbance O).
For example, if O1 receives 3_4 +3 (c-v) means that sees the light emitted by O' when it is
in position 3 at the time instant 4, plus the time equivalent to 3(c-v)/c, which is when its
disturbance reaches it. Thus, we have for the chart above in the Figure 1.4, the following
temporal sequences of capturing light from O' , in terms of Spatial_Position (O)_Time (O
disturbance), indicated in Table 1.1:
Table 1.1 Temporal sequences of movement observation on O' in terms of Position (O') _ Time (O'
disturbance)
Temporary Observer O1 Temporary Observer O2

Arrow (approaching) Arrow (separation)
0_4 0_1
1_4+(c-v) 1_3-(c-v)=1_2+v=1_1+(v+c)
2_4+2(c-v) 2_5-2(c-v)=2_3+2v=2_1+2(v+c)
3_4+3(c-v) 3_7-3(c-v)=3_4+3v=3_1+3(v+c)
4_4+4(c-v) ...

The light emitted by O' is captured by observers O1 and O2 as follows:
O1 detects it approaching with the wavelength decremented by the equivalent value to

(c-v). As disturbances propagate at the speed c, the above value is equivalent to
(c v ) cv
. In short, O1 detects light from O' with 1 = . In fact, applying
c c
relativistic adjustments, we would see,
1 / 2
c v v
2
1 = 1 (1-17B)
c c

Observing a decrease in wavelength detected, we conclude that O' is approaching to

O1.
O2 detects it going away (separation) with the wavelength increased by the equivalent
value to (c+v). As disturbances propagate at the speed c, the above value is equivalent
(c + v ) c+v
to . In short, O2 detects light from O' with 2 = . In fact, applying
c c
relativistic adjustments, we would see,
1 / 2
c + v v
2
2 = 1 (1-18B)
c c
Observing an increase in wavelength detected, we conclude that O' moves away from
O2.
15
1st of
If the same experiment is performed with a single at rest observer O located outside the
travel path of the vehicle with the observer O' with relative speed v < c (see Figure 1.5):
The above result of detection of the light emitted by O' from O with values 1 y 2 ,
depending on your approaching or separation situation, is now the same but defined
from a reference point (Ref) on that trajectory, given by the projection of O over it.
Regardless of the observer position, the result obtained does not change.
c
f =

c c
f1 = = f
1 (c v ) 0
c c
f2 = = f
2 (c + v ) 0
Figure 1.5 Disturbance displacement diagram for the context of experiment 1-4, but with O at rest
outside the movement path of the mobile O' with v < c
It is noted that throughout the experiments 1-3 and 1-4, we will reach the same results.
Experiments 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 represent the state of art on SR. Now, their initial
conditions will be modified, applying also the hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 1B to get the first
results of the ER.
Experiment 1-5: Lorentz transformations in ER, speed 1_coordinate.
Assuming an observer O ' ( x ' , y ' , z ' , t ') inside a vehicle moving with relative speed v' respect
to an observer O0 ( x0 , y 0 , z 0 , t 0 ) , such that c v'< 2c , in the positive direction of axis x' and
x0. Supposed another observer O ( x, y , z , t ) with relative speed w for O0 , such that w < c , in
the positive direction of axis x and x0. O0 and O are observers at the speed 0_coordinate,
while O' is in the speed 1_coordinate; on the other hand, the planes x0y0, x ' y ' and xy always
match and at the origin t ' = t = t 0 = 0 . The relative velocity of O' respect to O is therefore,
v = v ' w , such that 0 v < 2c (see Figure 1.6). In the beginning t = 0 , O' emits
omnidirectional light, producing a spherical wavefront that is transmitted with speed 2c,
16
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
origin O' and radius r ' = 2ct ' . The coordinates of any point on the wavefront, using the
hypothesis 1, satisfy the equation:
x' 2 + y ' 2 + z ' 2 = 4c 2 t ' 2 (1-19)
From the point of view of O, light propagates with speed c in the form of spherical
wavefront, with origin O and radius r = ct . The coordinates of any point on this wavefront,
satisfy the equation:
x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = c 2t 2 (1-20)
Using the structure of experiment_1-1, we have to find transformation equations that

allow both equations are valid at a time. Assumed in the following form, which allows
compatibility with Galilean transformations, for very slow speeds and with the Lorentz
transformations in the SR, for large velocities less than c:
x' = 1 (2 x vt )
y' = y
(1-21)
z' = z
t ' = 1 (t + 1 )
The factor 1 is used to correct the mismatch between clocks at O and O' when the value
v / c is close to two. The factor 1 must explain the difference between times and distances in
the direction of relative motion measured by O and O'. The factor two used in the equation
relating x and x' expresses the ratio two between wavefronts propagation speeds, associated
with O and O'.
Substituting (1-21) in (1-19), we obtain the equivalence with equation (1-20):
12 (4 x 2 4vxt + v 2 t 2 ) + y 2 + z 2 = 4c 2 12 (t 2 + 2 1t + 12 ) (1-22)
17
1st of
For hence the equation (1-20), in (1-22) there should be no term of xt variables, so that:
vx
12 4vxt = 4c 2 12 2 1t , i.e. , 1 = (1-23)
2c 2
Its application in (1-22) leads to:
12 x 2 (4 v 2 / c 2 ) + y 2 + z 2 = c 2 12 t 2 (4 v 2 / c 2 ) (1-23b)
Therefore:
12 (4 v 2 / c 2 ) = 1 , i.e. , 1 = (4 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-24)
Lorentz transformations obtained will be the following:
(
x' = (2 x vt ) 4 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
y' = y
(1-25)
z' = z
( )(
t ' = t vx / 2c 2 4 v 2 / c 2 )1 / 2
Experiment1-5B: Lorentz transformations in ER, speed n_coordinate.
Let's find widespread experiment_1-5. Now assume an observer O ' ( x ' , y ' , z ' , t ') in the
interior of a vehicle moving with relative velocity v' respect to an observer O0 ( x0 , y 0 , z 0 , t 0 ) ,
such that nc v' < (n + 1)c , with n = round(v / c) = 1,2,3,.. standing in the positive direction of
the axis x and x0. Supposed another observer O ( x, y , z , t ) with relative speed w respect to O0 ,
such that w < c , in the positive direction of axis x and x0. O0 and O are observers at the
speed 0_coordinate, while O' is in the speed n_coordinate; on the other hand, the planes x0y0,
x ' y ' and xy always match and at the origin t ' = t = t 0 = 0 . The relative velocity of O' about O
is therefore v = v ' w , such that v < (n + 1)c (see Figure 1.7). In the beginning t = 0 , O' emits
light producing omnidirectional spherical wavefront that is transmitted with speed (n +1)c,
origin O' and radius r ' = (n + 1)ct ' . The coordinates of any point on the wavefront, using the
hypothesis 1, satisfy the equation:
x' 2 + y ' 2 + z ' 2 = (n + 1) 2 c 2 t ' 2 (1-26)
From the standpoint of O, light propagates with speed c in the form of spherical
wavefront, with origin O and radius r = ct . The coordinates of any point on this wavefront
satisfy the equation:
x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = c 2t 2 (1-27)
18
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Using the structure of experiment_1-1, we have to find transformation equations that

allow both equations are valid at a time. Assumed in the following form, which allows
compatibility with Galilean transformations, for very slow speeds and with Lorentz
transformations in the SR, for large velocities less than c:
x' = n ((n + 1) x vt )
y' = y
(1-28)
z' = z
t ' = n (t + n )
Figure 1.7 Context of the experiment 1-5B
The factor n is used to correct the mismatch between clocks at O and O' when the value
v / c is close to (n+1). The factor n must explain the difference between times and distances
in the direction of relative motion measured by O and O'. The factor (n+1) used in the
equation relating x and x' expresses the ratio (n+1) between wavefronts propagation speeds
associated with O and O'.
Substituting (1-28) in (1-26) we obtain the equivalence with equation (1-27):
n2 (( n + 1) 2 x 2 2( n + 1)vxt + v 2 t 2 ) + y 2 + z 2 = ( n + 1) 2 c 2 n2 (t 2 + 2 n t + n2 ) (1-29)
For hence the equation (1-27), in (1-29) there should be no term of xt variables, so that:
n2 2( n + 1)vxt = ( n + 1) 2 c 2 n2 2 n t (1-29b)
That is,
vx
n = (1-30)
( n + 1)c 2
Its application in (1-29) results in:
n2 x 2 (( n + 1) 2 v 2 / c 2 ) + y 2 + z 2 = c 2 n2 t 2 (( n + 1) 2 v 2 / c 2 ) (1-30b)
So that,
19
1st of
n2 (( n + 1) 2 v 2 / c 2 ) = 1 (1-30c)
This is,
n = ((n + 1) 2 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-31)
We will name the result in (1-31) as n_grade Lorentz factor.
Obtained Lorentz transformations are:
x' = ((n + 1) x vt )((n + 1) 2 v 2 / c 2 )

1 / 2
y' = y
(1-32)
z' = z
t ' = (t vx /(n + 1)c 2 )((n + 1) 2 v 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
The first and fourth equations of (1-32) can be set as,
( + 1) = + (1-32b)
= +( )
Introducing the variable t of the 2nd equation of (1-32b) in the 1st equation of x,
( + 1) = + +( ( + 1) = (1-32c)
) ( )
( )
= =( + )( + 1) (1-32d)
Introducing the variable x of the 1st equation of (1-32b) in the 2nd equation of t,
( )
= +( )
+ 1 ( )
= (1-32e)
And how,
1 ( )
=( )
(1-32f)
= +( ( + 1) = ( + 1) + (1-32g)
)
If we now propose (1-32) , (1-32d) and (1-32g), in terms of coordinate differences

between two simultaneous observations from O, (x1, y1, z1, t1) and (x2, y2, z2, t2), and from O,
(x1, y1, z1, t1) and (x2, y2, z2, t2), we get:
20
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
= ( + 1)
= ( )
(1-32h)
= ( + )( + 1)
= ( + 1) +
With = , = , = , = , = ,
= , = , =
As in SR with experiment 1-1, now (1-32h) gives rise to the following phenomena:
If we consider = 0, then,
= (1-32i)
Equation (1-32i) expresses a temporal change (it does not have to be always dilation, since
is not always greater than one) in the measure of the observer O', when from O no spatial
position changes are seen.
= /( + 1) (1-32j)
Equation (1-32j) determines the spatial contraction (( + 1) > 1 for in the speed
n_coordinate) in the measure of the observer O' instantaneously, this is with = .
If a particle moves with relative velocity u = (u x , u y , u z ) respect to O and for O' with
speed ( )
u ' = u x' , u 'y , u z ' , such that ux = dx/ dt , u y = dy / dt , uz = dz/ dt and u' x = dx' / dt' ,
u' y = dy' / dt' , u' z = dz' / dt' , by applying (1-32) we obtain the composition of velocities between
the two reference systems:
((n + 1)dx vdt ) n (n + 1)dx / dt v = (n + 1)u x v

u' x = =
vdx vdx v
dt 1 1 ux
(n + 1)c 2 n
(n + 1)c 2
dt (n + 1)c 2
dy dy / dt uy (1-32k)
u' y = = =
vdx vdx v
dt (1 ) n (1 u )
(n + 1)c 2 n
(n + 1)c dt
2
(n + 1)c 2 x n
dz dz / dt uz
u' z = = =
vdx vdx v
dt n (1 ) (1 u )
(n + 1)c 2 (n + 1)c 2 dt n (n + 1)c 2 x n
21
1st of
The angular composition of the velocity vector of the particle between both reference
systems is obtained as follows; for example, if it is defined as the angle formed by the
velocity vector u on the x axis and ' as the angle formed by the velocity vector u' respect to
the x' axis, being then tg = u y / u x and tg '= u ' y / u ' x . Therefore:
usen
tg ' = , where usen = u y and u cos = u x (1-32l)
((n + 1)u cos v ) n
Experiment 1-6: Relativity of distances and times in ER, speed 1_coordinate.
Assuming an observer O ' ( x ' , y ' , t ') in the speed 1_coordinate, moving with relative speed
v' respect an observer at rest O0 ( x0 , y 0 , z 0 , t 0 ) , such that c v'< 2c , in the positive direction
of axis x' and x0. Supposed another observer O ( x, y , z , t ) with relative speed w for O0 , such
that w < c , in the positive direction of axis x and x0. O is an observer at the speed
0_coordinate, while O' moves in the speed 1_coordinate; on the other hand, the planes x ' y '
and xy always match and at the origin t ' = t = t 0 = 0 . The relative velocity of O' about O is
therefore, v = v' w , such that 0 v < 2c . See Figure 1.8.
O' is in a vehicle whose roof is a mirror. At one point, O' throws a beam of light toward
the mirror and try to measure the time it takes to get to and reflected. O, from the outside,
looks at the fact and tries to make the same temporary measure.
For O', where l' is the distance from the mirror, it will be, using the hypothesis 1,
2l ' = 2ct ' (1-33)
For O, however, we have:
c 2 (t / 2 ) 2 = v 02 (t / 2) 2 + l 2 (1-34)
22
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Where l is the distance between O' and the mirror, as measured by O. The observer O sees
O' moving with v0 < c , as found in the speed 0_coordinate and being its Inf_Tx at speed c,
can not see objects moving with v' > c .
From the speed 1_coordinate, with reference to O':
x' = (2 x v' t ) 1 (1-35)
And clearing, we obtain:
x'
v' t = 2 x (1-36)
1
From the speed 0_coordinate, with reference to O:
x' = ( x v0 t ) 0 (1-37)
Introducing (1-37) in (1-36), we have:
0
v' t = 2 x ( x v0 t ) (1-38)
1
And as,
1/ 2
0 4c 2 v' 2
= (1-39)
1 c 2 v02
Substituted (1-39) in (1-38),

1/ 2
4c 2 v' 2
v' t = 2 x ( x v0 t ) 2 2
(1-39b)
c v0
Simplifying, we obtain,
(4c 2 v' 2 )(c v0 )

(2c v')2 = ( )
(2c v') (c + v0 ) = 4c 2 v' 2 (c v0 )
2
(1-39c)
c + v0
And now developed,
4c 3 + 4c 2 v 0 + v ' 2 c + v ' 2 v 0 4c 2 v '4cv ' v 0 = 4c 3 4c 2 v 0 v ' 2 c + v 0 v ' 2 (1-39d)
23
1st of
That regrouping and simplifying results,
v ' 2 2(c + v 0 )v '+4cv 0 = 0 (1-40)
Equation (1-40) is second degree in v', resulting in,
v ' = ( c + v 0 ) (c v 0 ) (1-41)
In (1-41) we consider the general result given by,
v' = v + w = 2v0 (1-42)
Observe that, although the result v ' = 2c is also valid, it is a particular case with v0 = c
And therefore, the speed which O is seeing to O' is :
v0 = (v + w) / 2 (1-43)
Found the relationship between v and v0, we return to equation (1-34) to clear t:
2 4l 2 4l 2 1 2l 1
t = 2 = 2 and therefore, t = (1-44)
c v0 2
c 1 v02 / c 2 (
c 1 v0 / c 2
2
)
1/ 2
we have to l = l ' , so that:
(
t = 2t ' 1 v 02 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-45)
As the relative speed ratio observed by O and O' is given by equation (1-42), we can
write:
L'
O' v' = = 2v 0
t' (1-46)
L
O v0 =
t
24
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
measured by each of them; therefore,
L' L
=2 (1-46b)
t' t
And we can find the distances ratio between L and L' introducing (1-45) in (1-46b),
(
L = L ' 1 v 02 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-47)
Experiment 1-6B: Relativity of distances and times in ER, n_coordinate.
Let's find widespread experiment_1-6. We assume now an observer O ' ( x ' , y ' , t ') in speed
n_coordinate, moving with relative velocity v' respect to an observer at rest O0 ( x0 , y 0 , z 0 , t 0 )
such that, nc v' < (n + 1)c with n = 1,2,3,.. in the positive direction of axis x' and x0. Given
another observer O (x, y, t ) at the speed 0_coordinate with relative speed w for O0, such that
w < c , for the positive direction of axis x and x0. The planes x' y ' and xy always match and
at the origin t ' = t = t 0 = 0 . The relative velocity of O' about O is, therefore, v = v ' w , such
that 0 v < (n + 1)c . O' is in a vehicle whose roof is a mirror. At one point O' throws a beam
of light toward the mirror and try to measure the time it takes to get to and reflected back. O,
from the outside, look at the fact and tries to make the same temporary measure (Figure 1.9).
Figure 1.9 Context of the experiment 1-6B
For O' , where l' is the distance from the mirror, it will be, using the hypothesis 1,
2l ' = ( n + 1)ct ' (1-48)
For O, however, we will have:
c 2 (t / 2 ) 2 = v 02 (t / 2) 2 + l 2 (1-49)
25
1st of
Where l is the distance between O' and the mirror, as measured by O. The observer O sees
O' moving with v0 < c , as found in the speed 0_coordinate and being its Inf_Tx at speed c,
can not see objects moving with v' > c .
From the speed n_coordinate, with reference to O' :
x' = ((n + 1) x v' t ) n (1-50)
And clearing, we obtain:
x'
v ' t = ( n + 1) x (1-51)
n
From the speed 0_coordinate, with reference to O:
x' = ( x v0 t ) 0 (1-52)
Introducing (1-52) in (1-51) we have:
0
v' t = (n + 1) x ( x v0 t ) (1-53)
n
And, how
1/ 2
0 (n +1)2c2 v'2
= (1-54)
n c2 v02
Substituting (1-54) in (1-53) provides,
1/ 2
(n +1)2c2 v'2
v' t = (n +1)x (x v0t) 2 2
(1-54b)
c v0
This results in simplified,
((n + 1) 2 c 2 v' 2 )(c v0 )

((n + 1)c v')2 = ( )
((n + 1)c v') (c + v0 ) = (n + 1) 2 c 2 v' 2 (c v0 ) (1-54c)
2
c + v0
And now developed,
26
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
(n + 1) 2 c 3 + (n + 1) 2 c 2 v0 + v' 2 c + v' 2 v0 2(n + 1)c 2 v'2(n + 1)cv' v0 =
= (n + 1) 2 c 3 (n + 1) 2 c 2 v0 v' 2 c + v0 v' 2 (1-54d)
That regrouping and simplifying produces,
v ' 2 ( n + 1)( c + v 0 )v '+ ( n + 1) 2 cv 0 = 0 (1-55)
Equation (1-51) is second degree in v', resulting,
n +1
v' = [(c + v0 ) (c v0 )] (1-56)
2
In (1-56) we consider the general result,
v' = v + w = (n + 1)v0 (1-57)
Although the result v' = (n + 1)c is also valid, it is a particular case with v0 = c .
And therefore, the speed which O is seeing to O' is:
v+w
v0 = (1-58)
n +1
Substituting (1-57) in (1-54), we obtain the ratio of Lorentz factors,
0
= (n +1) (1-59)
n
Found the relationship between v and v0, we return to equation (1-49) to clear t:
4l 2 4l 2 1 2l 1
t2 = = and therefore, t = (1-60)
2
c v0 2
c 1 v02 / c 2
2
(
c 1 v 02 / c 2 )
1/ 2
(
t = ( n + 1)t ' 1 v 02 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-61)
27
1st of
As the relative speed ratio observed by O and O' is given by equation (1-57), we can
write:
L'
O' v' = = (n + 1)v0
t' (1-61b)
L
O v0 =
t
measured by each of them; therefore,
L' L
= ( n + 1) (1-62)
t' t
And we can find the distances ratio between L and L' introducing (1-61) in (1-62),
(
L = L ' 1 v 02 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-63)
Experiments 1-5, 1-5B, 1-6 and 1-6B are based on hypothesis 1 (H1), the correctness of
which is demonstrated by experiment 3-3:
H1: Any observer, regardless of the speed coordinate in which it moves, detects the Inf_Tx
even though it is quantized in intervals proportional to c, relative always with velocity c.
In current physics speed is an absolute parameter, described as space

divided by time; but, until not long ago, the space and time parameters were
also absolute and no one doubted that the measurements made by
independent observers could be different. The SR introduces the concept of
spatial and temporal relativity, but inserting the hypothesis c=constant means
that, although different observers disagree on the measures of distances and
times, they dont with the relative velocities.
The ER, using the hypothesis of speeds quantization, introduces the

possibility that the speed is relative not only to the relationship between
displacements of mobile and observer, but also to speed coordinate observer
looking: it is in these terms we are speaking of apparent velocities
(hypothesis 1B). It means that if observer and mobile are in different speed
coordinates, the relative velocity seen by the observer on the mobile will not
be the same as the mobile see respect the observer. What is the real speed
and what the apparent one? The real speed is the one from the top speed
coordinate and the apparent speed the one in the lower speed coordinate.
It is true that there is only one definition of velocity: to measure distances and
divide by time. But equally, the definitions of length and time are also unique
and only theres one way to make them: with calibrated rulers and clocks; but
it is clear that different observers disagree on the results of these
measurements, using the SR. At issue here is somewhat equivalent to the
speeds.
28
2017
J. Jooglar Alcub
billa
Experimment 1-7: Disturbanc

D ces displaceement diaggrams with
h ER. Incid
dent, reflectted and
trasmittted signalss. Interprettation of ob
bserved red
dshifts.
Assuumed two observers

o in the speed 0_coordinat
0 te, O1 ( x1 , t ) and O2 ( x 2 , t ) , separatted by a
fixed diistance r. Inn the same direction
d off the segmeent r, anotheer observer O ' ( x ' , t ' , ) moves
in the speed n_ccoordinate with relatiive velocity y v respecct to O1 aand O2, su uch that
nc v < (n + 1)c with n = round
r (v / c) . O is in i the inteerior of a vehicle emitting e
omnidirrectional ligght with waavelength . O1 is polaarized and only
o observves in the direction
d
x1 (ddirection oppposite to thhe movemennt of O' ); O2 is polariized and onnly observees in the
directioon x2 (direcction of movvement of O' ).
The displacemeent diagram of disturbaances in the described environmen

e nt is represeented by
the folloowing waveefront in Figgure 1.10.
Figure 1.10
1 Displacement diagraam of disturbbances in thee context of the
t experimeent 1-7
In thhe experimeent, O' is in a position in

i which it moves awaay from bothh O1 and O2, in the
coincident directioon x', x1, x2. How do O1 and O2 seee the light em
mitted by O
O'?
For the
t graph abbove, we haave in the table
t 1.2 thee following temporal sequences of seeing
O by O1 and O2, inn terms of Spatial_Pos
S sition (O) _Time_Posi
_ tion (Odistturbance).
Tabla 1.2
1 Temporall sequences of observatioon of O' movement in teerms of Posiition (O') _ Time
T (O'
disturbaance)
Tem
mporary Observeer O1 Temporaryy Observeer O2
A
Arrow Arrow
5_6 0_2
4__6+(v-c) 1_
_4+(v-c)=1__3+v=1_2++(v+c)
3_66+2(v-c) 2_6++2(v-c)=2__4+2v=2_2+2(v+c)
2_66+3(v-c) 3_8++3(v-c)=3__5+3v=3_2+3(v+c)
1_66+4(v-c) 4_100+4(v-c)=4__6+4v=4_22+4(v+c)
0_66+5(v-c) 5_122+5(v-c)=5__7+5v=5_22+5(v+c)

29
1st of
If in the previous displacement diagram O' moves to the left with v > nc , being
n = 1,2,3,.. , characterized by disturbances of wavelength ,
To O1 the observer O' is going away from it to the right on the graph of the Figure 1.10
(observe sense of the temporal arrow), with wavelength increased by the equivalent
value (v-c). As disturbances propagate at the speed c, the above equivalent value is
(v c ) vc
. In short, O1 detects O' with , but where v> c and as O1 belongs to the
c c
v'+c
speed 0_coordinate, interprets it as it were ' , so that v' <c.
c
O1 assigns ' as the wavelength of light emitted by O', compensating the fact of using
v'+ c , with v' c by observe separating. Thus,
vc v '+ c
1 = n = 0 (1-64)
c c
According to (1-58),
v
v' = c and n = round (v / c ) (1-64b)
n +1
Developing (1-64) is obtained,
v
n (v c ) = 0 + c (1-64c)
n +1
And thus, clearing the apparent wavelength assigned to O1' , we have,
n (v c)(n + 1)
= (1-64d)
0 v + (n + 1)c
Considering the Lorentz factors relationship given by (1-59),
vc
' = (1-65)
v + (n + 1)c
O' can be seen from O1 always with lower speed than c, separating and with an initial
frequency spectrum shift ' < , red shifted in the amount expressed by 1 (1-64).
30
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
c
In terms of frequencies, using f = is obtained,

c c c c
f1 = = f = f with f = (1-65b)
1 (v c ) n (v+ c ) 0
For O2 the observer O' is going away to the left in the graph of Figure 1.10 (observe
sense of the temporal arrow), with wavelength increased in the equivalent value to
(v + c )
(v+c). The above equivalent value will be . In short, O2 detects O' with v + c ,
c c
v' '+c
but as v> c and as O2 belongs to the speed 0_coordinate, interprets it as it were ' '
c
with v'' <c.
O2 assigns '' as the light emitted wavelength by O' , compensating the fact of using
v ' '+ c with v' ' c , by observe separating. Thus:
v+c v' '+c

2 = n = ' ' 0 (1-66)
c c
Where, according to (1-58),
v
v' ' = = v' = v0 c and n = round(v / c) (1-66b)
n +1
Developing (1-66) is obtained,
v
n (v + c ) = ' ' 0 + c (1-66c)
n +1
Therefore, clearing the apparent wavelength assigned to O2' , we have,
n (v + c)(n + 1)
' ' = (1-66d)
0 v + (n + 1)c
And considering the Lorentz factors relationship given by (1-59),
v+c
' ' = (1-66e)
v + (n + 1)c
31
1st of
O' is observed from O2 always with lower speed than c, separating and with a initial
frequency spectrum shift ' ' , red shifted in the amount expressed by 2 (1-66).
c
In terms of frequencies, using f = is obtained,

c c c c
f2 = = f = f with f = (1-66f)
2 (v + c ) n (v+ c ) 0
The graph equivalent to above experiment_1-7, with a single observer O located on the
motion path of the observer O' with relative velocity v, such that nc v < (n + 1)c with
n = round (v / c) , would be as follows in Figure 1.11.
(O1 separates from O) (O2 separates from O)
v O1 O O2 v O v
vc v+c
O detects light from O with: 1 = n ; O detects light from O with: 2 = n
c c
Figure 1.11 Observation from O of the light emitted by the mobile O', from the detected wavelengths
1 and 2
Where n is defined as the n_grade Lorentz factor given by,
1 / 2
v with n = round (v / c )
2
n = ( n + 1) 2 (1-66g)
c

For O, from the speed 0_coordinate, O' looks like two different mobile observers O1' and
O2' moving away from him in opposite directions, emitting light of wavelength 1 and 2 ,
respectively.
Actually, O can detect the light combination of the wavelength signals 1 and 2 .
As the detected wavelength light 2 moves in the displacement direction of O', it is

to be named as incident signal: i ( ' ' , 2 ) .
As the detected wavelength light 1 moves in the opposite displacement direction of

O', it is to be named as reflected signal: r ( ' , 1 ) .
The interference of i with r produces the combination signal which can be detected by
O, that we will name as transmitted signal: T ( '0 , 0 ).
32
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
The incident and reflected signals have the movement direction of O'. The transmitted
signal, however, has the displacement perpendicular direction to the wavefront.
Assuming the same experiment_1-7 with a single observer at rest O located outside the
trajectory of the observer O' with relative velocity v between both, such as nc v < ( n + 1)c
with n = round (v / c ) (See Figure 1.12).
When the wavefront reaches the observer O, it detects the combined transmitted signal
T ( '0 , 0 )of i ( ' ' , 2 ) and rd ( ' , 1 ) . rd is r detected. If the incident signal reaches O
with angle respect to the advance line of the wavefront, the reflected signal must be
protruding at the same angle (Figure 1.13). In this way, the transmitted signal is expressed
as,
sen ( i r ) = T , with sen = c / v (1-66h)
Figure 1.12 Disturbance displacement diagram in the context of experiment 1-7 with a single
observer at rest O outside the trajectory of the mobile observer O'
Figure 1.13 Detail of the wavefront for the diagram of Figure 1.12
33
1st of
However, since the reflected signal detected by O actually has the opposite sense and its
position with respect to the advance line of the wavefront is with angle -, it can be set,
r = rd = rd + , i.e. the reflected signal detected rd has the angles (phases) changed
of sign, as well as the amplitude, respect to the reflected signal r .
And how ,
2
i ( ' ' , 2 ) = Ai sen ct
2
(1-66i)
2
rd ( ' , 1 ) = Ar sen ct
1
Therefore,
2
r ( ' , 1 ) = Ar sen ct (1-66j)
1
Then,
2c Ai + Ar + + c
T = sen 2ct 1 2 cos 2ct 1 2 = ( Ai + Ar )sen(2f 0t ) cos(2f 0t ) (1-66k)
v 2 212 212 v
* The following notation has been used,
A B
A B = 2 sen cos (1-66l)
2 2 2
Applying the equations (1-64) and (1-66), we have that,
2
2 n v
(
1 2 = n2 v 2 c 2 ) and 1 + 2 =
c
(1-67)
c
So that,
1 + 2 vc vc
f0 = c =c = f (1-67b)
212 n (v c )
2 2
n (v 2 c 2 )
That can also be described as,
34
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
+ c c c c
f0 = c = =F (1-67c)
2 (v 0 + c ) 0 0 (v 0 + c ) 0 (v 0 + c ) 0
With 0 and F values,
2
0 = (1-67d)
+
c
F= (1-67e)
0
Where in the reference O' and with f the frequency of the mobile when moving with v>c,
the transmitted wave is seen by the observer O with f 0 = c / 0 . On the other hand, as the
observer O considers that nothing can move with velocity higher than c, for him O' moves
v
with v 0 = c , being n = round(v / c ) and, furthermore, for him O' transmits with
n +1
frequency F (we are going to denominate it frequency transmitted from the speed coordinate
zero), that is, the frequency of the light detected by O when it is considered to be moving at a
speed below c.
Note that according to the relationship between f 0 and F, we obtain f 0 < F in all cases.
That is, for the observer O there is always a redshift of the light emitted by O', i.e., it always
moves away.
On the other hand, what is the relationship between f and f 0 ? In the case v<c, it is given in
the graph of Figure 1.14.
Figure 1.14 Graphical relationship f 0 / f with velocity expressed in terms of v/c for n=0
But for the case v>c, we must look for the values of v that make both frequencies equal.
This is, if
f0
f0 = f =1 (1-67f)
f
35
1st of
Replacing in (1-67b) and developing,
v
2
v c (n + 1) = v 4 2v 2 c 2 + c 4 v 2 c 2 (n + 1) v 4 = v 4 2v 2 c 2 + c 4
2 2 2 2
[ ]
2v 4 (n + 1) + 2 c 2 v 2 + c 4 = 0
2
(1-67g)
Solving the equation (1-67g),
v 2
=
[(n + 1) 2
]
+ 2 c2 [(n + 1) 2
]2
+ 2 c 4 8c 4
(1-67h)
4
That can be set as,
(v / c ) 2
=
[(n + 1) 2
] [(n + 1)
+2
2
]
2
+ 2 8
(1-67i)
4
Thus, for every n>0, we obtain,
6 28
(v / c )(n = 1) = = {0.4209,1.6801}, It is only valid (v / c)(n = 1) = 1.6801
4
11 114
(v / c )(n = 2) = = {0.2841,2.3279} , It is only valid (v / c )(n = 2) = 2.3279 (1-67j)
4
18 316
(v / c )(n = 3) = = {0.2864,2.9907} , No value is valid.
4
From here, there are no more valid values.
On the other hand, the frequency relationship f 0 / f can also be described as,
f 0 (v / c ) (n + 1) (v / c )
2 2
= (1-67k)
f (v / c )2 1
And from this equation, the limits can be obtained for each speed n_coordinate when the
mobile tends to move at the speed of light (c, 2c, ., nc). So,
36
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
lim( f 0 / f )(n = 1) = lim( f 0 / f )(n = 2) =

2 5
lim( f 0 / f )(n = 3) =
v / c 1 , 3 , 3 7
v / c 2
lim( f 0 / f )(n = 1) = 0 lim( f 0 / f )(n = 2) = 0 v / c 3

8
(1-67l)
v / c 2
v / c 3
lim( f 0 / f )(n = 4) = lim( f 0 / f )(n = 5) =

4 9 , 5 11 ,
v / c 4
15 v / c 5
24
And, therefore, for the speed n_coordinate,
lim( f 0 / f )(n) =
n 2n + 1
v / c n
n2 1 (1-67m)
lim( f 0 / f )(n) = 0
v / c n +1
Graphically, the relationship between f and f 0 for v>c is described in Figure 1.15.
Note: The inflection points, if exist in the obtained curves, are not calculated.
Figure 1.15 Graphical relation f 0 / f with the velocity expressed in terms of v/c for n1
For the observer O in the speed 0_coordinate:
A mobile O' with n=0 (v<c) can be detected if it approaches or goes away, since
Inf_Tx always goes ahead of the mobile, being the one that provides this information.
A mobile O' with n>0 (v>c) does not provide approaching/receding information. The
Inf_Tx creates a transmission wavefront ( T ( f 0 ) ) detected by the observer O: it
interprets that the mobile O' moves in n=0 (v<c) and that, therefore, the frequency
from the reference of the mobile O' must be F f 0 , always away.
Now, what is the difference between the transmitted frequency f by the mobile being
studied from its speed n_coordinate and the transmitted frequency F that the observer O
assigns to it from its speed 0_coordinate?
37
1st of
From (1-67b) and (1-67c),
vc c
f0 = f =F (1-67n)
(
n v c
2 2
(v0 + c ) 0 )
And applying (1-58) and (1-59), we get:
vc(n + 1) c v 1 (1-67)
f =F f =F
(
v2 c2 ) v
+c
2
v c 2
v + c(n + 1)
n +1
Searching the values of v that make both frequencies equal, i.e., if f=F,
1
v 2 + vc(n + 1) = v 2 c 2 vc(n + 1) + c 2 = 0 (v / c ) = (1-67o)
n +1
That is to say, (v/c)<0 for all n, which is not an adequate solution.
(1-67) can also be expressed as,
F v 2 + vc(n + 1) (v / c ) + (v / c )(n + 1)
2
= = (1-67p)
f v2 c2 (v / c)2 1
And from this equation (1-67p), the limits for each speed n_coordinate can be obtained
when the mobile tends to move at the speed of light (c, 2c, ., nc). So,
lim(F / f )(n = 1) = , lim(F / f )(n = 2) = 10 , lim(F / f )(n = 3) =

21
v / c 1 3
v / c2 v / c 3 8
lim(F / f )(n = 1) = 3
8
lim(F / f )(n = 2) = lim(F / f )(n = 3) = 15
18 32
v / c2 v / c 3
8 v / c4
lim(F / f )(n = 4) = 15 , lim(F / f )(n = 5) = 24 ,

36 55
v / c4 v / c 5
(1-67q)
lim(F / f )(n = 4) = 24 lim(F / f )(n = 5) = 35
50 72
v / c 5 v / c 6
lim(F / f )(n) =
2n 2 + n
>1 (1-67r)
v / cn n2 1
2(n + 1)
lim(F / f )(n) = (n + 1)
2
2
>1
v / c n +1 1
Graphically, the relationship between f and F for v>c (F>f always) is described in Figure
1.16,
38
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Figure 1.16 Graphical relationship F/f with velocity expressed in terms of v/c for n1
Note that the frequencies f, f0 and F are related by:
F f0 f0
= (1-67s)
f n F n f n
Using as reference the speed n_coordinate of the mobile to study. Thus, the relation
f 0 can be obtained from the other two frequency relations described through (1-67b) and

F n
(1-67p):
v 2 + vc(n + 1) f 0 vc f c (1-67t)
= 0 =
2
v c 2 2
(
F n n v c
2
) F n n (v + c(n + 1))
Locating the observer O at the speed 0_coordinate, (1-67t) gives (1-67u), i.e.:
f0 c (1-67u)
=
F 0 0 (v 0 + c )
Looking for v values that make both frequencies in (1-67t) equal, that is to say, if f0=F,
then,
[
v + c(n + 1) = c (n + 1) (v / c )
2
]
2 1/ 2
v 2 + 2vc (n + 1) + c 2 (n + 1) = c 2 (n + 1) v 2 v = c (n + 1)
2 2
(1-67v)
That is, (v/c)<0 for all n, which is not an adequate solution.
(1-67t) can also be expressed as,
f0 (n + 1)2 (v / c )2 (1-67w)
=
F n [(v / c) + (n + 1)]
39
1st of
And from this equation (1-67w) the limits for each speed n_coordinate can be obtained
when the mobile tends to move at the speed of light (c, 2c, ., nc). So,
lim( f 0 / F )(n = 1) = , lim( f 0 / F )(n = 2) = lim( f 0 / F )(n = 3) =

3 5 7
3 5
, 7
v / c 1 v / c 2 v / c 3
lim( f 0 / F )(n = 1) = 0 lim( f 0 / F )(n = 2) = 0 lim( f 0 / F )(n = 3) = 0

v / c 2 v / c 3 v / c 4
lim( f 0 / F )(n = 4) =
9
lim( f 0 / F )(n = 5) =
11
9 , 11
, (1-67x)
v / c 4 v / c 5
lim( f 0 / F )(n = 4) = 0 lim( f 0 / F )(n = 5) = 0

v / c 5 v / c 6
lim( f 0 / F )(n) =
2n + 1
v / c n
2n + 1 (1-67y)
lim( f 0 / F )(n) = 0
v / c ( n +1)
Graphically, the relationship between f0 y F is described in Figure 1.17.
Figure 1.17 Graphical relationship f 0 / F with velocity expressed in terms of v/c for n0
The final results, graphical expression of (1-67s), are depicted in Figure 1.18.
Figure 1.18 Graphic results f 0 / f , F/f and f 0 / F with velocity expressed in terms of v/c for n0
Finally, we are going to make a comparison between the observable frequencies of the
incident signal ( ), reflected signal ( ) and transmitted signal ( ). The relation
between f0 and f1 can be obtained using (1-65b) and (1-67b). So:
40
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
( )
= = (1-67z1)
So that,
< , for > (1-67z2)
The relationship between f0 and f2 can be obtained using (1-65b) and (1-66f). So:
( )
= = (1-67z3)
So that,
> , for > (1-67z4)
On the other hand, the relationship between f2 and f1 can be obtained using (1-65b) and
(1-66f). So:
= (1-67z5)
So that,
< , for > (1-67z6)
The end result is that,
> > , for > (1-67z7)
In short, an observer O in the speed 0_coordinate that imposes the hypothesis of

velocities of O' always below c, when looking at a body in a speed coordinate of higher
velocity emitting light of frequency f , O would see it as if it were an object in its same
speed 0_coordinate, always moving away from it with velocity v 0 < c and frequency
f 0 < F , that is to say, with a redshift relative to the frequency transmitted from the speed
0_coordinate of value F: this is in accordance with the traditional observations associated
with the original conclusion of Universe Expansion.
Measuring speeds indirectly across wavelengths does not invalidate

measurements. Many of the discoveries made in Physics have been
demonstrated exclusively through indirect measurements and, even more so,
in Particle Physics and Cosmology.
The use of frequency deviation measures is very common in navigation

systems and air traffic control, and in all types of radar systems for speed
detection. The accuracy obtained by measuring phase difference, generated
by deviations in frequency, is much greater than that obtained with time
measurement, especially when trying to measure very small times.
The concept of redshift used in cosmology is interpreted (accepted) by

universe expansion (evolution of the metric), fundamentally by elimination of
alternatives. Through experiment_1-7 an interpretation is offered to observed
41
1st of
redshifts, based on celestial bodies moving at a velocity greater than c. This

does not mean that all objects with redshifts are moving with v>c, but it can
not be ensured in all cases that they correspond to objects separating in the
distance.
Applications of the experiment_1-7 results:
Relative Jets: Generally, an astrophysical jet consists of a flow of ionized matter,

typically bipolar, emitted along the axis of rotation of a certain celestial body (in
processes of protostars accretion, compact objects like black holes or stars of
neutrons or in GRB associated with stellar collapses, nuclei of active galaxies and in
some pulsars) [Beall, 2015]. If the jet matter generates a beam with velocities close
to that of light, it is called a relativistic jet. Accretion discs are usually formed when
interstellar gas with an elevated angular momentum is gravitationally drawn toward
the center of a massive compact celestial body; An example of relativistic jets are
the GRB, where we can find Lorentz factors of 300 or more. The jet energy is
acquired from the massive central body and accretion disk, but always from the
rotation of the object considered [Blandford et al., 2001]; Origin, composition and
collimation of jet beams are issues that remain without a clear and concrete answer.
We will apply experiment 1.7 on the specific case of jets in the GRB.
GRB (gamma ray bursts): GRB are described as collimated beams of very short
duration, which efficiently transform large amounts of energy into gamma radiation
[Meszaros and Rees, 1993]. They are always followed by an afterglow in the form of
radiation with less frequency, defined as the energy not irradiated by the GRB that,
when colliding with the interstellar gas, produces two relativistic shock waves; these
waves propagate back and forth, generating radiation to over part of the
electromagnetic spectrum [Zhang, 2009]. Specifically [Paczynski and Rhoads, 1993]
indicate that the rapid variability of the observed GRBs assumes that the generating
sources are very compact, besides to the energy of the radiation so intense, it
implies that there must be ejection of matter at ultra-relativistic speeds; The
interaction of these relativistic jets with the interstellar medium produces synchrotron
radiation, so that the GRBs are followed by electromagnetic radiation in lower
frequency bands. According to the fireball model [Frail et al., 2001] the GRBs are the
result of the collision of the ejected matter by moving at high speeds with the slower
matter around; The sweeping of surrounding matter by the jet translates into a shock
wave that powers and promotes the observed broadband radiation (X-ray, visible
and radio); This conical shock wave provides the jet with strong concentrations of
radiation ranging from about 3 to about 25. In [Meszaros, 2006] and [Nousek et al.,
2006], for example, it is argued that to avoid the compaction problem of gamma
radiation it is necessary that the relativistic jet surpasses a Lorentz factor of the
order of 100; When the jet sweeps away enough of the matter around it, a
deceleration occurs at medium-relativistic values, incorporating a shock that
propagates backwards; Thus, the highly relativistic forward shock wave is
responsible for the long duration afterglow, while the backward shock wave
produces the short emission in the visible band (flash). There have been many
observations of different GRBs [Piran, 2009] and, today are perfectly cataloged.
However, there are important issues in this regard that do not yet have a clear
answer:
42
2017
J. Jooglar Alcub
billa
Does the generationn of afterglow (durattion, frequeency, delaay with resspect to

gamma ra adiation) on nly depend d on the surrounding interstellarr matter?
Where doe es the high h directivity of the GRB come from and iits short du uration,
compared to the long g duration of afterglo
ow?
Why is the
e bandwidtth duration so short?
Why is the e frequenccy of afterglow less than that of GRB (g gamma rad diation)
and what does
d it dep
pend on?
Why is aftterglow de escribed ass radiation in the forrm of one or two rela ativistic
shock wavves, such as a cherenkov radiatiion, not be eing shiftedd in frequeency on
occasion tot the blue e, but alwa ays to the red? Is itt because afterglow always
moves aw way from the observer? And in n the case e of two co ollimated beams,
b
does the back
b shockk wave de efining the visible rad diation, alsso be obse erved in
both beamms, even ifi one app proaches and
a the otther moves away fro om the
observer?
Why is jett and its affterglow ob bserved ax xially in twoo opposite e directions
s to the
source?
If we
w conside er the GRB as mattter moving g with v>cc, the pressent obserrvations
coincidde with the conclusions of the experiment
e t_1-7 (Figu
ure 1.18b): the GRB jet with
superluuminal veloocity (v>c) radiates with
w freque ency f geneerating a wwavefront which
w is
observved with reedshifted frrequency f0<f, where
e the radiattion (Inf_Tx) is alway
ys after
the jet itself, which movess faster; The
T observ
ved directionality is produced by the
trajecto
ory of the material containing g the GRB B, followed by the wavefrontt beam
genera ated around it and angular
a opeening dependent on n the GRB velocity, greater
than c.
Figure 1.18b
1 Appliccation of expperiment_1.77 to GRB co oncept and grraphical resuults. The Observer O
has beenn placed in a privileged position
p withh respect to th
he GRB geneerating sourcce, so that, siince here
it will seee the jet in the
t visible baand (0) wheen it leaves thhe center of the
t accretionn disk.
Thee material jet movinng at supe

erluminal velocities
v p
produces gamma ra adiation
with fre
equency f (the proceess descrip
ption of gaamma radiiation gene eration is not the
object of this stu
udy). This gamma ra adiation, frrom the sp
peed 0_co oordinate, can be
observved propag angle . When
gating as a wavefrontt of semi-a W this w
wavefront reeaches
43
1st of
the observer O located at the speed 0_coordinate, frontally (perpendicular to the

wavefront) it measures the radiation with transmitted frequency f0 (such that f0<f ),
displaced towards the visible band (optical flash): where the observer O is located
from, the wavefront transmitted with f0 is only caught for a short period of time,
corresponding to a specific space position of the jet (in the example of Figure 1.18b,
when it leaves the center of the accretion disc); But, laterally O captures the so-
called long-term afterglow in the form of two polarized beams with opposite senses
and frequencies f1 (band radiation X, f1>f0) and f2 (radio band radiation, f2<f0):
observe that now the acquisition time of f1 and f2 depends on how fast the forward
and backward wavefront deflates with respect to the observer O.
Cherenkov Radiation: Produced in an environment where the light phase

velocity is less than that of the material particles associated, without exceeding the
propagation of light in the vacuum [Cerenkov, 1958]. Prior to the publication of SR in
1905, Sommerfeld already proposed the hypothetical case of electron displacement
at light-speed but in vacuum; This work was forgotten after the SR, since no particle
can move, according to it, to v>c, or more concretely, it is not possible to accelerate
a particle with mass from v<c to v>c [Ginzburg, 1972]; On the other hand, given the
Cerenkov effect, the particle with superluminal velocity can be observed as two
particles moving in different senses.
The Cherenkov radiation is continuous, generating a spectrum of UV radiation, ie

blue shifted frequency. The equations describing this radiation relate the intensity to
the frequency (proportionality), although it is only indicated that the bluish radiation
brightness increases due to the increase of its energy [Cerenkov, 1937].
There are still some questions that the experimentation and the formalism built
around this phenomenon do not respond:
Why is the radiation observed blue, even when the effect-generating particles
follow trajectories of approach to the observer? What is the formalism of this
blue-shift?
How does the degree of frequency blue-shift relate to the speed of particles
greater than that of light in the material medium?
Again, the conclusions of the experiment_1-7 provide answers to these

questions: the blue-shift of the observed radiation, considering that the particles that
produce it move in paths of approach, indicates that such particles propagate in the
speed 1_coordinate with c<v<1.68c (or in the speed coordinate_2 with 2c <v<2.33c)
where c is the velocity of light in the environment (observe the results of Figure
1.15); Thus, the detected frequency f0 is greater (blue-shift) than that associated to
the particles in their displacement of value f; Attention, if the energy increase
causes a velocity increase in the particles, the frequency of the observed radiation f0
decreases, so that the radiation in the UV spectrum is the least energetic, in kinetic
terms, being the visible band the which represents particles propagating at a faster
velocity.
Experiment 1-8: Influence of relative motion on wavelength with ER.
Assuming an observer O( x,t, ) emiting omnidirectional light with wavelength ,

relative to which it moves with relative velocity v, such as nc v < ( n + 1)c with
44
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
n = round (v / c ) , another observer O' ( x' , t ' , 1 , 2 ) inside a vehicle, in the same direction x,
x. The observer O' from the speed n_coordinate, detects the light emitted by O in the speed
0_coordinate with values 1 and 2 , respectively, depending on whether O' in his vehicle
( ) ( )
approaches ( O1' x1' , t1' , 1 ) or moves away ( O2' x 2' , t 2' , 2 ). We want to find the relative
velocity of the vehicle in which the observer goes O' (O1' , O2' ) with respect to O and to know
if he is approaching or moving away on that observer O.
Using the relative time equation of (1-28):
vt (n + 1)c + v
t 2' = t + n = t n
(n + 1)c (n + 1)c
(1-68)
vt (n + 1)c v
t1' = t n = t n
(n + 1)c (n + 1)c
( ) ( )
From these equations the wavelength 1 O1' and 2 O2' detected by O1' and O2' in the
speed n_coordinate is obtained.
L' L
Applying on (1-68) the equation (1-62) = ( n + 1) for v > c and n = round (v / c ) , we
t' t
obtain for the distances in the direction of relative motion L1' and L'2 with L, between
observers O1' and O2' with O:
(n + 1)c + v
L'2 = L n
c (1-69)
(n + 1)c v
L1' = L n
c
The distances in the direction of relative motion L1' and L'2 and with L, between observers
O1' and O2' with O, respectively, can be related to the wavelengths 1 and 2 seen by O1'
and O2' with respect to the light emitted by O, respectively, as follows:
L' L' ' 2

= 1 and = (1-70)
L L
In this way, we have for the light detected by O1' and O2' with respect to O, respectively,
(n + 1)c v
1 = n (1-71)
c
(n +1)c + v
2 = n (1-72)
c
( ) ( )
By observing from O the displacements of wavelengths 1 O1' and 2 O2' detected with
respect to the initial value of light with , one can know the relative velocity of the observer
O' and its sense of approach/separating from O.
45
1st of
That graphically can be expressed as in Figure 1.19.
(O1 approaches to O) (O2 separates from O)
O1 v, 1 O O2 v, 2
(n +1)c v (n +1)c + v
O1detects light from O with: 1 = n ;O2detects light from O with: 2 = n
c c
Figure 1.19 Observation from O' of the light emitted by O, from the detected wavelengths 1 O1' ( )
and 2 O ( )
'
2
1 / 2
Being n = ( n + 1) 2 v the Lorentz Factor of n degree, with n = round (v / c ) .

2
We can observe that through experiments 1-7 and 1-8 are NOT achieved the same results,
unlike experiments 1-3 and 1-4. The reason is in the application of the hypothesis 2 on
compatibility between inertial observer and Inf_Tx:
In experiments 1-7 and 1-8 there is no compatibility between the speed coordinate of
the inertial observer performing the light detection, that represents the Inf_Tx
propagated in another different speed coordinate:
In experiment_1-7 the observers O1 and O2 from the speed 0_coordinate detect

the Inf_Tx from the vehicle in which it goes O from the speed n_coordinate as,
v '+ c v vc
1 = 0 (1-64) , with v' = c and n = round (v / c ) ; ' =
c n +1 v + (n + 1)c
v' '+c v v+c

2 = ' ' 0 (1-66), with v' ' = = v' c and n = round (v / c ) ; ' ' =
c n +1 v + (n + 1)c
In experiment_1-8 the observers O1 and O2 from the speed n_coordinate detect

the Inf_Tx from O in the speed 0_coordinate as,
(n + 1)c v (n +1)c + v
1 = n (1-71) or 2 = n (1-72), with n = round (v / c)
c c
The lack of compatibility in each experiment makes the inversion of the roles
between the detector observer and the generator observer of Inf_Tx, being at
different speed coordinates, produce different results.
In experiments 1-3 and 1-4 there is compatibility between the speed coordinate of the
inertial observer that performs the light detection that represents the Inf_Tx
propagated in the same speed coordinate: in both cases, observers and emitted light
belong to the speed 0_coordinate.
46
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
The experiments 1-5, 1-5B, 1-6, 1-6B, 1-7 and 1-8, provide the same results as the
experiments 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 of the SR, for the case of speeds v < c . There is
compatibility, in this sense, with SR. In addition, these experiments provide the proper
formal structure to justify why cases of bodies with v > c have not been detected even
though they may exist. In what way can you tell if a body actually moves with v < c or is
only apparently so and actually moves with v > c ? The following experiment 1-9 offers a
method to answer this question.
Experiment 1-9: Determination of actual subluminal or superluminal velocity.
We are trying to measure the speed of a vehicle in which an observer O' ( x' , t ' , ) goes, not
knowing in which speed coordinate moves. O' emits omnidirectional light with wavelength
and moves between two observers at rest O1 ( x1 , t , 1 ) and O2 ( x2 , t, 2 ) , separated from
each other by a fixed distance r. We will use two spectrometers D1 and D2, related to the
observers O1 and O2 , respectively, as detectors of the wavelength 1 and 2 , associated to
the light propagated by O' in its displacement. Both detectors D1 and D2 use input polarizers
that allow them to capture the light of the vehicle where it is O in moving, but only in one
sense of its displacement. D1 uses a light polarizer that picks up signal only in the opposite
sense to the vehicle's movement and D2 uses a light polarizer that picks up signal only in the
same sense as the vehicle's movement (See Figure 1.20).
There are two possibilities: (1) that the object moves with velocity less than c or (2) that it
does so with velocity greater than c.
Hypothesis 1-9a:
c+v c v
If v<c: D1 detects light from O: 1 = 0 D2 detects light from O: 2 = 0
c c
Hypothesis 1-9b:
v c v+c
If v>c: D1 detects light from O : 1 = n D2 detects light from O : 2 = n
c c
D1 Polaris. O ,v Polaris.. D2
v O O v
We are trying to find in the experiment the wavelength relationship l,
2
l= (1-73)
1
Whose result is going to tell us how much exactly the actual velocity of the vehicle with
the observer O' is and what is its associated speed coordinate.
47
1st of
2
If we define l = , it is observed that both for the hypothesis_1-9a and for the
1
hypothesis_1-9b, a function is obtained that does not depend on , nor of relativistic
2
corrections; That is, if we work with l = we do not need to know the initial value of , nor
1
apply relativistic corrections, to clear the relative velocity of O'.
Let us look at the data given as an example in Table 1.3, in order to obtain the behavior of
2
the function l = (Figure 1.21)
1
For 0< v <c we have 1> l> 0; That is, for speeds close to c, the ratio l approaches zero.
For v>c we have l>1; in this way,
liml
=1 (1-74)
v
Table 1.3 Numeric description of the relation l= 2/1 for different values of v/c
v 1 2 2
l=
c n n 1
.. .. .. ..
0.8 1.8 0.2 0.11
0.9 1.9 0.1 0.05
0.99 1.99 0.01 0.005
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
1.01 0.01 2.01 201
1.1 0.1 2.1 21
1.2 0.2 2.2 11
.. .. .. ..
1.9 0.9 2.9 3.2
.. .. .. ..
Figure 1.21 Graphical representation of the relation l= 2/1 function of v/c subluminal/superluminal
48
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Definitely:
If l is between 0 and 1, the observer O' moves with velocity less than c.
If l is between infinity and 1, the observer O' moves with velocity greater than c.
Once the speed coordinate of O' is determined with the measures of l detected in the
experiment, its specific velocity is obtained using the following approach:
If v<c : It is achieved,
c v l +1
l= lv lc = v + c v=c (1-75)
c +v l 1
If v>c : We get,
v+c 1 l
l= lv + lc = c v v =c (1-76)
vc 1+ l
The precision in the measurement of v will depend on the precision in the measurement of
l.
Note that in this experiment the following considerations have been taken into account:
It is not necessary to know the wavelength associated with the light emitted by O'.
The location of each detector and polarizer has been chosen so that each one picks up
only signal with a single wavelength, 1 or 2 .
Relativistic corrections are not necessary, because when working with the relation of
wavelengths l, the relative characteristics of the signals associated with 1 and 2 are
canceled.
Superluminal apparent movement: Current physics admits the existence of

celestial bodies like jets moving with respect to the Earth with apparent movements
[Rodriguez and Mirabel, 1995]. These movements are observed at apparent, non-
real velocities due to non-optimal relative position and motion observer-jet conditions
for obtaining real values [Smoot, 1998]. In these cases, superluminal apparent
velocities are admitted, which are not opposed to SR because they are not real
[Rees, 1966]. Paradoxes related to apparently superluminal velocities in celestial
bodies such as the quasar are also explained so [Chodorowski, 2005]. However, in
none of the cases studied, the measurement of frequencies and their possible shift
with the relative movement of the jet is considered, so it is not possible to know if the
superluminal movement captured is apparent or real in the conditions developed in
the ER. To discern between one case or another, simply apply the terms of
experiments 1_7 or 1_9, depending on the position of the observer with respect to
the jet in question.
Experiment 1-10: Relativity of distances and times in ER.
Assuming an observer O' ( x' , y' , t ') at the speed 0_coordinate, moving with relative
velocity v such that nc v < ( n + 1)c , with n = round (v / c ) respect to another observer
49
1st of
O0 ( x0 , y 0 , t 0 ) of the speed 0_coordinate, in the positive direction of the axis x' and x0.
Another observer O1 (x, y, t ) moves with relative velocity v1 with respect to O0, at the speed
m_coordinate, such that mc v1 < (m + 1)c , with m = round(v1 / c) , and in the positive
direction of the x', x, and x0 axis. O' goes inside a vehicle whose roof is a mirror. At any
given moment O' throws a beam of light to the mirror and tries to measure the time it takes to
go and return reflected back. From the outside, O1 observes the fact and pretends to perform
the same temporal measure (See Figure 1.22).
For O', where l' is the distance to the mirror, we will have, applying the hypothesis 1,
2l ' = ( n + 1)ct ' (1-77)
For O1, however, the vehicle in which O' moves is traveling with speed,
v 0' = v 0 v1 (1-78)
Being v0 the speed with which apparently moves O1 in the speed m_coordinate, with
mc v0 < (m + 1)c .
Then for O1 we will have:
(m + 1)2 c 2 (t / 2) 2 = v0'2 (t / 2) 2 + l 2 (1-79)
Where l is the distance between O' and the mirror, measured by O1.
From the speed n_coordinate, taking as reference to O' :
x' = ((n + 1) x vt ) n (1-80)
50
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
And clearing, we get:
x'
vt = ( n + 1) x (1-81)
n
From the speed m_coordinate, taking as reference to O1:
x ' = ( x v 0' t ) m (1-82)
Introducing (1-82) into (1-81), we have:
m
vt = (n + 1) x ( x v0' t ) (1-83)
n
And how,
1/ 2
m (n +1)2 c2 v2
= (1-84)
n (m +1)2 c2 v0'2
Substituted (1-84) in (1-83) provides,
1/ 2
(n +1)2 c2 v2
vt = (n +1)x ( x v t)
'

'2
with x = (m + 1)ct (1-85)
0
(m + 1)2 2
c v0
That simplified,
((n +1)2 c2 v2 )((m +1)c v0' )

((n +1)c v) =2

(m +1)c + v0'
( ) ( )( )
((n +1)c v) (m +1)c + v0' = (n +1)2 c2 v2 (m +1)c v0' (1-85b)
2
And, now, developed,
(m + 1)(n + 1) 2 c 3 + (n + 1) 2 c 2 v0' + v 2 c(m + 1) + v 2 v0' 2(n + 1)(m + 1)c 2 v 2(n + 1)cvv0' =
= (m + 1)(n + 1) 2 c 3 (n + 1) 2 c 2 v0' v 2 c(m + 1) + v0' v 2 (1-85c)
That regrouping and simplifying produces,
(m + 1)v 2 (n + 1)((m + 1)c + v0' )v + (n + 1) 2 cv0' =0 (1-86)
51
1st of
Equation (1-81) is second order in v, of result,
v=
n+1
2(m+1)
[
((m+1)c+v0' ) ((m+1)cv0' ) ] (1-87)
In (1-87) we are going to consider the general result,
n +1 '
v= v0 (1-88)
m +1
Although the result v = ( n + 1)c is also valid, this is a particular case with v 0' = c (m + 1)
And, therefore, the speed which O1 sees O' with is actually:
m +1
v 0' = v (1-89)
n +1
If we substitute (1-88) in (1-84), we obtain the relation of Lorentz Factors,
m n +1
= (1-90)
n m+1
Finding the relationship between v and v0, we return to equation (1-79) to clear t:
4l 2 4l 2 1 4l 2 1
t2 = = = (1-90b)
(m + 1)2 c 2 v0'2 (m + 1)2 c 2 1 v0'2 / (m + 1)2 c 2 c (m + 1) v 0'2 / c 2
2 2
And therefore,
2l 1 2l 1
t= = (1-91)
(
(m + 1)c 1 v0'2 / (m + 1)2 c 2 )
1/ 2
(
c (m + 1)2 v ' 2 / c 2
0 )
1/ 2
As observers do not disagree between the perpendicular distances to their relative

movements, one has to l = l ' , so that:
t=
n +1
(
t ' 1 v0'2 / (m + 1) c 2
2
) 1 / 2
=
n +1
t' (1-92)
m +1 ((m + 1) 2
v0'2 / c 2 )
1/ 2
52
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Since the ratio of relative velocities observed by O1 and O' is given by Eq. (1-88), we can
put:
L' n + 1 '
O' v = = v0
t' m + 1 (1-92b)
L
O1 v 0' =
t
Being L and L' distances in the direction of the relative movement between observers O1
and O', measured by each one of them; So,
L' n + 1 L
= (1-93)
t' m + 1 t
And the distance ratio L and L' can be obtained by entering (1-92) in (1-93),
(
L = L' 1 v 0' 2 / (m + 1) c 2
2
)
1 / 2
= L'
m +1
(1-94)
((m + 1) 2
v 0'2 / c 2 )
1/ 2
Using the results of experiments 1-7 and 1-10: assuming observers Oi ( xi , yi , t i ) at each
speed i_coordinate, with i = 0,1,2,3,.., n,.., m,.. and a mobile A moving with relative velocity v
respect to O0 , at the speed n_coordinate such that, nc v < ( n + 1)c , with n = round (v / c ) , in
the positive direction of axis x0 , x1 ,.., x n ,.., x m ,..
The way in which A is detected by each observer Oi in each speed i_coordinate is

represented in Figure 1.23.
Figure 1.23 Mobile A with relative velocity v to O0 moving in the speed n_cooordinate and detected by
observers of each speed i_coordinate in different ways, i=0,1,2,3,..,n,..,m,..
53
1st of
Hypothesis 3: Assuming hypothesis 1 on quantization of Inf_Tx by matter displacement,

observers detect this Inf_Tx in relative way always at speed c, regardless of the speed
coordinate to which they belong.
This hypothesis seeks to justify why any observer, not just those belonging to the speed
0_coordinate, always detects material bodies moving at speeds less than c. The only
difference between observers of different speed coordinates is precisely the classification of
their inertial velocity. Therefore, they must all behave in the same way; That is, if observers
in the speed 0_coordinate never detect objects with v > c , although they may exist, as it has
been justified by previous experiments, observers in other different speed coordinates must
also behave the same in this sense.
Experiment 1-11: Relativity of distances and times in ER applying Hypothesis 3.
Assuming an observer O' ( x' , y ' , t ') on speed n_coordinate, moving with relative velocity v
such that, nc v < (n + 1)c , with n = round (v / c) respect to another observer O0 ( x0 , y 0 , t 0 )
at rest in the speed 0_coordinate, in the positive direction of axis x' and x0 .
Another observer O1 ( x, y, t ) moves with relative velocity v1 such that, mc v1 < (m + 1)c ,
with m = round(v1 / c) and m < n respect to O0, in speed m_coordinate and in the positive
direction of the axis x' , x, and x0.
O' is in a vehicle whose roof is a mirror. At one point, O' throws a beam of light toward
the mirror and try to measure the time it takes to get to and reflected back. From the outside,
O1 looks at the fact and tries to make the same temporary measure, now assuming the
hypothesis 3 about observers and Inf_Tx relativity (see Figure 1.24).
For O' , where l' is the distance from the mirror, applying hypothesis 3, we will have,
2l ' = ct ' (1-95)
54
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
For O1, however, O' moves with speed ,
v 0' = v ' v1' (1-96)
Where v' and v1' are the apparent velocities in the speed m_coordinate , which O' and O1
move at, respectively, with
v
v' = <c (1-97)
n +1
v1
v1' = <c (1-98)
m +1
Then, for O1 we have:

c 2 (t / 2) 2 = v 0' 2 (t / 2) 2 + l 2 (1-99)
Where l is the distance between O' and the mirror, as measured by O1.
Solving for t, we obtain:
4l 2 4l 2 1
t2 = 2 '2
= (1-99b)
c v0 c 1 v0'2 / c 2
2
And thus,
2l 1
t= (1-100)
(
c 1 v0 / c 2
' 2
)
1/ 2
(
t = t ' 1 v 0' 2 / c 2 )
1 / 2
(1-101)
Using the experiment_1-11 results: assuming observers Oi (xi , y i , t i ) at each speed

i_coordinate, with i = 0,1,2,3,.., n,.., m,.. , that is, with n<m, and a mobile A moving with
relative velocity v respect to O0 in the speed n_coordinate, such that, nc v < (n + 1)c , with
n = round (v / c) , in the positive direction of the axis x0 , x1 ,.., x n ,.., x m ,.. , and seen as,
v
v0 = for in (1-101b)
n +1
Or = for i>n (1-101c)
55
1st of
The way that A will be detected by each i observer at each speed coordinate is represented
in Figure 1.25:
Observers O0 to On-1 detect two mobiles moving in opposite senses with the same v0.
The observer On detects A with v0.
Observers in speed coordinates above n, for example observer Om, detect A with,
= <
Figure 1.25 Mobile A with relative velocity v to O0 moving in the speed n_cooordinate and detected
by i observers of each speed coordinate in different ways, i=0,1,2,3,..,n,..,m,..
Note that in experiments 1-6, 1-6B and 1-11 the observer is located in a generic speed
n_coordinate from where he interprets the line of light relative to it; That is, regardless of the
absolute velocity v of the material bodies in their speed coordinate, nc v < ( n + 1)c , for the i
observer (with in) all move with velocities v0 (1-101b), such that, 0 v0 < c . For i
observers in speed superior coordinates (i>n), the velocities seen are v0i< v0 (1-101c). In this
(
way, the Lorentz factor used is of the form 1 (v 0 / c )2 )1 / 2
(
for in or 1 (v0 i / c )2 )
1 / 2
for i>n,
that is, relative to the speed n_coordinate, so it is going to be named as rn .
SR (equation_1-7) gives an absolute speed coordinate to all reference systems, the

zero one, to define the light speed to a single value. With ER, mobiles and observers
may have different speed coordinates and, thats why now the speed relative to one
from another is not necessarily the same as seeing the other respect to one. This
situation is not paradoxical, since it does not contravene the observations we have
from our speed 0_coordinate. Obviously, as we can not translate ourselves to any
other speed coordinate different than zero one, we can not experimentally verify this
directly.
Observations change when we change speed coordinate; but that it must be so, by
changing the viewing conditions, different for each speed coordinate (different light
wavefront speed).
We conclude that the limit c, imposed by the Contemporary Physics, comes from the inability
of the Observer to make absolute measurements; that is, Observer relative measures in the
Space_Time are what it makes to appear that material bodies can not reach, or exceed this
speed.
56
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
2. Minkowski Diagrams
If we use the Hypothesis 1 on light quantization as Inf_Tx of material displacement, we
would have to modify Minkowski Diagrams (MD), in the sense that now they dont contain
only two universal light lines. If we consider n speed coordinates, with n light quantized
values, we must represent in the DM 2n different light lines.
If in the MD we take as position angle reference of the light lines the vertical axis (ct) and
its angular position is named as i, with i=0,1,2,..,n, we observe that:
ct
In the speed 0_coordinate, light lines include 0 = 45 considering Tg 0 =
x
In the speed 1_coordinate, light lines include 1 = 18.44 considering
2ct
arctg 0
x
In the speed 2_coordinate, light lines include 2 = 8.13 considering
3ct
arctg 0 1
x
....

(n + 1)ct n
In the speed n_coordinate light lines cover n = arctg i
x i =0
MDs will now have the appearance of the graph of the Figure 2.1
The reference for determination of space-time events is O, inertial observer at rest in the
speed coordinate where measures of events are taking. That is, the coordinate t indicates the
peculiar time of the events and x the distance from the origin, where the reference point is
provided for a particular speed coordinate.
If events are measured in the 0_coordinate, the observer O is at rest in this coordinate
with v=0; if events are measured in, for example, speed 2_coordinate, the observer O is in
this coordinate with v=2c and, so on.
The inertial reference for each speed coordinate can be represented as in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.1 Minkowski diagrams for different n speed coordinates.
57
1st of
Figure 2.2 Inertial reference O for each speed n_coordinate, n=0, 1, 2, ...
Events in speed 0_coordinate are represented around 0_light line (c), with axis ct 0 and x0
covering quadrants with 90.
Events in speed 1_coordinate are represented around 1_light line (2c), with axis 2ct1 and
x1 , covering quadrants with 36.88.
Events in speed 2_coordinate are represented around 2_light line (3c), with axis 3ct2 and
x2 , covering quadrants with 16.26.
Events in speed 3_coordinate are represented around 3_light line (4c), with axis 4ct 3 and
x3 , covering quadrants with 8.78. And so on.
Within each speed coordinate we can change inertial observer from O to O', simply by
rotating the axis of time and distance, which involves applying the coordinate transformation
corresponding to times and distances:
In speed 0_coordinate, axis ct 0 and x0 of O can be rotated to 45 to become ct 0'

and x0' of O', each of them, because the quadrants have 90.
In speed 1_coordinate, axis 2ct1 and x1 of O can be rotated to 18.44 to become
2ct1' and x1' of O', each of them, because the quadrants have 36.88.
In speed 2_coordinate, axis 3ct2 and x2 of O can be rotated to 8.13 to become 3ct 2'
and x 2' of O', each of them, because the quadrants have 16.26.
In speed 3_coordinate, axis 4ct3 and x3 of O can be rotated to 4.39 to become 4ct 3'
and x3' of O', each of them, because the quadrants have 8.78.
And so on.
An event A in a specific speed coordinate (depending on its speed), can be described with
respect to an observer O at rest or for any other observer O' moving in that coordinate, as
shown graphically with examples given below in Figure 2.3.
Note that paradoxes of causality (effect before cause) that appear in classic MD, which
represent events regardless of their speed always in the speed 0_coordinate, here disappear.
To represent an event you must first define the observer O and axis in the correct associated
speed coordinate, so that there is compatibility between events, inertial observer and
58
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
propagation speed of the Inf_Tx (hypothesis 2): this is the fault of the causal paradoxes
like tachyonic_antitelephone.
Figure 2.3 Examples of an event description A in two different speed coordinates.
Now, how would we represent an event A that occurs associated to a given speed
coordinate in a different speed coordinate? Here are applicable results of the experiment_1-7.
Supposed an observer at the speed 0_coordinate, O( x0 , t 0 , 1 , 2 ) detecting the light of

wavelength emitted from the reference of another observer O' ( x1 , t1 , ) , which moves inside
a vehicle at the speed n_coordinate, with relative velocity v, such that nc v < (n + 1)c with
n = round (v / c) .
The situation is represented in the MDs, considering that O is seeing the light from the
reference O' as if there were two events that go away from it in opposite senses, with the
v
same speed v' = c , but with different wavelengths 1 and 2 . If we use in the
n +1
example n=1, for graphic simplicity, the event A occurred in the speed 1_coordinate, from O
in the speed 0_coordinate would be seen as A' and A''.
Figure 2.4 Example of event A in the speed 1_coordinate, seen as A and A by the observer O from
the speed 0_coordinate.
59
1st of
Experiment 2-1: Tachyonic Antitelephone paradox: solution with ER.
It is represented next the typical paradox of causality based on the example of the
tachyonic antitelephone type one way path: We consider two events P and N in opposite
( )
senses and equal distance from the reference O' ct 0' , x0' , from where they occurred at the
' '
same time t = t . The speed associated with events P and N is v > c , generated respect to
N P
( )
observer O ct 0 , x0 at rest, at the moment t = 0 . Using the MD traditionally is observed that
in the reference O at rest, the event N occurs at an earlier time t N than the instant t = 0 ,
which would imply that the effect precedes the cause (Figure 2.5).
The problem with this representation is that the events associated to v > c will not be
detected as such by observers at the speed 0_coordinate with v < c . Events P and N will be
seen by O and O' in the speed 0_coordinate as apparent events P', P'' and N' , N'', associated
v
to the speed v' = c.
n +1
Figure 2.5 Example of the paradox of causality tachyonic antitelephone
The following graph in Figure 2.6 provides the right solution for the example presented in
Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.6 Solution to the paradox raised in Figure 2.5
60
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
If for example, events P and N belong to the speed 1_coordinate, will be detected by O
v
and O' with v' = c :
2
In O', they occur at the same instant of time t N' = t P' .
In O, the apparent events P' and N'' occur at the same instant of time t P ' = t N '' .
In O, the apparent events N' and P'' occur at the same instant of time t N ' = t P '' .
Note that now all occurrences of events both in O and O' are subsequent to the initial
moment t = 0 . Causality paradox disappears.
Similarly, in terms of Tolman experiment:
If the measured time for the propagation of a signal between two ends A and B is t in the
reference O at rest, although the propagation speed of the signal is a > c , being in the speed
a
0_coordinate, O observes it with a' = c , with n = round (a / c) and, therefore,
n +1
B A
t = t1 t 0 = , respect to O.
a'
To another observer O' in relative motion with v < c , the time measurement t ' will be:
( ) ( ) ( )
t ' = t1' t 0' = t1 vB / c 2 0 t 0 vA / c 2 0 = t 0 1 a' v / c 2 , where both a' and v, are
lower than c, so that there is no inconsistency: t ' > 0
To an observer O'' in relative motion with v > c , at the same speed n_coordinate that the
signal propagated between A and B, the time measurement t ' ' will be:
( ) ( ) ( )
t '' = t1'' t 0'' = t1 vB /(n + 1)c 2 n t 0 vA /(n + 1)c 2 n = t n 1 a ' v /(n + 1)c 2 , and
although v > c , the signal is observed in O with a' c , so that, there is no inconsistency at
all: t ' ' > 0
If the paradox of causality is a two way path the solution lies, as in the previous
situation, to consider that if the observer is in the speed 0_coordinate, the signal propagation
a
with speed a > c , in the speed n_coordinate, are detected with a' = c , with
n +1
n = round (a / c) .
Experiment 2-2: MD for subluminal and superluminal events.
Suppose two observers and a mobile:
( )
O 0 ct 0 , x 0 at rest;
( 1
'
1 )
O1 2ct , x with relative speed to O0 of value v1 , such that c < v1 < 2c , i.e. in the
'
speed 1_coordinate.
61
1st of
The mobile A with relative speed to O0 of value v2 .

v1 v2 < c
We try to determine how is seen the mobile A from the point of view of O0 and O1 for
the following cases:
1. Subluminal: If v2 < c
2. Superlumina: If v2 > c .
(1) v2 < c . For each observer we will have:
v1
From O0 : O1 is seen with speed v1' , such that v1' = < c and A is seen with speed
2
v2 < c
v 2 v1
From O1 : A is seen with speed <c
2
Note that from any speed coordinate (except in the speed 0_coordinate) apparently Inf_Tx
is transmitted with speed c, and so the relative speeds of any material body respect to an
observer in the same coordinate are seen as v < c . Therefore, O1 will always see a mobile A
with v < c .
The associated MD is the following (Figure 2.7), with coordinates for the mobile A:
( )
A(O0 ) = (t A , x A ) and A(O1 ) = t A' , x A' . Note that being v1 > v2 , it is obtained x A' < 0 .
Figure 2.7 Minkowski diagram for event A with velocity v2<c, according to observers O0 (at rest) and
O1 (v1 at speed 1_coordinate): v1-v2<c
62
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
(2) v2 > c . For each observer, we will have:
v1
From O0 : O1 is seen with speed v1' , such that v1' = < c and A is seen with speed
2
v2
v 2' = <c
2
v 2 v1
From O1 : A is seen with speed <c
2
The associated MD is the following (Figure 2.8), with coordinates for the mobile A:
( )
A(O0 ) = A' (t A' , x A' ) + A' ' (t A'' , x A'' ) and A(O1 ) = t A' , x 'A . Note that being v1 >v2 , it is obtained
'
x < 0.
A
Figure 2.8 Minkowski diagram for event A with velocity v2>c, according to observers O0 (at rest) and
O1 (v1 at speed 1_coordinate): v1-v2<c
Event intervale invariance.
Supposed an event coinciding with the spatial and temporal origin of the MDs, where we
represent two inertial different observers O and O', moving with relative velocity v. Given
the coordinates of another event A respect of each observer O and O', ( x, t ) and ( x' , t ') ,
respectively, we determine the events intervals for each observer as the squares difference of
their coordinates.
If O and O' belong both to the speed 0_coordinate, we obtain:
(ct )2 x 2 = (ct ') 2 x'

2 2
(2-1)
0
63
1st of
Applying the equations (1-7) on the right side of equation (2-1) verifying the equality,
2
v v2
(ct )2 x 2 = ct x ( x vt ) = c 2 t 2 + 2 x 2 2vtx x 2 v 2 t 2 + 2vtx
2
(2-1b)
c c
If O belongs to the speed 0_coordinate and O' at a generic speed n_coordinate, we

obtain:
(ct )2 x 2 = ((n + 21)ct ') 2 x'

2 2
(2-2)
n (n + 1)
Applying equations (1-32) on the right side of equation (2-2) verifying the equality,
2
v
(n + 1)ct x ((n + 1)x vt)
2
c v2 2vtx 2 v 2t 2 2vtx
(ct)2 x 2 = = c 2 2
t + x 2
x + (2-2b)
(n + 1) 2
(n + 1) c
2 2
n +1 (n + 1) n + 1
2
If O belongs to a generic speed m_coordinate and O' at a generic speed n_coordinate,

such that m < n , we obtain:
((m + 1)ct )2 x 2 =
((n + 1)ct ') x' 2
2
(2-3)
m2 (m + 1)2 n2 (n + 1)2
Where the relative velocity between O and O' is given by v = v n v m , being,
nc < vn < (n +1)c , mc< vm < (m+1)c , with n = ((n + 1)2 vn2 / c 2 ) and m = ((m + 1)2 vm2 / c 2 )
1 / 2 1 / 2
(2-3b)
It is used the equation (2-2) for two observers, O0 at the speed 0_coordinate and O at
the speed m_coordinate. We do the same for two observers, O0 at the speed
0_coordinate and O' at the speed n_coordinate. The equations obtained can be
equaled, using the same observer O0, leading to (2-3).
If O and O' belong both to the same generic speed n_coordinate, we obtain:
((n + 1)ct )2 x 2 =
((n + 1)ct ')2 x' 2 (2-4)
n2 ' 2n
Where the relative velocity between O and O' is given by v = v' n v n , being,
64
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
nc < v'n < (n +1)c , nc< vn < (n +1)c , with ' n = ((n + 1)2 v' n2 / c 2 ) and n = ((n + 1)2 v n2 / c 2 )
1 / 2 1 / 2
(2-4b)
If in equation (2-3) is considered m = n and for O we use the n Lorentz factor and
for O' the ' n Lorentz factor, both of n_grade, it is obtained (2-4).
As shown, the invariance between events intervals is maintained, but not in the same
manner as in (2-1), given to the SR. Situations determined by (2-2), (2-3) and (2-4) of the ER
require considering the relationship between speed coordinates of the observers involved.
The concept of invariance between events intervals seen by different observers is

equivalent to the concept of Inf_Tx-observer compatibility, raised in the hypothesis 2: within
the same speed coordinate, whatever, where there is Inf_Tx-observers compatibility, there is
also invariance of events intervals between observers; however, between speed coordinates
without Inf_Tx-observers compatibility, there is no invariance of events intervals between
observers. This is another justification for why from our speed 0_coordinate we are unable to
see anything material with v> c.
Velocities at speed 0_coordinate.
At the speed 0_coordinate mobiles are seen at lower speeds than c, but also mobiles with
speeds greater than c, albeit seeming as if they were each as two with displacements in
opposite senses and same speed.
For a mobile with speed v > c , the apparent speed in 0_coordinate is described as v0 < c ,
v
such that v 0 = with n = round (v / c ) , being nc v < ( n + 1)c .
n +1
Can the values of apparent speeds occupy all the speed 0_coordinate from 0 to c?: NO,
they cant; they occupy a speed range of the speed 0_coordinate, which depends on the value
of n, so that the greater is n, the smaller is this interval .
The following table 2.1 shows where the apparent velocities can be located, within the
speed 0_coordinate, depending on its speed n_coordinate:
Table 2.1 Apparent velocities v0 at speed 0_ coordinate
n = round (v / c ) v0 nc v < ( n + 1)c Interval v0

1 v/2 c v < 2c 0.5c v0 < c
2 v/3 2c v < 3c 0.67c v0 < c
3 v/4 3c v < 4c 0.75c v0 < c
4 v/5 4c v < 5c 0.8c v0 < c
.. .. .. ..
n v/(n+1) nc v < ( n + 1)c nc /(n + 1) v0 < c
65
1st of
SR arises respect to Galileo transformations, the problem that they consider the
duration of an event and each spatial interval as independent states of the
system movement which they are related to.
The Lorentz transformations solve the problem taking time and space as
relative concepts, variables, affected by the system speed, under the
hypothesis of c=constant.
ER arises respect to the Lorentz transformations the problem that they consider
the qualities of movement (changes in time and space) associated exclusively
with the speed of the reference system.
The n_grade Lorentz transformations, defined in the ER, offer as solution time
and space relative to the system speed, in turn a function of the speed
coordinate at which it belongs, under the quantization hypothesis of the speed
of light.
What is the point raised from the ER as a problem the fact that the speed of the
reference system is the parameter which all the characteristics of the
movement depend on?, moreover when the SR thus provides such satisfactory
results.
If we consider the principle saying that science is to be used as a tool to define

as simple as possible, the wider arc of facts that constitute reality, we see that:
Despite of the progress achieved with the Galileo transformations, it

made sense at that time to doubt on the absolute space and time
parameters, which meant expanding the application range of the motion
coordinate transformations.
Despite the progress achieved with the Lorentz transformations, now

doubt on the absolute speed parameter of the reference systems and
unique Inf_Tx speed makes sense for the purpose of trying to cover a
greater number of facts of reality.
Paraphrasing [Aichmann and Nimtz, 2013] and, in response to any detractor

of the ER who, without arguments, put forward that what can not be, should
not be, I understand that my proposal is a very weak line of research, which
is separated from the thick line of achievements that have been developed
from the SR. But I think it has potential, not that I resist discarded it, but I do
not see sufficient justification for this: there are theories, including subsidized
research lines with huge formal problems and with much less consistency
than the proposals that I'm doing here now. This does not mean I do not
consider that the proposal may have errors, solvable or not.
66
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
3. Wave Harmonic Analisis

Experiment 3-1: Wave equation according to SR.
Assuming an observer O' ( x' , y' , z' , t ') inside a vehicle, moving with relative speed v < c
respect to another observer O( x, y, z, t ) in the positive direction of the x' and x axis. Both
observers are in the speed 0_coordinate, their plans x' y ' and xy always match and at the
origin t ' = t = 0 (See Figure 3.1).
In the beginning t = 0 , O emits omnidirectional light with frequency f 0 producing a

spherical wavefront that is transmitted with velocity c, origin O and radius r = ct . For these
conditions, Lorentz transformation equations given by (1-7) are obtained, which relate the
spatial and temporal coordinates of the wavefront seen by one or another observer.
Figure 3.1 Context of the experiment 3-1: v<c
The emitted light is seen by O in the x direction as a wave described as follows,
f ( x, t ) = Asen(w0 t + nK 0 x ) (3-1)
With, w0 = 2f 0 (3-1b)
K 0 = w0 / c (3-1c)
n = c / s and s < c (3-1d)
f ( x, t ) 2 f ( x, t ) f ( x, t ) 2 f ( x, t )
If we define the partial derivatives , and , , it is obtained
x x 2 t t 2
the typical wave equation in the direction x, x',
2 f ( x, t ) 1 2 f ( x, t )
= (3-2)
x 2 OO
2
t 2
67
1st of
w0 c
with OO = = =s (3-3)
K0n n
Where OO is the emitted wave speed by O and seen from O .
From O' ( x' , y' , z' , t ') the light emitted by O in the x direction is seen as a wave described as
follows,
f ' ( x' , t ') = Asen(w' 0 t '+ nK ' 0 x') (3-4)
With, w' 0 = 2f ' 0 = 2f 0 / 0 = w0 / 0 (3-4b)
K ' 0 = w' 0 / c = K 0 / 0 (3-4c)
n = c / s and s < c (3-4d)
Substituting equations (1-7) of the Lorentz transformations in (3-4),
vx
f ' ( x, t ) = Asen w0 t 2 + nK 0 ( x vt ) (3-5)
s
f ' ( x, t ) 2 f ' ( x, t ) f ' ( x, t ) 2 f ' ( x, t )

If we now define the partial derivatives , and , , it is
x x 2 t t 2
obtained the wave equation in the direction x, x' for the observer O' seeing the light emitted
by O,
2 f ' ( x, t ) 1 2 f ' ( x, t )
= (3-6)
x 2 OO
2
' t 2
w0 nK 0 v
With, OO ' = (3-7)
w0 (v / s 2 ) + nK 0
If the equation (3-7) is rewritten and we apply (3-1c) and (3-1d),
w0
v
nK0 s v
OO' = = =s (3-8)
w0 v v
1 1
nK0 s 2 s
Equation (3-8) applied in the vacuum, where s = c , means that from O' the light wave is
seen with speed OO' = OO = c . In other environments, OO' = s . Therefore, there is
invariance in the wave equation by applying the Lorentz transformations between inertial
observers.
68
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Furthermore, comparing (3-8), the wave speed seen by O', with the equation (1-7h)
composition of speeds in the direction x, x' between the reference systems O and O' with
relative speed v, we see that they are equivalent:
If u x = s u ' x = OO'
If the light is emitted from O' ( x' , y' , z' , t ') , the observer O' sees it as a wave propagating
with speed,
/
2 f ' ( x ' , t ')
t '2
= = = = (3-8b)
2 f ' ( x ' , t ')
x'2
Finally, let's consider how the situation is described when O' emits the light and it is
observed by O.
Equations (1-7) can be written for x and t, as:

(
= + = + + 1 = = + )

= + = + + = + (3-8c)
The light emitted by O' is seen by O in the x-direction as a wave described as follows:
substituting in (3-1), equations (3-4b), (3-4c) and (3-8c),
( , ) =
+ + (
+ ) (3-8d)
The light from O is seen propagating with speed,
/
2 f ( x ' , t ')
t ' 2
= = = = = (3-8e)
2 f ( x ' , t ')
x'2
Between two observers O and O' with relative velocity v, it can be presented into four
different cases:
69
1st of
1. O emits the wave f ( x, t ) and O is the observer of f ( x, t ) :.................... OO = s
2 f ( x, t ) 1 2 f ( x, t )
= 2 (3-8f)
x 2 OO t 2
2. O' emits the wave f ' ( x' , t ') and O' is the observer of f ' ( x' , t ') :............ O 'O ' = s
2 f ' ( x ' , t ') 1 2 f ' ( x ' , t ')

= (3-8g)
x'2 O2 'O ' t '2
3. O' emits the wave f ' ( x' , t ') and O is the observer of f ( x' , t ') :.............. O 'O = s
2 f ( x ' , t ') 1 2 f ( x ' , t ')

= (3-8h)
x'2 O2 'O t '2
4. O emits the wave f ( x, t ) and O' is the observer of f ' ( x, t ) :................. OO' = s
2 f ' ( x, t ) 1 2 f ' ( x, t )
= (3-8i)
x 2 OO
2
' t 2
Experiment 3-2: Introduction to harmonic analysis according to ER.
From experiment_3-1 conditions, the wave emitted from O in the x direction described by
the equation (3-1) can also be placed as follows:

f (x, t ) = Asen (w0 t + nK 0 x ) = Ai sen((i + 1)w0 t + nK 0 x ) = f i (x, t ) (3-9)
i =0 i =0
With f i ( x, t ) = Ai sen((i + 1)w0 t + nK 0 x ) (3-10)
That is, the sine character wave and fundamental frequency f 0 can be set as the sum of
infinite sine harmonics with frequencies multiple of the fundamental one.
f i ( x, t ) 2 f i ( x, t )
If we define the partial derivatives for each harmonic , and
x x 2
f i ( x, t ) 2 f i ( x, t )
, , it is obtained the wave equation applied to each harmonic in the
t t 2
direction x, x',
2 f i ( x, t ) 1 2 f i ( x, t )
= 2 , i = 0,1,2,3,.. (3-11)
x 2 i t 2
70
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
w0 (i + 1) c
With i = = (i + 1) = s(i + 1) (3-12)
K0n n
The equations (3-11) and (3-12) represent the first indication in the study of a wave, that
the propagation speed of the wave is quantized in intervals proportional to c. Moreover, the
correct interpretation is that each harmonic propagates at a different speed, as the greater as
the higher the harmonic range.
Traditionally, the wave equation is searched on the set of the waveform, as in the
experiment_3-1 and, therefore the propagation speed of the wave is unique, c. Thus, we can
put, considering as propagating environment the vacuum,
0 f 0 = c (3-13)
But if we consider that the wave is composed of the sum of its harmonics, and that each of
them can be described from (3-11) and (3-12), then (3-13) is not applicable to all wave
harmonics as individual tems from speed 0_coordinate. The equation (3-13) becomes for
each harmonic, from its speed coordinate,
Harmonic_1 (fundamental): i = 0 (speed 0_coord.) 0 f 0 = c
Harmonic_2: i = 1 (speed 1_coord.) 0 (2 f 0 ) = 2c
Harmonic_3: i = 2 (speed 2_coord.) 0 (3 f 0 ) = 3c (3-14)
..
Harmonic_n: i = n 1 (speed n-1_coord.) 0 (nf 0 ) = nc
At a given instant of time the value of the wave f(x,t) (signal) is the sum of the value of
all its harmonics, and thus, for each and every one of the instants of time, as expressed in (3-
9).
At each point in the space where the signal is propagated, viewed from the speed
0_coordinate, it values also the sum of the value of its entire harmonics, and there is a
correspondence with the previous temporal description. Its elemental composition could be
described as in Figure 3.2.
For this to happen and, for example, at a distance 0 , passed T0 = 0 / c , there must have
been propagated a cycle of f0, 2 cycles of f1, 3 of f2 and so on (assumed null initial phase).
That is, from the speed 0_coordinate all harmonics are seen propagating with velocity c. It is
fulfilled that = , where i is the harmonic number and v its velocity. See demonstration
of experiment_3-3.
In this way, we also get to (3-14), which means that the wavelengths of all harmonics are
equal, = = = =...., with reference to their own speed coordinates, although
viewed from the speed 0_coordinate appear different, , , , , ... See Figure 3.3.
71
1st off
june E
Extended
d Relativitty Theoryy
Figure 3.2 Harmonnic elementss compositioon of a wav vefront, witth indicationn of its propagation
characteeristics: veloccity, shape annd transmitteed signal Ti
Figure 3.3
3 Compariison of harm monic waveleengths depen
nding on thee reference tyype: all in th
he speed
0_coorddinate or eachh in its own speed
s coordiinate.
The wavefront generated by each harmonic haas a penetration anglee i (i=0,1,..) with
respect to the proppagation dirrection of the
t total sig
gnal that vaaries betweeen 90 for the
t first
th
harmonnic and 0 foor the haarmonic.
o each wavvefront ( Tii transmitted

The amplitude of d signal witth i = 0,1,2,... ) decreasess with i.
The coomplete siggnal f (x, t ) is composeed by the superposition of the infinite haarmonic
wavefroonts, with decreasingg amplitudees but with h increasinng propagattion velociities, as
indicateed in Figuree 3.4.
Figure 3.4 Represeentation of a wavefront composed of the sum of its harm

monics, highllightning
penetration angles i and amplituude of the Ti d signal.
T transmitted
72
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
Experiment 3-3: Wave equation according to ER.
Starting from the conditions of experiment_3-1, but where O' ( x' , y' , z' , t ') belongs to the
speed m_coordinate, m = 0,1,2,3,.. and O( x, y, z, t ) to the speed 0_coordinate. The wave
emitted in the vacuum (to avoid having to use refractive index) from O in the direction x, x'
described by the equation (3-1), from O' ( x' , y' , z' , t ') is seen as one wave defined as follows,
f ' ( x' , t ') = Asen(w' 0 t '+ K ' 0 x') (3-15)
With, w' 0 = 2f ' 0 = 2f 0 (m + 1) / m = w0 (m + 1) / m (3-15b)
K ' 0 = w' 0 /(m + 1)c = K 0 / m (3-15c)
vx
f ' (x, t ) = Asen w0 (m + 1) t
2
+ K ((m + 1)x vt )
(3-16)
(m + 1)c
0

f ' ( x, t ) 2 f ' ( x, t ) f ' ( x' , t ') 2 f ' (x' , t ')

If we define the partial derivatives , and , , it is
x x 2 t t 2
obtained the wave equation in the direction x, x' for the observer O', seeing the light emitted
by O,
2 f ' ( x, t ) 1 2 f ' ( x, t )
= (3-17)
x 2 OO
2
' t 2
w0 (m + 1) K 0 v
With, OO ' = (3-18)
w0 (m + 1)(v / (m + 1)c 2 ) + (m + 1)K 0
If we rewrite the equation (3-18), considering that,
w'0 w0 (m + 1)
= = (m + 1)c (3-19)
K '0 K0
We obtain,
w0 (m + 1)
v
K0 c(m + 1) v c(c(m + 1) v )
OO ' = = = = c, m (3-20)
w0 (m + 1)v v c(m + 1) v
(m + 1) (m + 1)
K 0 (m + 1)c 2 c
73
1st of
If the wave is emitted by O' , the observer O' would see it propagating with speed,
/
2 f ' ( x ' , t ')
t '2 ( )
= = = = ( + 1) , (3-20b)
f ' ( x ' , t ')
2
x'2
Finally, let's consider how the situation is described when O' emits the light and is
observed by O.
Equations (1-32) can be written for x and t, such as:

= + (3-20c)
( )
Which rearranged, give rise to (3-20d),

+
= + + 1 = =( + 1) +
( + 1) ( + 1) ( + 1) ( + 1) ( + 1)

= + + 1 = + = ( + 1) +
( + 1) ( + 1) ( + 1) ( + 1)
The light emitted by O' is seen by O in the x-direction as a wave described as follows:
substituting in (3-15), equations (3-15b), (3-15c) and (3-20d),

( , ) = + ( + 1)
+ + ( + 1)(
+ ) (3-20e)
Then the light from O is seen propagating with speed,
2 f ( x ' , t ')
t ' 2 ( ) ( )
= = =
2 f ( x ' , t ') ( )
x'2

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
= = = ( )
= , (3-20f)
( ) ( )
( )
74
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
In conclusion:
Regardless of the speed coordinate where the observer is, the wave emitted from the
speed 0_coordinate is always propagated at velocity c.
OO=OO=c, m
But also, OO=c,m. What corroborates the hypothesis 1 about quantization of light,
unobservable from the speed 0_coordinate, where always light propagates with speed
c. Equation (3-20f) tells us that although the light propagates in the speed
m_coordinate with velocity (m+1)c, from the speed 0_coordinate it is seen at velocity
c.
However, OO=(m+1)c,m. That is, from the speed m_coordinate light propagating
at velocity (m+1)c, is seen with this same velocity.
On the other hand, if we use the equation (1-32k) of velocity composition in the x, x'
direction between the reference systems O and O' with relative velocity v>c, we see that
u ' x = (m + 1)c from O' corresponds u x = c viewed from O.
Experiment 3-4: Harmonic analysis according to ER generically.
Starting from the conditions of experiment_3-2, but where O' ( x' , y' , z' , t ') belongs to the
speed m_coordinate, m = 0,1,2,3,.. , and O(x, y, z, t ) to the speed 0_coordinate. The wave
emitted in the vacuum (to avoid having to use refractive index) from O in the direction x, x',
described by equations (3-9) and (3-10), from O' ( x' , y' , z' , t ') is seen as a wave defined as
follows,

f ' ( x' , t ') = Asen (w' 0 t '+ K ' 0 x ') = Ai sen ((i + 1)w' 0 t '+ K ' 0 x ') = f ' i ( x' , t ') (3-21)
i =0 i =0
With f 'i (x' , t ') = Ai sen((i + 1)w' 0 t '+ K ' 0 x') (3-22)
Where, w' 0 = 2f ' 0 = 2f 0 (m + 1) / m = w0 (m + 1) / m (3-22b)
K ' 0 = w' 0 /(m + 1)c = K 0 / m (3-22c)
vx
f ' (x, t ) = Asen w0 (m + 1) t + K 0 ((m + 1)x vt )
2
(3-23)
(m + 1)c
Equation (3-23) can also be written as,
75
1st of
vx
f ' ( x, t ) = Ai sen (i + 1)w0 (m + 1) t + K 0 ((m + 1)x vt )
2
(3-24)
i =0 (m + 1)c
f 'i (x, t ) 2 f 'i (x, t )

If we now define the partial derivatives for each harmonic , and
x x 2
f 'i ( x, t ) 2 f 'i (x, t )
, , it is obtained the wave equation applied to each harmonic in the
t t 2
direction x, x' for the observer O' seeing the light emitted by O,
2 f 'i (x, t ) 1 2 f 'i ( x, t )

= 2 , i = 0,1,2,3,.. (3-25)
x 2 'i t 2
w0 (m + 1)(i + 1) K 0 v
With, i ' = (3-26)
w0 (m + 1)(i + 1)(v / (m + 1)c 2 ) + (m + 1)K 0
If equation (3-26) is rewritten, considering the expression (3-19),
w0 (m + 1)(i + 1)
v
K0 c(m + 1)(i + 1) v c(c(m + 1)(i + 1) v )
i ' = = = (3-27)
w0 (m + 1)(i + 1)v (i + 1)v c(m + 1) (i + 1)v
(m + 1) (m + 1)
K 0 (m + 1)c 2
c
Each harmonic is observed from O' in the speed m_coordinate with a different
propagation velocity, depending on the value m:
Harmonic_1: 0 ' = c
c(2c(m + 1) v )
Harmonic_2: 1 ' =
c(m + 1) 2v
c(3c(m + 1) v )
Harmonic_3: 2 ' =
c(m + 1) 3v
..
The wave propagation equation for harmonics must be written now as:
'i f 'i = 'i (3-28)
76
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
The results obtained in the experiment_1-8 offer us the value of 'i from the expressions
(1-71) and (1-72). In this way, we can put:
c(m + 1) v c(c(m + 1)(i + 1) v )

0 Bi f 0 = (3-29)
c c(m + 1) (i + 1)v
The specific value of each parameter Bi associated with the frequency of each harmonic
can be solved from (3-29):
c(c(m + 1)(i + 1) v )
Bi = (3-30)
(c(m + 1) v )(c(m + 1) (i + 1)v)
4 Theory of the Radiant Cavity

The explanation of Planck's black body theory [Eisberg and Resnick, 1989], along with
the justification of the energy quantization through the photoelectric effect [Einstein, 1905b]
and its experimental demonstration [Millikan, 1949], represent the bases of quantum
mechanics [Ter Haar, 1967]. The authors of the moment admit that phenomena based on the
emission or transformation of light, such as blackbody radiation or fluorescence, are more
easily described by assuming that their energy has a discontinuous spatial distribution. The
predominance of wave theory until that moment begins to shift towards particle theory, so
that, today the duality principle of the wave-corpuscle light is clearly decanted towards its
explanation as particles (photons); In fact, the most accepted model description of nature, the
standard model, is a theory of particles.
However, the dual nature of light may have something more to incorporate, mixing the
harmonic analysis of waves, with the photoelectric effect and the speed quantization of the
photons themselves.
Assuming a resonant cavity at a temperature T, which behaves like a black body radiating
electromagnetic energy, according to the Wiens law of displacement at the fundamental
maximum frequency f0, such that,
= with = 2.898. 10 (3-31)
Inside the cavity of volume V propagate N(f) stationary waves, so that in the frequency
range [f, f+df] we have,
( ) = (3-32)
With the cavity in thermal equilibrium T, each of the N(f) absorbed stationary waves or
modes of radiation function of the frequency f, have a mean energy , giving rise to radiance
per unit volume, expressed as density of energy as follows,
1. In classical terms, using the Rayleigh-Jeans formula:
77
1st of
( ) = with k the Bolztmanns constant (3-33)
2. In quantum terms, using the Planck formula:

( ) = with h the Plancks constant (3-34)
The first expression (3-33) of ( ) uses the Bolztmann distribution P(E) to calculate
the mean energy value of the stationary waves in the cavity, so that,

( )
= = with ( )= (3-35)
( )
The second expression (3-34) of ( ) treats that the value of the mean energy is a
function of f, so that,
lim = and lim =0 (3-36)
For this, instead of calculating the mean energy in continuous form as in (3-35), it uses
discretization of the energy E in packets of size E, such that,

( )
= with = = and ( )= , with = 0,1,2, .. (3-37)
( )
That is, = , is replaced by the variable expression with f following,

= (3-38)
Being E the total energy radiated by the cavity in the form of n energy packets of E
individual size .
Paraphrasing [Eisberg and Resnick, 1989]: Planck formula does not alter the Bolztmann
distribution, which is considering the energy of the stationary electromagnetic waves
oscillating sinusoidally in time as a discrete quantity, instead of a continuous quantity
On the other hand, as indicated in [Snchez and Mejas, 1991], each of the radiation
modes can contain at most n indivisible units of energy (E) and at least zero. In this way,
we can put that the total energy E associated to the radiation modes for the frequency f is,
= ( ) = (3-39)
And, therefore, the number of units of total E, named n, can be expressed as the sum of
the number of energy units of each and every one of the radiation modes for frequency f. To
do this, rewrite (3-39) as follows,
= = (3-40)
Where, fi is the frequency of each of the radiation modes associated with the frequency f,
that is,
78
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
= ( + 1) with = 0, 1, 2, . . , ( 1) (3-41)
Therefore, (3-40) can be put as,
= ( + 1) (3-42)
For the frequency f associated with the N(f) stationary waves, supplying energy in the
cavity, the value (i+1)f or fi represents the harmonics of the radiation modes in the cavity
radiating ni quantum, each one of them.
Clearing from (3-39) the n value and incorporating (3-42), we obtain,
= = ( + 1) (3-43)

On the other hand, by clearing from (3-39) the n value and incorporating (3-32) and (3-
38), we get too,
= = (3-44)

So, how many elementary energy E packets correspond to each harmonic of the radiated
f frequency signal? To determine it, use (3-43) considering that according to (3-42) at each
stationary wave i of frequency fi in the cavity correspond to ni energy packets with total value
Ei.
..
= = = +2 +3 +. . + (3-45)

Using (3-44) for an i single stationary wave,
=1 (3-46)

And, taking into account (3-38) for the i stationary wave,

= (3-47)
Hence, (3-46) can be expressed as,
= (3-48)
The cavity in thermal equilibrium at temperature T is associated with N(f) stationary

waves, radiating at the frequency f a signal with as many harmonics as stationary waves are
related to it. That is, for a perfect resonant cavity (theoretical blackbody) absorbing at
temperature T a number N(f) of stationary waves, corresponds to N(f) radiated waves
associated with frequency f. These waves or harmonic decomposition of the signal of
frequency f, have been described in (3-41) and (3-47) as waves of frequency fi and energy Ei ,
respectively.
79
1st of
Note that, furthermore, if all the energy absorbed by the cavity at the frequency f comes
from the sum of the energy supplied by each and every one of the stationary waves generated
in its interior at the frequency f, the total energy radiated at this frequency f must be the same,
composed of the sum of the ni energy packets of the i radiated harmonics. But here a conflict
arises:
At temperature T, associated with the maximum f frequency radiance, each

radiated harmonic of frequency fi, contains ni elementary energy E packets (3-
42).
But according to (3-43) each i stationary wave of the N(f) absorbed contains
(i+1)ni elementary energyE packets.
But then, what reality is valid? (see Figure 3.5):

1. The one in which are n photons radiated at the frequency f distributed as in (3-43)?
2. Or, the one in which are n photons radiated at frequencies fi, distributed in packets of
ni size for each harmonic i (from 0 to N-1)?
Both points of view are in principle valid, that is, (1) for the total signal with frequency f
the energy contribution of each harmonic with reference to f is n0, 2n1, .., NnN-1 , respectively,
although (2) each radiation mode of frequency fi , contains ni energy packets, ie n0 at f, n1 at
2f, .., nN-1 at Nf.
Figure 3.5 Radiation distribution in n photons and stationary waves associated between two walls of
the radiant cavity, (a) at frequency f and their harmonics considering unique propagation at c and (b)
at frequencies fi considering propagation at (i+1)c
However, the conflict is still maintained, since if we measure the number of elementary
energy packets at frequency f, we obtain n and not n0, as might be expected for the
fundamental harmonic frequency, in case the wave of frequency f is accepted composing by a
80
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
set of harmonics. The explanation is in the velocities quantization of the photons propagated
in each harmonic:
1. If we consider as reference the fundamental harmonic = , such that = and we

seek here the contribution of the rest of harmonics, described as,
=2 = , =3 = ,, = = (3-49)
We obtain the measure of n photons, distributed as in (3-43), ie,
= +2 +3 +. . + (3-50)
This is the standard by which all harmonics propagate at velocity c (experiment 3-1) and
its wavelength decreases, as the harmonic number increases: a cycle at = contains
n0 photons and equals two cycles at = /2containing 2n1 photons, three cycles at
= /3containing 3n2 photons and, so on. In speaking here of equivalence, we refer to
the space-time that occupies each harmonic, taking = as unique reference (observer
in speed 0_coordinate).
2. If we consider as reference when measuring each harmonic fi, its own frequency, such
that,
= = , =2 = , =3 = , .., = = (3-51)
We obtain the measurement of ni photons at the fi frequency of each harmonic. The

harmonics propagate at velocities (i+1)c (experiments 3-2 and 3-3) and their wavelength
remains constant, as the harmonic number increases: a cycle at = contains n0
photons and equals one cycle at = containing n1 photons, one cycle at =
containing n2 photons and, so on. The equivalence here denotes the space-time occupied
by each harmonic, taking as relative reference the frequency fi of each of them (observer
relative to each speed i_coordinate).
So, which point of view is valid?:
If the frequency wave f and all its harmonics are considered to propagate at an
unique velocity c, as in experiment 3-1, the number of elementary energy packets
at the frequency f measured is n (3-50), while at the frequencies f1, f2, .., fN-1 (3-
49), we measure n1, n2, .., nN-1 elementary energy packets, respectively. Here the
wavelength of each i harmonic is /(i+1).
On the other hand, if we consider velocities quantization of propagated photons in
each harmonic, so that the wave of frequency f and its harmonics propagate at
velocities (i+1)c, where i is the harmonic number, as in experiments 3-2 and 3-3,
the number of elementary energy packets that are measured at the frequencies f0,
f1, f2, .., fN-1 (3-51), are n, n1, n2, .., nN-1. Here the wavelength of each i harmonic is
unique of value. Note that the energy measure at each frequency is the same as
in the previous case.
But, it has been shown in experiments 3-2 and 3-3 that an observer in the speed
0_coordinate sees light coming from other speed i_coordinates (i>0) propagating to
(i+1)c always with velocity c, (3-20) and (3-20f); Therefore, if the photons propagated in
each harmonic move at velocities (i+1)c, where i is the harmonic number, an observer
81
1st of
from the speed 0_coordinate will capture n photons for the frequency f0 , (3-50): n0 as
contribution of f0 at velocity c, plus 2n1 as contribution of f1 at velocity 2c (2 cycles of f1
at c), plus 3n2 as contribution of f2 at velocity 3c (3 cycles of f2 at c) and, so, successively.
However, if all harmonics actually propagate at velocity c, by measuring the frequency f0
the number of photons should be n0, n1 photons for f1 , n2 photons for f2 and so on.
In short, the dual nature of light justifies the velocities quantization of photon distributed
in the harmonics of each wave.
1. An electromagnetic wave defined by f(x,t) as in (3-1), can be described composed

of harmonics as in (3-9), with individual values fi(x,t) (3-10), limited by its
bandwidth; f0(x,t) is the fundamental harmonic (first harmonic) of frequency f0 and
energy amplitude A0 (Figure 3.3); The smaller the distortion of the f(x,t) wave, the
less energetic will be the harmonics above the fundamental. In a radiant cavity in
thermal equilibrium, there are a finite number of stationary waves at each
frequency f, defined by the fundamental frequency f0 and its harmonics.
2. If for each electromagnetic wave f(x,t), stationary or not, of fundamental frequency
f0=f, according to the wave-corpuscle duality corresponds a set of n particles with
finite energy = (3-39). This wave distributes its energy in harmonics,
around frequencies which are multiple of f, such that = ( + 1) (3-41), so it
seems reasonable to apply this energy distribution also in its description as a set of
particles, ie as in (3-46), = , = , = , .. This does not mean that

there is a multiple set of particles for the wave with frequency f; Just as wave with
frequency f there is one, composed of a set of harmonics, limited by their
bandwidth or by the volume of the considered resonant cavity, the set of associated
n particles is unique, composed by an energetic distribution that propagates with
velocities quantized: from the speed 0_coordinate, n particles with velocity c are
observed, although in fact only propagate in this speed coordinate n0 particles;
From the speed 1_coordinate, n1 particles with velocity 2c are observed; and so on.
3. That is, each harmonic or stationary wave relative to the frequency f, make a
discrete energy contribution in each speed coordinate in the form of particles with
elemental energy hfi. The number of speed coordinates, starting at zero, covering
the particles with their discrete energy distribution, depends on the number of
stationary waves (or harmonics within the waveband) involved in their generation.
As concluded in the study of chapter 1, the conclusion here again is that the limit c,
imposed by Contemporary Physics, comes from the inability of the Observer to perform
absolute measures; That is, the relative measures of the Observer in Space-Time are
those that make it appears that the material bodies and associated waves can not reach
or exceed this velocity.
82
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
References
Non-Rest Particles
[Javadi and Javadi H. and Forouzbakhsh F. (2014), Interactions Between Real and
Forouzbakhsh, 2014] Virtual Spacetimes, International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences,
vol.4 (4), pp. 115-122, doi: 10.14331/ijfgs.2014.330075
[Javadi and Javadi H. and Forouzbakhsh F. (2017), Why does light have a universal
Forouzbakhsh, 2017] speed limit?,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312317270_Why_does_light_have_
a_universal_speed_limit (online)
Faster than c, variable light speed
[Andreka et al., Andreka H., Madarsz J. X., Nemeti I., Szekely G., (2013), A note on
2013] Einsteins special relativity beyond the speed of light by James M. Hill and
Barry J. Cox, arxiv: gr-qc/1211.2246v2
[Hill et al., 2012] Hill, J. M., and Cox, B. J., (2012), Einstein's special relativity beyond the
speed of light. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Science, vol.468(2148), pp.4174-4192.
[Liberati et al., 2002] Liberati S., Sonego S. and Visser M. (2002), Faster-than-c signals, special
relativity and causality, Arxiv: gr-qc/0107091v2 14feb
Special relativity, Lorentz transformations
[Boya and Santander, Boya L.J. and Santander M., (2005), Paradojas relativistas, Revista
2005] Espaola de Fsica, vol. 19 (4), pp.17-24
[Darrigol, 2005] Darrigol, O. (2005), "The Genesis of the theory of relativity" , Sminaire
Poincar, vol1: pp.122, doi:10.1007/3-7643-7436-5_1
[Einstein, 1905] Einstein, A. (1905), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Krper", Annalen der
Physik, vol17 (10): pp.891921, doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004. English
translation.
[Poincar, 1900] Poincar H., (1900), The theory of Lorentz and the principle of reaction,
Archives neerlandaises des Sciences exactes et naturelles, series 2, vol.5, pp
252-278
[Pascual and Latorre, Pascual P. and Latorre J.I., (2005), La teora de la relatividad especial,
2005] Revista Espaola de Fsica, vol. 19 (1), pp.4-9
Fotoelectric effect, energy quantization justify
[Einstein, 1905b] Einstein A., (1905), Uber einen die erzeugung und verwandlung des lichtes
betreffenden heuristischen gesichtspunkt, Annalen der Physik, vol.322(6),
pp.132-148, doi: 10.1002/andp.19053220607
[Millikan, 1949] Millikan R, (1949), Albert Einstein on his seventieth birthday, Reviews of
modern physics vol. 21, pp. 343-345.
[Ter Haar, 1967] Ter Haar D., (1967), The old quantum theory, Cap3, On a heuristic point of
view about the creation and conversion of light: A.Einstein, Pergamon Press
83
1st of
Ltd.
Superluminal apparent motions
[Chodorowski, 2005] Chodorowski, M. J., (2005), Superluminal apparent motions in distant radio
sources, arxiv: astro-ph/0407478v3 14jan.
[Mirabel and Mirabel, I.F.; Rodriguez, L.F. (1994). "A superluminal source in the Galaxy".
Rodriguez, 1994] Nature. 371 (6492): pp.4648, doi:10.1038/371046a0
[Rees, 1966] Rees M. J., (1966), Appearance of Relativistically Expanding Radio

Sources, Nature, vol.211, pp.468470, doi:10.1038/211468a0
[Rodriguez and Rodriguez L.F. and Mirabel F., (1995), Movimientos superlumnicos en la
Mirabel, 1995] galaxia, Ciencias, n40, pp. 20-26.
[Smoot, 1998] Smoot G.F., (1998), Superluminal motion, Physics 139 Relativity,
aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/superluminal.pdf
Superluminal motion, slow and fast light
[Gehring, 2006] Gehring G. M., Schweinsberg A., Barsi C., Kostinski N., Boyd R. W.,
(2006), Observation of backward pulse propagation through a medium with
a negative group velocity. Science. Vol.312 (5775), pp. 8957.
doi:10.1126/science.1124524.
[Malykin and Malykin, G.B. and Romanets, (2012), Superluminal motion (review),
Romanets, 2012] Optics and Spectroscopy, vol.112 (6), pp. 920-934,
doi:10.1134/S0030400X12040145
[Recami et al., 2000] Recami E., Fontana F., Garavaglia R., (2000), Special relativity and
superluminal motions: discussion of some recent experiments, International
journal of modern physics A, vol.15 (18), doi: 10.1142/S0217751X00001403
[Schweinsberg, 2006] Schweinsberg A., Lepeshkin N. N., Bigelow M. S., Boyd, R. W., Jarabo S.
(2006), Observation of superluminal and slow light propagation in erbium-
doped optical fiber. Europhysics Letters (EPL). Vol.73 (2), pp. 218224.
doi:10.1209/epl/i2005-10371-0.
Astrophysical jets
[Beall, 2015] Beall, J. H. , (2015), A Review of Astrophysical Jets, Proceedings of

Science: Vol.58.
[Blandfrod et al., Blandford R., Agol E., Broderick A., Heyl J., Koopmans L., Lee H., (2001),
2001] Compact objects and accretion disks, Arxiv: astro-ph/0107228v1 13 jul
Tunnel effect
[Aichmann and Aichmann H., Nimtz G., (2013), The superluminal tunneling story, arxiv:
Nimtz, 2013] physics.gen-ph/1304.3155
[Chiao et al., 1993] Chiao, R. Y., Kwiat, P. G. and Steinberg A. M., (1993), Faster than light?,
Scientific American, vol.269 (2), pp. 38 46
[Nimtz and Heitmann, Nimtz, G. and Heitmann W., (1997), Superluminal photonic tunneling and
quantum electronics, Progress in Quantum Electronics, vol. 21 (2), pp.81-
84
2017
J. Joglar Alcubilla
1997] 108, doi:10.1016/S0079-6727(97)84686-1
[Nimtz, 2006] Nimtz, G. (2006). Do evanescent modes violate relativistic causality?,

Lecture Notes in Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol.702, pp. 506531.
doi:10.1007/3-540-34523-X_19.
[Nimtz and G. Nimtz, A.A. Stahlhofen, (2007), Macroscopic violation of special

Stahlhofen, 2007] relativity. arXiv: quant-ph /0708.0681.
[Nimtz, 2010] G. Nimtz, , (2010),Tunneling Violates Special Relativity, arxiv:quant-

ph/1003.3944v1
[Perelman, 2005] Perelman M. E. (2005), Uncertainty relations describing the short-term

violations of Lorentz invariance: superluminal phenomena, particles
transformations, arxiv: quant-ph/0510123v1
[Steinberg et al., Steinberg, A. M., Kwiat, P. G., and Chiao, R. Y., (1993), Measurement of
1993] the single-photon tunneling time. Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol.71 (5), pp.708-711
[Winful, 2002] Winful H.G., (2002), Energy storage in superluminal barrier tunneling:
Origin of the Hartman effect, Optical society of America, vol.10 (25).
Gamma ray burst (GRB)
[Frail et al., 2001] Frail D.A., Kulkarni S.R., Sari R., Djorgovski S.G., Bloom J.S., Galama T.J.,
Reichart D.E., Berger E., Harrison F.A., Price P.A., Yost S.A., Diercks A.,
Goodrich R.W., Chaffee F., (2001), Beaming in Gamma-Ray Bursts:
Evidence for a Standard Energy Reservoir, Arxiv.org: astro-ph/0102282
[Meszaros, 2006] Meszaros P., (2006), Gamma-ray burst, Arxiv.org: astro.ph/0605208v5
[Meszaros and Rees, Meszaros P., Rees M.J., (1993), Relativistic fireballs and their impact on
1993] external matter: models for cosmological gamma-ray bursts, The
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 405, pp.: 278-284
[Nousek et al., 2006] Nousek J.A., Kouveliotou C., Grupe D., Page K.L., Granot J., Ramirez-Ruiz
E., Patel S.K.,. Burrows D.N, Mangano V., Barthelmy S., Beardmore A.P.,
Campana S., Capalbi M., Chincarini G., Cusumano G., Falcone A.D.,
Gehrels N., Giommi P., Goad M.R., Godet O., Hurkett C.P., Kennea J.A.,
Moretti A.,. OBrien P.T, Osborne J.P., Romano P., Tagliaferri G., Wells
A.A., (2006), Evidence for a Canonical Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow Light
Curve in the Swift XRT Data, Arxiv.org: astro-ph/0508332v2
[Paczynski and Paczynski B., Rhoads J.E., (1993), Radio Transients from Gamma-Ray
Rhoads, 1993] Bursters, Arxiv.org: astro-ph/9307024
[Paczynski, 1995] Paczynski B., (1995), How far away are gamma ray bursters?, Arxiv.org:
astro-ph/9505096
[Piran, 2009] Piran T., (2009), Bohdans Impact on Our Understanding of Gamma-Ray
Bursts, The Variable Universe: A Celebration of Bohdan PaczynskiASP
Conference Series, Vol. 403, pp. 131-149.
[Zhang, 2009] Zhang B., (2009) Constraining GRB jet composition using Fermi data,
Fermi Symposium, Hyatt Regency Washington, Capitol Hill
85
1st of
Cherenkov Radiation
[Cerenkov, 1937] Cerenkov, P.A., (1937), Visible Radiation Produced by Electrons Moving in
a Medium with Velocities Exceeding that of Light. Physical Review 52:
378, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.52.378
[Cerenkov, 1958] Cerenkov, P.A., (1958), Radiation of particles moving at a velocity

exceeding that of light, and some of the possibilities for their use in
experimental physics, Nobel Lecture Dec.1958, pp. 426-440
[Ginzburg, 1972] Ginzburg, V. L., (1972), About the radiation of electromagnetic and
gravitational waves by the sources moving with velocity greater than velocity
of light in a vacuum, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, vol.4,
pp. 41-46.
Phase velocity and group velocity
[Chiao, 2011] Chiao R., (2011), Superluminal phase and group velocities: A tutorial on
Sommerfelds phase, group, and front velocities for wave motion in a
medium, with applications to the instantaneous superluminality of
electrons, arxiv: physics.class-ph/1111.2402v1
[Nimtz and Haibel, Nimtz G. and Haibel A., (2001), Basics of superluminal signals, arxiv:
2001] physics.class-ph/0104063v1
[Wang et al., 2000] Wang, L.J., Kuzmich A., Dogariu, A., (2000), Gain-assisted superluminal
light propagation, Nature, vol. 406, pp. 277-279.
Quantum entanglement
[Einstein et al., 1935] Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N., (1935), Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, Physical Review
vol.47, pp.777-780.
[Ghirardi et al., 1988] Ghirardi G.C. et al, (1988), Experiments of the EPR Type Involving CP-
Violation Do not Allow Faster-than-Light Communication between Distant
Observers, Europhys. Lett. 6 (2), pp.95-100
[Yin et al., 2013] Yin J., Cao Y., Yong H., Ren J., Liang H., Liao S., Zhou F., Liu C., Wu Y.,
Pan G., Li L., (2013),Bounding the speed of spooky action at a distance,
arxiv: quant-ph/1303.0614v2.
Radiant Cavity Theory
[Eisberg and Resnick, Eisberg R, Resnick R, (1989), Fsica Cuntica, Cap.1, Editorial Limusa,
1989] ISBN 9681804198.
[Sanchez and Mejas, Sanchez C., Mejas P. M., (1991), Fsica Cuntica, Cap1, Editorial
1991] EUDEMA, ISBN 8477540772.
86

Research Papers Relativity Theory Science Journal 6947

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Papers Relativity Theory Science Journal 6947

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Papers Relativity Theory Science Journal 6947

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extended Relativity Theory

Javier Joglar Alcubilla

June 1st , 2017

It is intended to demonstrate that the speed limit of light c, imposed by Contemporary

1 Quantization of Information Transmission (Inf_Tx) ..................................................................... 7

Experiment 1-1: Obtaining Lorentz transformations in SR....................................................8

Experiment 1-2: Relativity of distances and times in SR ......................................................11

Experiment 1-3: Influence of relative motion on wavelength with SR ............................12

Experiment 1-4: Disturbances displacement diagrams with SR .........................................14

Experiment 1-5: Lorentz transformations in ER, speed 1_coordinate ...........................16

Experiment 1-5B: Lorentz transformations in ER, speed n_coordinate ........................18

Experiment 1-6: Relativity of distances and times in ER, 1_coordinate .........................22

Experiment 1-6B: Relativity of distances and times in ER, n_coordinate......................25

Experiment 1-7: Disturbances displacement diagrams with ER. Incident, reflected

Relative Jets ............................................................................................................................................42

Gamma ray bursts, GRB ...................................................................................................................42

Cerenkov radiation ..............................................................................................................................44

Experiment 1-8: Influence of relative motion on wavelength with ER ...........................44

Experiment 1-9: Determination of actual subluminal or superluminal velocity ..........47

Superluminal apparent movement ................................................................................................49

Experiment 1-10: Relativity of distances and times in ER ...................................................49

Experiment 1-11: Relativity of distances and times in ER applying Hypothesis 3 ....54

2 Minkowski Diagrams ......................................................................................................................................57

Experiment 2-1: Tachyonic Antitelephone paradox: solution with ER ....................60

Experiment 2-2: MD for subluminal and superluminal events.........................................61

Event intervale invariance .............................................................................................................63

Velocities at speed 0_coordinate .................................................................................................65

3 Harmonic wave analysis ................................................................................................................................67

Experiment 3-1: Wave equation according to SR ...............................................................67

Experiment 3-2: Introduction to harmonic analysis according to ER .........................70

Experiment 3-3: Wave equation according to ER ...............................................................73

Experiment 3-4: Harmonic analysis according to ER generically ................................75

4 Theory of the radiant cavity ..........................................................................................................................77

The superluminal tunnel effect, supported by G. Nimtz, has attempted to be rebutted by

Contemporary theories in the twentieth century incorporate the concept of universe

For example, H. Javadi defines so-called non-rest particles of superluminal virtual

In chapter 1, we will initially develop 4 basic experiments that summarize SR concepts,

1. Use physical parameters associated with material displacement, accurately defining

1. Quantization of Information Transmission (Inf_Tx)

Experiment 1-1: Obtaining Lorentz transformations in SR.

x' 2 + y ' 2 + z ' 2 = c 2 t ' 2 (1-1)

Figure 1.1 Context of the experiment 1-1

Its application in (1-4) leads to:

Lorentz transformations obtained will be in the form:

The first and fourth equations of (1-7) can be set as,

Experiment 1-2: Relativity of distances and times in SR.

2l ' = ct ' (1-8)

For O, however, we have:

Figure 1.2 Context of the experiment 1-2

Moreover, as to both observers their relative speed is the same, i.e.

v = L / t = L' / t ' , with v < c (1-12)

Given that L / L ' = t / t ' , it can be said that:

Experiment 1-3: Influence of relative motion on wavelength with SR.

Supposed an observer O ( x,t , ) emitting omnidirectional light with wavelength , and

L' L' ' 2

Graphically, it can be expressed as follows in Figure 1.3:

(O approaches to O) (O separates from O)

Experiment 1-4: Disturbances displacement diagrams with SR.

Assuming two observers at rest, O1 ( x1 , t ) and O2 (x 2 , t ) ,separated by a fixed distance r.