Oversimplification of Einstein’s Original 1905 Postulates

May 13, 2025

In a critical and insightful clarification, physicist André Michaud revisits the foundational postulates of Einstein’s 1905 paper Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), highlighting a significant divergence between Einstein’s original wording and the modern textbook formulations of special relativity.

The Common Modern Interpretation

Today, the postulates of special relativity are typically summarized as:

1. The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant in all inertial frames of reference.

2. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

While this version has become standard, Michaud points out that this is not how Einstein originally expressed these principles. The current phrasing subtly shifts the focus of Einstein’s arguments and introduces interpretative assumptions that were not explicitly stated in 1905.

Einstein’s Actual Formulations in 1905

First Postulate (1905 Original):

“Sich das Licht im leeren Raume stets mit einer bestimmten, vom Bewegungszustande des emittierenden Körpers unabhängigen Geschwindigkeit V fortplanze.”

Translation: “Light always propagates in empty space at a certain speed V independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”

This formulation centres on the independence of light’s speed from the motion of its source, rather than asserting its invariance across all observers or frames. The distinction is subtle but significant: Einstein emphasized emission independence, not frame-invariant observation.

Second Postulate (1905 Original):

“Für alle Koordinatensysteme, für welche die mechanischen Gleichungen gelten, auch die gleichen elektrodynamischen und optischen Gesetze gelten.”

Translation: “For all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations apply, the same electrodynamic and optical laws also apply.”

Here, Einstein asserts the applicability of electromagnetic and optical laws within the same frames that respect Newtonian mechanics—inertial frames. He did not claim universal symmetry of all physical laws across all reference frames, as is often implied in later interpretations.

Historical Context and Neglected Work

Michaud further contextualizes this misinterpretation by drawing attention to a critical moment in physics history. In 1907, the growing acceptance of Special Relativity led the scientific community to set aside the earlier efforts of Wilhelm Wien, who had attempted to synchronize electromagnetic theory with kinetic mechanics. According to Michaud, this promising line of inquiry was prematurely abandoned, leaving a gap in the unified understanding of motion and field dynamics.

Michaud contends that this unification has now been achieved in his work titled:

"Electromagnetic and Kinematic Mechanics Synchronized in Their Common Frame of Reference."

This study seeks to fulfill the original spirit of unification Einstein pursued—through a framework that reintegrates electrodynamics with classical inertial motion principles on more physically grounded terms.

Scientific and Philosophical Implications

The importance of Michaud’s clarification extends beyond historical accuracy. It opens a broader discussion about how foundational postulates are transmitted, reinterpreted, and often oversimplified in the progression of scientific paradigms. By returning to Einstein’s original German text, Michaud demonstrates how nuanced and context-sensitive Einstein’s thinking was, and how easily such nuance can be lost when distilled into modern axioms.

His analysis encourages physicists and theorists to engage more critically with the assumptions embedded in postulates and to re-examine whether alternative or complementary formulations—such as those emerging in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) or wave-based dynamics—may offer more complete or realistic descriptions of physical phenomena.

On the Fundamental Origin and Upper Bound of the Speed of Light:

May 12, 2025

The historical derivation of the speed of light from Maxwell’s equations establishes its value in terms of the vacuum permittivity and permeability (c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀)). This result, while mathematically robust within classical electrodynamics, does not account for the invariance of the speed of light across all inertial frames. That invariance is not derived from Maxwell’s theory but is adopted as a foundational postulate in the formulation of special relativity.

Moreover, Maxwell’s framework operates within specific reference frames and does not inherently explain the physical origin or upper bound of the speed of light. In contrast, the Planck scale—introduced in 1899—offers a more fundamental perspective. The smallest physically meaningful units, the Planck length (Lₚ) and Planck time (Tₚ), define a natural upper bound on velocity, expressed as:

   c = Lₚ / Tₚ

This expression arises from dimensional analysis within quantum gravity and not from classical field equations. It provides a boundary condition that limits all propagation processes, including those involving particles or wave phenomena associated with effective or apparent mass.

As such, the value of c is not explained within the frameworks of classical electromagnetism or special relativity, but rather bounded by physical constraints implied at the Planck scale. Reintroducing the classical derivation of c without acknowledging the quantum-gravitational context overlooks the deeper issue: neither Maxwell’s equations nor special relativity explain why the speed of light is c—they either compute or assume it. The Planck scale offers a more foundational interpretation by establishing the physical boundary that constrains this value.

Sincerely,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Photon Behaviour Under Negative Apparent Mass in ECM:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

May 11, 2025

In the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework, the photon—being perpetually in motion—is modelled as a massless particle with a dynamic negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ), distinguishing it fundamentally from ordinary matter. This −Mᵃᵖᵖ accounts for the photon's repulsive interaction with massive bodies and its resistance to gravitational attraction, balanced by an intrinsic energy expenditure.

The effective acceleration (aᵉᶠᶠ) of the photon is state-dependent:

* Upon emission within a gravitationally bound system, the photon exhibits aᵉᶠᶠ = 2c, leading to an effective force of Fₚₕₒₜₒₙ = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ · aᵉᶠᶠ.

* As the photon escapes the gravitational influence of the source, aᵉᶠᶠ reduces to c, and the force becomes Fₚₕₒₜₒₙ = −Mᵃᵖᵖ · aᵉᶠᶠ, reflecting the energetic cost of decoupling from the source's gravitational field.

Although the photon tends toward infinite velocity and frequency due to its −Mᵃᵖᵖ-driven dynamics, this behaviour is constrained by the Planck thresholds:

    f < fₚ ; λ > lₚ and Δt > Tₚ.

These bounds define the photon's maximum frequency and minimum wavelength, stabilizing its propagation speed at c—the maximum permissible speed under ECM, assuming vacuum conditions.

In refractive or reflective media, photons are entirely absorbed and re-emitted by bound electrons. This interaction introduces a time delay between incidence and re-emission, lowering the photon’s effective frequency and causing a transient reduction in speed. Nevertheless, these effects are environmental and do not contradict the constancy of photon speed in free space.

Thus, under ECM, the photon's behaviour—including its effective acceleration, energy dissipation, and Planck-limited oscillation—is a direct consequence of its negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) and the fundamental constraints of the vacuum medium.

Can Spinning a Crystal Distort Time? This Experiment Says Yes—Without Einstein

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Tagore's Electronic Lab, India

May 10, 2025

In a laboratory experiment, scientists spun a special type of crystal called a piezoelectric—a material known for generating electricity when it's squeezed or stretched. But here’s the twist: they didn’t apply any power at all. They simply rotated the crystal, and it began to generate a clean 50 Hz electrical signal entirely on its own.

Even more curious? That signal started to drift in time. Imagine a metronome ticking, but each tick slowly shifting forward. This steady “phase shift” wasn’t noise or error—it was perfectly matched to how fast the crystal was spinning. That means the act of rotating the crystal was somehow affecting the timing of the signal it produced.

So what’s going on?

This surprising behaviour actually fits beautifully with the fundamental principles of piezoelectricity: the internal structure of the crystal responds to mechanical stress—in this case, the stresses caused by rotation. But there’s a deeper message. The experiment points to a bold new idea called Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), which suggests that motion—especially acceleration—can change how time flows inside matter.

In short, this crystal didn’t just make electricity—it acted like a clock whose rhythm was bent by motion. No need for satellites or speed-of-light travel—just an ordinary device showing that even here on Earth, motion can subtly reshape time.

This ground breaking result opens new doors for precision sensors, navigation tech, and even how we understand time itself. Sometimes, spinning a crystal is all it takes to shake up physics.

Experimental Phase Shift in Rotating Piezoelectric Device

Soumendra Nath Thakur
Tagore's Electronic Lab, India
May 10, 2025

This experiment used a piezoelectric crystal—materials that can turn mechanical pressure into electrical signals—to explore how motion affects time. Normally, piezoelectric devices need electricity to work, but here, no electricity was applied. Instead, the crystal was simply rotated.

Surprisingly, the crystal started producing a clear 50 Hz electrical signal all on its own, and more importantly, that signal began to slowly drift in phase, meaning its timing was shifting little by little—like a second hand running slightly ahead or behind on a clock. This shift wasn’t random; it matched the speed of rotation, showing that the motion itself was causing a change in the crystal’s internal behaviour.

This lines up perfectly with how piezoelectric materials work: when they're squeezed, stretched, or rotated, their structure changes in ways that can generate electricity. The experiment showed that rotation was enough to create internal stresses in the crystal that made it behave like a tiny self-powered clock—one whose timing was subtly altered just by being spun.

These findings support a new physics idea called Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), which says that motion—especially acceleration—can directly affect how time flows inside matter. The phase drift we saw in the experiment is like a fingerprint of this effect. So in simple terms: spinning the crystal made it create its own voltage and shift its timing, proving that motion can affect time in a measurable, physical way—without needing relativity or space travel.