Hello everyone,

I've got a theory I would like to share with some people more knowledgeable on the subject of physics than me. I am merely a self-taught physics enthusiast and my knowledge is limited to only a few subjects and experiments. It would not surprise me if my theory is disproved by one of you instantly, but the results of it seem to fit exceptionally well in our reality - at least the bits of it I know.

Let me start off with the theory: every particle travels at the speed of light when you consider all three spatial dimensions and the time dimension. Particles can not slow down; they can only turn so that they speed up in one dimension but slow down in another. So:

c^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + dt^2

c^2 = v^2 + dt^2

Where c is the speed of light, dx, dy and dz are the velocities in the x, y and z direction, dt the velocity in the time dimension and v the velocity over all three spatial dimensions.

The fact that this does not agree on Einstein's relativity theory would have set me off following up on this theory, but bare with me for a little bit anyway: I shall explain the consequences of velocity induced time dilation now, and how this differs from Einstein's formula.

Take two different objects with velocities V1 = { dx1, dy1, dz1 } and V2 = { dx2, dy2, dz2 }, and velocities over the time dimension of dt1 and dt2. The length of the vectors V1 and V2 will be denoted as v1 = ||V1|| and v2 = ||V2||.

Now:

c^2 = v1^2 + dt1^2

c^2 = v2^2 + dt2^2

v1^2 + dt1^2 = v2^2 + dt2^2

dt1^2 - (v2^2 - v1^2) = dt2^2

dt1^2*[1 - (v2^2 - v1^2)/dt1^2] = dt2^2

As dt1^2 = c^2 - v1^2

dt1/dt2 = 1/sqrt[1 - (v2^2 - v1^2)/(c^2 - v1^2)]

Where Einstein's velocity's induced time dilation formula states:

dt1/dt2 = 1/sqrt[1 - (v2 - v1)^2/c^2]

Of course, the following formula can also be used, though it is harder to see the relation to Einstein's formula:

dt1/dt2 = sqrt[(c^2 - v1^2)/(c^2 - v2^2)]

The only differences are in the nominator and the denominator of the division inside the square root, and for slow speeds for the slowest moving objects the difference seems to be immeasurable. For example, take the results from the experiment described here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963AmJPh..31..342FThe particles were moving by speeds of on average approximately 0.9952c. The measurement was done from earth, which has an average velocity of approximately 30 km/s. The difference between Einstein's and this formula for time dilation is (where v1 ~ 30*10^3 and v2 ~ 0.9952c):

1/sqrt[1 - (v2^2 - v1^2)/(c^2 - v1^2)] - 1/sqrt[1 - (v2 - v1)^2/c^2] ~ 0.105

It seems from the abstract that both formulas would pass the expectance of the results of Einstein's formula, hence even at these speeds this theory does not seem to be disproven.

Note that I could not reproduce the exact numbers from their calculations, so I can not confirm this with certainty.

Recently, however, particles have been found that seem to travel faster than light. The following article describes this in moderate detail:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinosThis might be the result of the slightly increased time dilation factor. Assuming this theory is correct, an observer could mistakenly calculate a particle exceeding the speed of light when using Einstein's formula, though my knowledge of physics is nowhere near good enough to determine when this would be the case.

A few results from this theory:

1. Photons (and the other forms of energy) travel at light speed, so they do not move forward in time.

2. E = mc^2 and E = 0.5mv^2 get a whole new form of relationship. E = 0.5mv^2 is true when considering only energy in the spatial dimensions. Velocity, after all, is only the movement through those dimensions. When considering also the velocity in time, dt, then v^2 + dt^2 = c^2. Hence, E = mc^2 is similar expanding the other formula over an additional dimension, except for the disappearance of the 0.5 constant which I believe can be added to this without any unexpected results.

This is only a work for initial considerations of the theory. Of course it would also change length contraction and gravitational time dilation, and it would probably have a lot more consequences that I am not learned or clever enough to imagine.

My question is: is there any experimental result that disproves this? And if not, is there any reason you would consider this unlikely?

Thank you for your attention,

gespex, signed:

d05b59a0631ecf010bc767b79ba6602a

27ed7403c282fd99ab9b8f5089397c28