Invariance vs. Relativity: An Interview with Thanh Nguyen

One of the cool things about science is that no theory, no matter how widely accepted, is safe. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have had their work corrected or overturned by new discoveries. This could even happen to the cherished Theory of Relativity.

Today, we’re talking with Thanh Nguyen, whose Theory of Invariance challenges some of the ideas espoused by Einstein’s Relativity.

James Pailly: Thanh, thank you for joining us. First off, can you tell us a little about your scientific background?

Thanh Nguyen: I am at college level in Physics.

J.P.: So what is the Theory of Invariance and how is it different from the Theory of Relativity?

T.N.: The Special Theory of Relativity is a study of structure of space-time. It states that space and time cannot be separated and space-time can change depending on motion. While the Theory of Invariance was established on the perspective of absolute space and time. It is a study of relationship among energy, momentum, mass, motion and gravitation. Interestingly, the legendary equation E = mc² can be simply derived from this classical perspective.

J.P.: How do you define the speed of light, and how is it deferent than the definition used by relativity?

T.N.: In relativity, the speed of light in vacuum, denoted c, is defined as the distance light can travel through vacuum in a unit of time, and it is a constant. This definition causes a conflict between electromagnetism and classical mechanics in a universe of absolute space and time. The Special Theory of Relativity was established to reconcile the conflict with the concept of relativistic space-time.

While, in invariance, the speed of light in vacuum, denoted c, is defined as the rate of change of the distance between light and objects which are shined with the light, in a unit of time, in vacuum, and c is also a constant. The invariant definition does not cause any conflict between electromagnetism and classical mechanics in a universe of absolute space and time, and it is perfectly appropriate with empirical results of the Michelson-Morley experiment or the De Sitter binary stars observations.

J.P.: One thing that really caught my attention while reading your paper is the claim that black holes do not have event horizons.  This seems like a testable prediction that could help astronomers determine the validity of your theory.  Could you tell us more about black holes and how they function in an invariant universe?

T.N.: Black holes are mysterious objects predicted from the General Theory of Relativity. They are defined as regions of space having a gravitational field so intense that no matter or radiation can escape. Though most people have deeply believed in the existence of black holes, the Theory of Invariance disagrees with their existence. In the theory, I wrote “A black hole, if it exists, is a point with no volume and no event horizon.” It is one of ways to say that black holes do not exist. According to the Theory of Invariance, no matter how intense a gravitational field is, it cannot hold light.

J.P.: But haven’t astronomers already confirmed the existence of black holes?

T.N.: In relation to the existence of black holes, a mainstream scientist may answer: To the best knowledge of our current scientific understanding, black holes do exist. However, an anti-relativity scientist may have a different answer: To the best knowledge of our current scientific understanding, black holes do exist in a specific theory. Besides, we also have another answer in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

J.P.: Do you see the theory of invariance as an improvement upon Einstein’s relativity, or should we throw out relativity in favor of this new theory?

T.N.: I would see my theory as an improvement upon Newtonian mechanics instead of Einstein’s theory since it is based on the perspective of absolute space and time. In science, we should not put a theory aside until we have convincing evidences against it. Though anti-relativity fans so far have provided some negative experimental evidences, scientists who support the Theory of Relativity persistently say that it has passed every real experiment. So if we have stronger evidences, mainstream scientists might re-examine the Theory of Relativity. Currently, I have no experimental evidence against relativity. However, I thought of a low-cost experiment, which, if performed, will yield results falling in only one of two cases, being against relativity or against invariance.

Thanh has provided two links for anyone who would like to learn more about the theory of invariance:

• Click here for the introduction to the Theory of Invariance.
• Click here for Thanh’s paper on Theory of Invariance.

And remember: keep it sciency, my friends.