Essay Abstract

This paper aims at discussing two issues that can have a big impact on our understanding of properties of space-time and gravitation: 1)The existence of relativity of space-time geometry with respect to the properties of used reference frame, which in fact follows from the well-known fact of relativity of geometry of space and time with respect to properties of measuring instruments (Henri Poincaré). 2)The existence of the fact that the equations of motion of test particles in general relativity are invariant under a continuous group of geodesic (projective) maps of the metric tensor, and therefore they should play a role of gauge transformations in any theory of gravitation based on the hypothesis of the geodesic motion of free particles. Classical Einstein's equations are not invariant under these maps.

Author Bio

1938 Kharkov Karasin National University

Download Essay PDF File

a month later

Leonid

So as I understand it, the central idea is that inertial reference frames cannot be achieved, but are dependent on the measuring instrument? Then you considered the geodesic motion of a free particle in a field. The significance of this wasn't apparent to me by mere inspection of the mathematics. Perhaps you might like to explain this further, using the discussion forum?

Thank you

Dirk

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    Dear Dirk,

    Thank you for your interest in the problems that are discussed in this essay.

    We used to think that the geometry of physical space-time has an objective meaning, but it is -a misleading. This was shown by Henri Poincare. It is the same as to think that the properties of a microscopic object has an objective meaning that is independent from the act of measurement. In our case, as shown by Poincare, the properties of space-time depend on properties of the measuring instruments.Why this idea was not realized in physics? I think there are two reasons. First of all, - it happened under the influence of success of Einstein's theory. Secondly - it is just as difficult (and perhaps - even more difficult) than to develop quantum mechanics.My results are a very small step forward.

    I simply postulate that space-time in the inertial frame of reference - there is a Minkowski space. Then we can show that the space-time in reference frames formed by particles that move under the action of a given force field is non-Euclidean. What does this mean for the theory of gravity? This means that we must consider the geometry of space-time simultaneously with the properties used reference system. Namely, either 1) the Riemannian geometry in the "comoving" to test particles reference frame, or 2) Minkowski space in inertial reference frame. (That is, the general relativity PRINCIPLE - is not correct).

    In other words, if you are in the "comoving" reference system, the space-time is non-Euclidean (according to Einstein). However, you may think space-time is locally flat, by postulating that your system is inertial. Einstein's idea is correct in the "related" frames of reference!.

    Allow me to know how you understand, before continuing this explanation.

    2 months later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    Leonid. The fundamental averaging, equivalency, and balancing of inertia and gravity is what Einstein's theory of gravity truly lacks. This would fundamentally involve balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion, and averaged and balanced acceleration as well. Accordingly, this fundamentally demonstrates F=MA. What is not appreciated/not understood in physics is that space may be both invisible and visible in keeping with: 1) instantaneity, 2) the fact that gravity cannot be shielded, and with 3) gravity and inertia in fundamental equilibrium and balance.4) Gravity cannot be shielded.

    One of the requirements of unifying gravity and electromagnetism is balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. Einstein never did this, as he never had inertia, gravity, and acceleration in fundamental equilibrium and balance, thereby NEVER fundamentally demonstrating F=MA.

    FUNDAMENTALLY DEMONSTRATING F=MA DOES NOT ALLOW FOR FUNDAMENTALLY EXPANDING OR CONTRACTING SPACE. THE KEY IS TO SHOW, AS I HAVE DONE, SPACE THAT IS EXPANDED AND CONTRACTED IN EQUAL MEASURE.

      15 days later

      Leonid

      Well written. The maths became a little too much for me, but the subject matter was very pertinent and sensibly analysed. I'm surprised so few have read or commented. A very good quality essay.

      I was particularly interested as I think I have found an important new insight into the effects from using measurement instruments, leading directly to the SR postulates and a simpler space time understanding from, effective, the quantum mechanism of Raman scattering and dynamic logic. As a tempter, geometries do not commute as lambda does not, but the wave function does. A REAL mechanism and evolving process is described from identification of a series of wrong assumptions, consistent with most of your thoughts.

      Your approach is very different from my ontological construction of epistemological elements and evidence, but the conclusions seem to match, and the mechanism I suggest seems completely robust. Even if you only end up falsifying it that would be good too. But I hope, with ability to drop deeply held assumptions, you will make sense of what must be initially unfamiliar and end up helping in it's mathematical formulations.

      Best wishes, and well done.

      Peter

        Dear Leonid,

        I enjoyed your essay. I have a couple of questions:

        1. On page 7, you say, "Now our space-time can be regarded as a bimetric, and this fact has a deep physical meaning: It can be thought as a pseudo-Euclidean E in the IRFs and as a Riemannian V in the PRFs." Are you speaking only about gravity in this context?

        2. By "pseudo-Euclidean," do you always mean Minkowski space, or are you using the more general meaning?

        3. Do the new equations predict only supermassive objects without event horizon, or do they predict both objects with event horizons and objects without?

        I admire your perspective and look forward to reading more of your papers. Take care,

        Ben Dribus

          If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

          Sergey Fedosin

            2 months later

            Dear Frank,

            I would be very grateful to you for a links to your results.

            Sincerely

            Leonid

            Dear Peter,

            Thanks.

            Would you please give me a links to your results.

            Sincerely

            Leonid

            Dear Ben,

            Thanks.

            I apologize for the long absence in the forum.

            My explanations are follows:

            1. On page 7, you say, "Now our space-time can be regarded as a bimetric, and this fact has a deep physical meaning: It can be thought as a pseudo-Euclidean E in the IRFs and as a Riemannian V in the PRFs." Are you speaking only about gravity in this context?

            No. If in an IRF some force field is given, the space-time metric in PRFs of this field is determined by the Lagrangian governing the motion of particles under the influence of this field according to eq.(1).

            Sometimes, this metric has a simple form. For example, if the reference body is formed by non-interacting charges in a constant electromagnetic field, it is a Finsler metric, in the case of an ideal isentropic fluid - is a Riemannian metric wich is conformal to the Minkowski space, and in the case of gravity - is a Riemannian metric.

            2. By "pseudo-Euclidean," do you always mean Minkowski space, or are you using the more general meaning?

            I mean Minkowski metric, according to special relativity.

            3. Do the new equations predict only supermassive objects without event horizon, or do they predict both objects with event horizons and objects without?

            The new equations predict only supermassive objects without event horizon.

            This result does not contradict the observations. Furthermore, it is the properties of gravity near the event horizon can explain the features of the Hubble diagram at high redshifts up to z=8.

            But the problem is that the observation of supermassive objects, and the Hubble diagram can be explained without such a radical change in the theory.To prove the validity of these equations, and these ideas, we need to find facts that are difficult to explain in the orthodox theory.

            Sincerely,

            Leonid

            Leonid,

            Delighted. The essay may be the best start. In places the word constraint badly limited the explanation, so a 'quick scan' won't work, as all the new pieces are required to build the ontological construction. The result derives SR direct from an underlying quantum mechanism, with GR then emergent. 2012 Essay

            I agree your comment to Ben that current inconsistencies are the keys. As an astronomer I wade through them like waist deep (and rotting) fallen leaves! The structure of truth function logic re-appeared from my model (kinetic hierarchical 'nested' mutually exclusive frames as 'propositions') and seemed to blow them all away. I hope you find some connections. It needs help!

            A recycling model of galaxy evolution also emerged (without event horizons). For some reason the link isn't working but if you google viXra Jackson the Helical CMBR Asymmetry link should come up.

            Best wishes

            Peter

            • [deleted]

            • Post #13

            Dear Segey,

            Thank you very much

            Leonid Verozub

            Write a Reply...