Hi Darth
I think you are wrong in stating that observations rule out the theory. The strength of the gravitational field of the earth is about GM/rc^2 = 10^-9. The entire planet reduces the equivalent mass of an object by that factor. Near the surface, raising an object by a distance h increases its equivalent mass by a factor of about (h/r)(GM/rc^2), which is 10^-14 for h = 60 meter. I doubt if any earthbound experiment could be considered decisive.
Colin
Dear Colin,
I regret but who is wrong is you. You have to computate the gravitational mass in a free falling reference frame and the inertial mass in a inertial reference frame which is very far from every source of gravitational field. The Equivalence is between such reference frames. A reference frame in which you measures the strength of the gravitational field CANNOT be used to test Equivalence Principle.
Best regards,
Darth
Dear Vladimir,
I agree with you that action-at-a-distance is a conceptual problem in most physical theories. In quantum physics the existence of carrier particles is assumed, which are transferred between distant objects, while other models propose the existence of some ubiquitous ether, which has the only job to transport information. But as long as the outcome of an interaction is independent of the method of transfer, the answer to this question is rather academic.
But an important question is, if the transfer to distant points is simultaneous or limited to some maximum velocity. In GR it is generally assumed that every interaction is limited to the speed of light. Causality requires that action-at-a-distance is a chain of information transport processes, which cannot exceed this speed. You may describe it as a propagating twist of ether nodes or any other transfer process. The important fact is that any action is limited to the speed of light. The chain of causalities and its relation to the distance of interacting objects defines the notion of time. Just as there is a shortest spatial connection of objects, which we call their distance, there is a shortest causal connection of distant events, which we call the temporal distance.
Best regards,
Ernst
Inclusion of potential energy in the energy tensor does in no way violate the Equivalence Principle as it affects acceleration and gravity in exactly the same way, even at a level of 10^-13. That the motion of test masses is not exactly geodesic is true. Geodesic motion must always be regarded as an approximation, which is valid as long as the contribution of the test mass to the metric is negligible. This is just the main aspect in the definition of "test mass". But by principle every motion of a test mass changes the geometry of space and thus it produces a back reaction. There is one essential difference between force free motion in Newtonian physics and geodesic motion in General Relativity: In curved space motion along a geodesic line does not imply conservation of kinetic energy of the moving mass.
Ernst Fischer
Dear Anton,
I agree with you that the existence of a global cosmic time, as it is assumed in Big Bang cosmology, is not justified. Time is a parameter imposed to changes and interactions by the finite speed of causality. Time depends on distance and not, as assumed in Big Bang theory, distance depends on time (on a clock outside the universe). I must confess that I have not understood all the thoughts in your essay, but the basic fact that the universe must be a self consistent entity without any rules imposed from outside appears to me very reasonable.
Ernst
Hi Darth
I wonder if you are overlooking an important point in the paper. The equivalence principle essentially becomes:
inertial mass = gravitational mass plus change in potential
For example, the author states on page 4: "Thus it appears logical to consider the summed density of [gravitational] mass energy and potential energy as the equivalent to [inertial] mass energy in Euclidean space." (I added 'gravitational' and 'inertial' to make the context clear, to the best of my understanding.) This is also the theme of Majernik's paper.
Colin
Dear Colin,
in general relativity not only the potential depends from the coordinates, but also its changing. For example, in the two references frames that I cited the gravitational field is null. Hence, its potential is null and also its changing.
I suggest you to carefully read Misner, Wheeler, Thorne, "Gravitation", Freeman and Company (1973) pages 466-468. The stress energy tensor of the gravitational field does not exist. It is a pseudo-tensor, i.e. a coordinate-dependent quantity.
Best regards,
Darth
Sorry, I realized to be wrong. The case of the perfect radially symmetric gravitating objects is an exception, please, do not consider my previous posts.
Best regards,
Darth
Dear Ernst Fischer
Your work is similar to my work in my paper http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2310
But the difference you depending on the GRT. In my modified relativity (special and General) theory according to quantum theory concepts and principles, the Lorentz factor is equivalent to something like refractive index. and thus when Einstein proposed the light moving through the gravitational field in a geodesic path that is because to illustrate why the light is taking during his trip more time separation according according to a clock faraway from this field, and thus he proposed according to an observer faraway from the field the light will take more distance (Geodesic path) and thus it takes more time separation according to a clock faraway. This increasing in the distance and time will lead to measuring the light speed to equal c light speed in vacuum for an observer faraway. I don't say Einstein's interpretation is wrong, but what I say the two interpretations as the light bending by gravity or diffracted is the same meaning.The Geodesic path is coming from the refractive index around the mass M is changing according to the distance r from the center of mass M. But in the case of inertial frame, the refractive index (Lorentz factor) is constant depending on the speed of the moving frame which is constant. If you review my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 you will see how the contradiction between quantum and relativity can be solved and everything in physics can be solved
Dear Ernst
Very nicely argued essay on an important foundational question. As an astronomer my work has paralleled this and identified the source of re-ionization as toroidal EM 'twin vortex' AGN activity, the 'neutron star' crab nebula core showing the process as scale invariant. This then points to evidence of the anisotropic CMB 'flow' on the 'axis of evil' and computer derived 'spiral' resolution of the CMB quadrupolar asymmetry, suggesting pre big bang conditions and a variant of the Dicke/Peebles model cyclic universe. Your work looks very important in terms of a consistent mathematical model for the ontology to support. I am by the way now no mathematician since finding a number of areas where mathematical abstraction has mislead us.
You may be interested to know that there was a peak of AGN quasar activity which has been hidden by a stellar locus, and indicates a recycling period, (discussed in detail a current paper, yet unpublished). There is much other misinterpreted evidence in astronomy and I've derived a full new galactic recycling model. I did post a short preprint on viXra a while ago, but this is purely a 'popular' explanation of an extended version consistent with your far more professional and quantitative approach. I hope and believe our work may inform each others.
I discussed this briefly in last year's (finalist) essay '2020 vision' http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 but only refer to it obliquely and mainly in the end notes this year. My essay is on the rest of the consistent ontological basis at which cosmic recycling and re-ionization forms the core, which can unify QM and Classical Physics, even consistently with the SR postulates.
I hope you'll find the time to read my essay, which has easy read theatrical metaphores but goes to the heart of kinetics and SR, and I feel will test anyone's intellect and visualization skills to the full. I look forward to discussing more and will send a link. I hope I may cite you in the current draft. Do you have any recent published papers on this theme?
Well done and best of luck.
Peter
Dear Ernst Fischer,
Tom has misunderstood my question about the one degree of freedom (probably because it was poorly stated.)
I am asking about "particles" inside a black hole. My assumption (and the apparent meaning of a recent paper in Phys Rev Letters) is that particles inside a black hole do not 'bounce around' in three directions as they do in thermal materials such as metals. If the black hole is spinning, then the assumption is that all of the particles 'constituting' the hole are moving, locally, in one direction, hence one degree of freedom. This is an important point for my ideas, so I am trying to clarify how others think about such phenomena.
Thanks again. I will have another question for you when I can figure out how to best phrase it. I find your essay fascinating.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Ernst, Dear Vladimir
It is important for you to read my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272
I discuss your problem about action-at-a-distance, and I have a solution. I found faster than light can exists, and by my solution, in this case there is no violation in Lorentz transformation or causality. I think you can understand my essay and criticize it. I really need your criticism.
Dear Ernst
Thanks for your response. I agree with you that the velocity of light is the upper limit, but - depending on how one observes it light can slow down in gravitational fields. Clocks slow down in such fields and measuring rods contract, so the measured speed remains c. However in an absolute universe (ie a Lorentzian, not Einsteinian) one can compare distances traveled, and light appears to decelerate and hence curve in gradient gravitational fields. I know this plays havoc with the premises of SR and GR but I think such a timeless absolute universe is another way to look at the same situation. The sort of energy I am speaking about is vacuum potential energy which increases in gravitational fields...again this sort of statement can only make sense in a new theory of how things work. It makes sense in mine, but it is still a sketch of a theory!
Azzam I shall try to read and respond to your paper on your page.
Cheers
Vladimir
you seem rational Mr the anonymous,
Why you do not put your real name? you are a celebrity or what ? :)
The equivalence principle is indeed at all 3D scales.
But why people interpret the deterministic Universal 3D sphere with bizare superimposings?
simple and complex....
Regards
The TOV equations describe a static distribution of matter. The det(-g) leading to sqrt(h) and the potential is a reflection of this fact. The result that
m= 4π∫ρr^2dr 4πG∫ρdr/rc^2
is then due to nongeodesic motion, say at some point or radial distance in the interior. As a result your conclusion there is no singularity or horizon is built into the initial assumptions.
Ernst,
If, as I argue, the concept of cosmic time is invalid, makes no sense at all, then we can no longer assert that light has a (finite) velocity, so the 'speed' of light c refers to a property of spacetime (which is why all observers, no matter their own motion measure the same value for c): this insight of course changes everything in physics.
I don't agree with your statement that time depends on distance but not vice versa. Whereas a Big Bang Universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) contains and produces all time within, so if an inside observer is to see clocks showing an earlier time, objects in an earlier phase of their evolution as they are farther away (and, as I argue, NOT because it takes their light time to reach us, it doesn't), then time must be observed to pass slower at larger distances, no matter the position the observer looks from. This does not mean that time depends on distance, only the observation of its pace: we can as well say that some object is physically more distant as inside processes are observed to proceed at a slower pace. In a SCU a space distance corresponds to a time distance, a fact which has nothing to do with the passing of time or with light whatsoever. In a SCU there is a time distance between any two different space positions even if nothing happens: a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all. Unfortunately, this fact will only be accepted when we acknowledge that causality, in the final analysis, is a religious rather than a scientific concept. If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum, or it ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything.
My essay, short as it had to be, only could summarize the main arguments and conclusions of a far more extensive study you may find interesting and can be found at www.quantumgravity.nl. I think that there's enough food for thought in it to make up for its many flaws. If you do, I'd very much like to hear your comment on it: as a work in progress, it can only benefit from critique.
Anton
Dear Vladimir
I feel uncomfortable with all those theories which ascribe energy or other properties to the vacuum. Such models require the existence of an absolute space and interactions with this vacuum demand an absolute time. To my opinion the only things that count are spatial and causal distances which set up a relative space-time continuum, in which the spatial distance (the shortest spatial connection) is related to the shortest causal connection by the constant c and thus defines the notion of time. The timeless absolute universe, which you mention, appears to be as a purely philosophical abstraction to express that the notion of distance and time are not absolute, but both are internal parameters to describe relations of objects and their change.
Best regards,
Ernst
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Thank you for correcting the question on degrees of freedom. I think that particles inside a black hole, or better to say inside nuclear matter, do not 'bounce around'. Degeneracy energy or pressure should rather be considered as an internal degree of freedom, which is coupled, however, by the quantum mechanical interaction to the neighbouring particles. If the complete system is spinning, there is indeed one and only one additional degree of freedom, as the relative position of the individual particles is fixed by their quantum mechanical interference so that the system acts like a rigid body.
Best regards,
Ernst
Dear Peter,
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I have read your essay, too. But for me it is difficult to find out, what the basic idea behind your view of the universe is and why it can unify QM and classical physics consistently with SR. I would have preferred a more mathematical form. But I assume that this is a problem of my way of thinking.
You ask for recently published papers on this theme. Some years ago I have written an extensive paper, in which I have tried to set up an equilibrium model of the universe without a Big Bang singularity, looking for alternative explanations of red shift, microwave background, chemical element composition and cosmic structure formation. (arXiv:0708.3577)
Discussion of red shift, which should be present also in a static universe, can be found at (arXiv:0805.1638).
The properties of homogeneous static solutions of the Einstein equation under the assumption that time is not absolute, but may dependon distance, can also be found in a published paper (ApSS 325, 69-74 (2010)).
Best regards,
Ernst
Dear Ernst,
I'm really interested with your previous comment. Please, have you read my essay in order to discuss. According to my essay I solved all the contradictions between quantum (Copenhagen School) and relativity (special and general). What I proposed is solving the related problems between GR and quantum field theory.
please read my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002
According to this paper I answered the question related to your previous comment.
Azzam
