Absolute or Relative Motion... or Something Else? by Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for the thought you've put into my essay. In answer to your first question, it is not the fact that the C-field has been measured that implies an absolute frame of reference. Rather, the fact that the field is real seems to imply that its energy cannot be transformed away by transforming to a frame in which velocity is zero. The analogous case for electromagnetic fields varies the 'ratio' of electric to magnetic field according to Lorentz transformation, but it is not clear to me that the same 'tradeoff' applies to the gravito-electric G-field and the gravito-magnetic C-field. I'm still thinking this through, which is why I said "one might conclude...".

I'm unsure about how to answer your question about 'moving the whole universe 5 meters to the left." I assume that you mean the 'frame' but not the contents of the frame, in which case the inducing particle momentum and circulating field would seem to be displaced to the right by 5 meters, but I am not sure how one performs this experiment or what detection means are available. I do agree that the measurement of any field defined in every space-time point does not entail that there is an absolute frame. It is rather the link between these circulating field points and the inducing local mass flow (that is, between the rotational momentum and the linear momentum) that seems to me to suggest absoluteness. As in the case of shifting the universe 5 meters to the left, I am unsure how one would go about experimentally obtaining the 3D snapshots that identify field points in this situation in such a manner that all local correlations are preserved.

As I understand it, local mass density is an ill-defined concept in general relativity, while the C-field circulation is induced by the motion of local mass density. So the coupling of this local phenomenon to global GR may be conceptually 'fuzzy'. Your questions focus on measuring 'point's in a field, while the phenomenon in question is a complicated angular flow of field induced by and interacting with a local mass density linear flow. I am still of the opinion that the time derivative of (curl C ~ -p) supports an 'absolute frame' interpretation, but I'm uncertain how to translate this into appropriate 'points' to answer your questions. As I noted in my first comment, you might find support for your essay in a more familiar framework in the essays by Janzen and Perez.

In recent conversations with others I seem to detect two conceptual frameworks in operation. One is focused on the mathematics, while the other focuses on the physical phenomena. Of course the two should be related, but where the emphasis is placed seems sometime to affect the initial conclusions. This is why I counsel against belief in Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe".

Thanks again for making the effort to understand how our essays might relate.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Daniel,

I have read your essay with great interest, especially because it dicusses an unsolved fundamental problem of modern physics: What is the cause of inertia?

I would like to draw your attention to a point that is often overlooked, but is of great importance with respect to our understanding of motion: The Law of Inertia implies a causal paradox of classical mechanics, which we still do not find resolved in modern physics. This paradox is even scarcely recognized as such.

In particular, setting the force, which is assumed to be the cause of the change of state of motion, equal to zero, there are still solutions with constant velocity.

According to the physicist Carl Friedrich von Weiszäcker one avoids the linguistic appearance of a paradox by appropriately calling force not the cause of motion but the cause of acceleration, and letting the state of motion be described by position and velocity (or momentum).

In brief, this state of motion varies in time although the condition F = 0 is given. In other words, there is no external influence that might be regarded as the cause of this persistent change of state.

V. Weizsäcker summarizes this as follows: "In contrast to the sensitive causal conscience of Aristotle and the scholastics, who searched for an explanation of the continued motion of a freely thrown body, in modern times we have simply renounced such an explanation of inertial motion. This renunciation is not a resignation in principle regarding causal explanation; it is none other than surrender in the face of an unsolved problem."

(in: The Structure of Physics, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, p. 24)

May be you will find this "paradox" somehow interesting. It is closely related to the notion of relational versus absolute motion.

Good luck for your well-written paper.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Dear Daniel,

I think if the equation of physics are written with the help of vectors and tensors they can be truly for absolute reference frame. Then if we have truly transformations of coordinate and time to any relative reference frame we will have truly picture in this frame. Then we have absolute and Relative Motion in different reference frames and both are equivalent to each other. The example of absolute reference frame is in Extended special theory of relativity, one concept of the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter in my Essay.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Hi Daniel,

The weak field approximation I use is derived in Hobson, Efstathiou and Lasenby's book, "General Relativity, An Introduction for Physicists" page 491. Another treatment begins on page 313 in Moller's "The Theory of Relativity".

I do not, as a matter of first choice, think in terms of diffeomorphisms, and, with all of the questioning in current essays of the interpretation of General Relativity and its relation to Quantum Mechanics, I don't plan to focus on diffeomorphism invariance. Upon reading your essay it appeared to me that it bore some relation to mine, but it looks as if this relation will die from the lack of a common vocabulary and common expertise. Thanks again for your efforts, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Daniel,

Due to the high degree of non-linearity in the field equations a general solution for arbitrary matter distributions is "analytically intractable". One approach to this is to linearize general relativity, and an excellent treatment of this is provided beginning on page 467 of the Doran reference given above and continuing to page 497. [An equivalent treatment begins on page 313 in Moller, as noted.] The key equation is probably the metric equation (17-4) on page 469, based on infinitesimal transformations (of the form given in equation 17-2) that apply to changes in scalar, vector, and tensor fields, but the claim is that these can be ignored in all quantities except the metric, "where tiny deviations from eta-sub-mu-nu contain all the information about gravity. Equation (17-4) is considered as analogous to a gauge transformation in electromagnetism, and hence has the form of the tensor F-sub-mu-nu given on page 4 in my previous essay, that I already referenced above.

I'm sure that you are quite competent, but if the linearized form of General Relativity is unfamiliar to you, I doubt that a comments blog is the place to remedy this. And, as I noted above, I don't wish to invest more effort into GR field equations, since I have doubts about the ultimate interpretation of GR and I currently find the Maxwell form of the equations much more useful for analogies with electro-magnetism, which I believe most applicable to the quantum approach I am currently interested in. Thanks yet again for your efforts.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Daniel,

The background of it as follows: The conceptual meaning of force ist that it is the cause of change. That means the function f(ik), whose form enters into the solution as a system parameter, is proportional to the time deritative of a state variable. It is thus already assumed how the force will depend on the state, and this force then determines the change of the state in time.

In brief, one understands f(ik) not as one cause among others but as the cause of the change of state. Mathematically it is due to the differential equation being of second order. The state variable x(ik) alone does not determine its own subsequent development, but does so only in conjunction with its time deritative v(ik) as an arbitrary initial condition. In particular, setting the force, which is assumed to be the cause of the change of state, equal to zero, there are still solutions with constant velocity:

x(ik) = a(ik)t + b(ik)

v(ik) = a(ik)

A body with no motive force acting upon it moves with constant velocity.

The physical background of v. Weizsäcker's argument is: Two bodies with the same velocity but at different locations are in different states, if correctly put by the modern description in phase space; and during inertial motion the point in phase space varies. V. Weizsäcker proposes: If one wants to think causally in a consistent way, one must radicalize Machs ideas and interpret the inertial motion as being caused by the universe (i.e. the distant masses).

Hope it helps to understand the point..

Best wishes

Helmut

Daniel,

I'm glad you found a reference. And I agree with you that if it "is analogous to the transformation of electric field to magnetic field in different frames" then "like any other relativistic field, the huv has a background independent character and the C-field derived from it is meaningful only in a particular basis. There is no room for absolutness."

I am not certain that the analogy holds, due to some features of Martin Tajmar's measurements of the C-field and due to my own interpretation, but it is likely that it actually is analogous, in which case I fully agree with you.

I still recommend Daryl Janzen's essay and Israel Perez's essay as potentially related to yours. I think you will enjoy fruitful discussions with both of these authors.

I very much appreciate the effort you have made to understand the C-field and relate it to your own essay, and wish you the best in this contest and in your career.

Sincerely,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Daniel,

you avoid the problem connected with it: Neither Galilean nor Special Relativity is able to justify the privileged role of inertial frames of reference. Newton's law is epistemologically circular. Today this problem is only solved by means of an incomplete induction. Einstein was aware of this problem, which he tried to eliminate it by introducing Mach's principle into his general theory of relativity. But he failed. Even in his last lecture, given at the Palmer Physical Laboratory in April 14, 1954, he struggled with this problem. He compared the inertial frame with God Almighty. Like him it would be unaffected by anything else.In this lecture he also explained why the implementation of Machs principle into his GTR failed. --If you give up space, you have an enormous number of distances, and unhandy consistency relations.-- (Einstein, 1954)

Hence, I resist: THERE IS A PROBLEM and its solution determines essentially how we understand MOTION.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Dear Daniel (part 1)

I enjoyed reading your clear and well written essay. I would like to make some comments so you can understand some nuances in how we should understand absolute motion. As I argued in my reply to you in my entry, I hold that space is some sort of aether which for modern convenience we can call it quantum vacuum or better the zero-point field (ZPF) and therefore it can be considered as the PSR. Because relative to this ZPF all objects move (including light). If we have an object at rest this object is absolutely at rest otherwise it is in absolute motion. So, as you can see I am being truly relational, unless you disagree. I am going to quote one of the arguments that Newton gave in his famous scholim when he was arguing in favor of the existence of absolute motion (which is basically the same idea I am stating):

"But because the parts of space cannot be seen, or distinguished from one another by our senses, therefore in their instead we use sensible measures of them. For from the positions and distances of things from any body considered as immovable, we define all places; and then with respect to such places, we estimate all motions, considering bodies as transferred from some of those places into others. And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs; but in philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. For it may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred.

But we may distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, from the position of bodies to one another in our regions whether any of these do keep the same position to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest cannot be determined from the position of bodies in our regions.

As you can see Newton was also truly relational in contrast to what most people believe about him, the problem is that Newton's space was envisaged as total emptiness and relating the motion to nothingness is meaningless. He also knew that it may not be possible to detect absolute motion but despite this when something moves it really moves not only relative to a reference object but, within the modern context, relative to the ZPF. This field pervades the whole universe and interconnects all physical objects (particles). Therefore, the water of the famous bucket experiment, moves relative to the ZPF which in Newton words would be "absolute space" and in Einstein words would be "the gravitational potential or the metric tensor". The problem with the metric tensor is that it is nothing but a mathematical object, pure geometry.

On the other hand, the programme your are endeavoring is not knew for me. I have tried in the past to reformulate mechanics getting rid of time and space. This would lead to a thermodynamic-like formulation of mechanics, but I found it fruitless basically because one cannot avoid the involvement of time-like parameter in the formulation. As I could see in your essay the parameter gamma plays the role of t, which appears to be redundant if one tries to get rid of one parameter and introduce another. My question here is, how is this parameter gamma going to be measured? With a clock?

To be continued...

Israel

Part 2

You also discuss the nature of time and take as a departure for your argumentation Newton's absolute notion. Indeed Newton's time appears to be unaffected by the motion of objects, it is a continuous flow that never stops, nor accelerates. I agree with you that the precursor of time is change/motion (CM) of things, this is what makes us feel the passage of time. I think that something that appears to be certain is that CM of things is seen everywhere in nature, I mean, there are things in the universe (motion of planets, etc.) constantly occurring following some physical laws, and in this sense the continuous occurrence of events can be thought of as a flow of CM and therefore this resembles a flow of time in the Newtonian sense. The inference we grasp from the previous reflexion is that to say that there is a flow of changes is equivalent to say that there is a flow of time. In physical terms this flow is measured with a clock (that is a material body that moves or changes) and is mathematically represented in physics as an "independent" variable. Certainly, it has to be independent because it seems that CM is an intrinsic aspect of the universe. According to the theoretical framework under consideration this variable is considered as a parameter (e.g. classical mechanics) or as a coordinate (relativity). Now, whatever the physical meaning of the variable is, I also hold that this CM has to be related to a reference CM. And since I am assuming a PSR I also hold that there is a preferred clock (time) and again if this clock is at rest in the ZPF one has a universal (absolute) time for all observers (see also the essay of Daryl Janzen). If a clock moves relative to the PSR it dilates as function of the speed (imagine again the light beam clock in which the mirror is held by a metallic bar that delimits the distance L).

The dilation effect is caused basically by the fact that the light beam --traveling through the ZPF-- will traverse an optical path length much larger than when the clock is at rest. If our light beam clock is placed perpendicular to the motion of the clock, the light beam will follow a diagonal trajectory in the forward and backward journeys. In this case there is no Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of the clock bar and we can calculate the amount of dilatation by using the Pythagoras theorem. But if we place the clock in a horizontal position the bar will undergo Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction by the factor gamma and we have to consider this effect in our calculations. Hence, no matter the orientation of the clock with respect to the motion, the dilatation will be in the same amount.

The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is a consequence of the fact that the bar of the clock is made up of atoms (particles) glued by electromagnetic fields. Thus, to set the clock into motion from absolute rest we have to apply a force, this force will cause a reconfiguration of the atoms in the direction in which the force is applied manifesting itself as a contraction of the length.

Special relativity gives a geometrical explanation of these effects based on the two postulates (which as I argued in my essay is only one). In a certain sense we can say that relativity makes a mathematical abstraction of the physical properties (such as length) of real objects (please read Einstein's essay: Geometry and experience). The abstraction of extension of a material object is mathematically represented by a three dimensional manifold. There is a caveat to make here, one should distinguish between physical space (ZPF, vacuum and aether) and the mathematical representation of physical space. Newtonian space was envisaged as nothingness, total emptyness and its mathematical counterpart is Euclidean geometry. Recall that in special relativity space is also totally empty as in the Newtonian case and its abstraction is the Minkowskian space-time, which is a psedo-Euclidean space (due to the minus sign in the metric). General relativity does the same thing, from this perspective space is epitomized as non-Euclidean which warps according to the energy-momentum tensor, but again, it is just a geometrical abstraction.

Best wishes

Israel

PS. I have replied to your last post in my entry.