Dark Energy or a Simple Mistake: Do We Understand How Non-Unique the Einstein Tensor Actually Is? by Jeff Baugher

Last post was me, woops.

If I am talking about aether waves and you are talking about a fluid, then perhaps we can meet in the middle and talk about waves of a fluid medium. I approached the problem by defining a set of waves that obey,

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

The largest possible wavelength is the size of the universe, which yields the smallest possible frequency; the smallest size is the Planck length, which yields the largest possible frequency. These waves can be energized as a particle or just a photon or photons. Or these waves can be un-energized, have no energy, and just be the background of space(-time).

I treated gravity as an image of energy. Energy, and components of the stress energy tensor, are excitations of aether waves (or fluid medium waves?). Gravity is an image that is produced by mass and energy. Gravity manifests as acceleration fields; acceleration fields are frequency shifts at each frequency. This produces time dilation.

Jason,

We could very much meet in the middle. I see and understand why you are attempting it the way you are doing, but for me the main question that I also ask is how can General Relativity and Newtonian gravity produce such accurate answers if there is something conceptually incorrect about them? For me, this requires very much understanding the limits of what derivatives can tell us in any equation that relies on calculus. It sounds a bit silly at first, but it is the only logical conclusion of not only why predictions are accurate (but only to certain scales), but also how we can still use what we know now.

So my point is that if I want to solve some of the paradoxes, it is probably more fruitful to take the path less traveled. I worry if the solution involved the well known routes, it would have been figured out previously by others that know those arguments very well.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

"how can General Relativity and Newtonian gravity produce such accurate answers if there is something conceptually incorrect about them? "

What do you think is conceptually wrong with these equations? In my opinion, the only thing wrong with them is that they abandoned the medium.

Jason,

There is a concept called unimodular relativity, which basically states the cosmological constant is a constant of integration. General Relativity requires that this constant be zero, and states that if matter is made up of particles in an empty void (which is why the constant is zero), the presence of the particles curves the coordinate system. Rewriting them would state that matter is actually a wave that reduces the "vacuum energy" medium (the constant is actually extremely large), and the curvature is of the medium.

Should work fine either way.So it isn't that they just abandoned the medium, if two of the terms are changed then the medium becomes rather obvious. All the same predictions as GR but we should be able to also calculate the radius of when gravity becomes repulsive.

The other nice thing is that since the waves are actually made up of the quantum vacuum, it gives a physical understanding of why the probabilities of all path lengths need to be considered. In a real sense, the particle is made up of all path lengths (since it is a wave in the medium).

Jeff

Jeff,

Long before general relativity came along, we were experiencing gravity as an acceleration field. Since Newtonian gravity has been absorbed into the Einstein equations, Ricci curvature is how we describe the curvature of space-time, and consequently gravity. Given that we agree upon the (possible) existence of a fluid aether medium of some kind, then it is now possible to talk about manipulating gravity.

Mass and energy are the only known phenomena that can curve space-time; although the Cosmological constant and expansion of the universe are thrown in there just to further perplex us (ha ha).

I think that we both sort of agree that the vacuum of space, and in fact space-time itself, is made of waves. I would argue that it's made of wave-amplitudes. In the simplest sense, the wave-amplitude of a photon is

[math]\psi = A_0 e^{i\omega t}[/math]

Here is where it gets tricky. If wave-functions really are some kind of fibers in the "weave of space-time", then how do we write the wave-function of a photon for a curvature of space-time (which is an acceleration field)? I've heard that it's incredibly difficult even for the best mathematical physicists. So I use gravitational redshift as a place-holder until something better comes along.

I've already said that space-time is made of a whole range of frequencies, each with its own wave-function (math) or aether wave (ontology).

Question: is it possible to create a curvature in space-time (even just a tiny curvature), by generating a repeating frequency sweep at a high enough sweep rate? Gotta go!

Hi Jeff,

I have an antenna and I just ordered a very accurace scale and a 100.000g weight. I'm going to use an arbitrary waveform generator to emit a 1GHz to 2GHz frequency sweep 1000 times per second. Gravity causes gravitional redshift. This experiment will check to see if it works in reverse. By "work in reverse", I want to see if my frequency sweeps will induce a very tiny curvature in space-time. If it does, then I can measure it using my scale.

The idea is that the emitted frequency sweep has the same wave-function appearance that a gravitational redshift would have. I'm still a few weeks out from performing the experiment. Also, I'm using a WiFi antenna, which I bought for $2. If the experiment doesn't work, I'll assume that I need a better antenna.

Jason,

I am not an experimentalist in this, but off the top of my head I would think you would need at least some type of world class vibration isolation techniques just for starters. Don't you think what you are attempting to detect is going to be swamped by several orders of magnitude of noise? Do you have rough calculations on how sensitive something like this would need to be?

Regards,

Jeff

Jeff,

For a scale that can measure a test weight with an accuracy of 100.000 grams, then I hope to be able to measure a change in the weight. If I measure 100.003 or higher, or if I measure 99.997 or lower, then I will be very excited. The results will need to be verified of course. 100.003/100.000 =1.00003; this would indicate a slight increase in the total gravitational acceleration of 30 ppm.

As for noise, there probably will be some. I need to see something above the noise threshold. Noise might be caused by airflow or vibration. Given the funds I have, this is the experiment I can afford to perform. I am grateful to my boss for allowing me to use their

http://www.tek.com/signal-generator/awg7000-arbitrary-waveform-generator

I won't know how much vibration isolation I will need until I try to perform the experiment.

I am sure I could get a more measureable effect if I had a better antenna. But I really don't understand how do shop for the right one.

Right now, I do not have any calculations of how strong the effect will be. I can't rely upon conservation of energy. In effect, I'm trying to create a very tiny curvature in space-time by emitting a repeated frequency sweep.

Jeff

Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem

Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3

Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3

Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space

Only right value is experimental value.

See my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413#addPost

Jeff

Can you read my essay Part 3 more attentively?

Jeff,

You say,

"Although the possibility of this error raises more questions than can possibly be answered in an essay, we maintain that little progress can be made until it is understood that General Relativity does not trump its own foundations."

I'm not sure about your meaning when you say that GR does not trump its own foundations -- foundations referring to "space-time?"

My essay discusses gravity but with emphasis on empirical evidence.

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

Jim

Jeff,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

Jim

Jeff,

This is in response to your post on my essay site regarding my new zero's relation to the stress energy tensor Guv. You said "Where I see this relating to your concept is that while a stress energy tensor for Guv may become zero or 'nothing', if the two tensors of the right half become equal, the sum may become zero but that certainly does not imply it is "empty". This would very much seem to fit the full void of 'sunya'."

I see it the same way. Space may be empty of matter, but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing is there. My new zero makes explicit the possibility of something potentially being there.

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Hi James,

My meaning concerning foundations involves understanding the Einstein field equations through unimodular gravity. This idea, originally proposed by Einstein, is thought to be equivalent to GR, but views the cosmological constant as a constant of integration. It would appear that despite this, the ramifications have never been considered if one does this before defining the Einstein tensor as the stress energy tensor of matter. The derivation of GR requires curvature to go to zero (Ruv=0)with no matter or energy present, but the presence of a cosmological constant means that we must ignore this requirement. Using a unimodular approach, and prior to defining the Einstein tensor, this requirement can still be enforced and end up with a constant of integration in the equations. It would seem that the value of this constant is large but would appear small to us due to the simultaneous change in our understanding of the Einstein tensor. This change should pass down through the weak field equations, but the main way we would notice is that gravity would appear to become repulsive after a certain radius.

Jeff

Dark energy/Dark matter 3:1 is mistake

Right answer Dark matter/dark energy 3:1

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

Mr. Baugher,

very interesting and insightful essay. I am especially intrigued by this explanation you posted a few days ago and its conclusion:

" The derivation of GR requires curvature to go to zero (Ruv=0)with no matter or energy present, but the presence of a cosmological constant means that we must ignore this requirement. Using a unimodular approach, and prior to defining the Einstein tensor, this requirement can still be enforced and end up with a constant of integration in the equations. It would seem that the value of this constant is large but would appear small to us due to the simultaneous change in our understanding of the Einstein tensor. This change should pass down through the weak field equations, but the main way we would notice is that gravity would appear to become repulsive after a certain radius. "

Is there a way to ruffly estimate this radius? I have a visual approach to physics and understand GR as if it describes the curvature of a 3D hypersurface of a hypersphere, similar to a 2D surface of water in the ocean, with the troughs of the waves corresponding to attractive gravity and the crests, repulsive. To paraphrase the saying, my geometrical approach (in 4D) states that "what curves in must eventually curve out", which implies that the repulsive aspect of gravity manifests itself in intergalactic voids, thus explaining why they are empty. In this regard, I would very much appreciate your feedback on my essay ( fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1547 )

I wish I could follow the technical aspect of your essay, but intuitively I feel that yours is one the most important essays in this contest.