Einstein\'s Real `Biggest Blunder\': Reveals Itself from the `Bits\' by Ram Gopal Vishwakarma

Dear Anton,

Thanks for your kindness.

___Ram

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your comments and mentioning your relevant work. I have been trying to understand Eisntein's theory (rather than showing anybody wrong). In this process, I found some conceptual problems in GR.

___Ram

Dear Angel,

Thanks for your kind remarks.

___Ram

Dear Manuel,

Thanks for your kind remarks. I shall read your paper.

___Ram

Dear Cristinel,

Thanks for your kind remarks. Riemann tensor can also be non-zero when Ricci tensor is vanishing. That will signify the net energy-momentum-angular momentum of the material and the gravitational fields at a point.

___Ram

Dear Satyavarapu,

In my essay, there is no problem of the violation of the conservation of energy or matter coming out from nowhere. If you read the article and the references therein, you will note that there are two time scales in the resulting cosmological theory. In terms of one of them, the universe becomes infinitely old without any singularity at any finite time in the past. So, the question of the origin of matter/universe becomes meaningless in this model.

___Ram

Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for your kind remarks. I shall read your paper.

___Ram

Dear Lawrence,

Thanks for your kind and knowledgeable comments. It would not be correct to say that all the solutions of Einstein equations are not meaningful. This will create doubt over the general validity of the theory. Then how can we be so sure that Schwazschild solution (for example) represents a meaningful solution. Just because, it seems consistent with experiments? May be, we have been unable to interpret other solutions correctly, which we claim unphysical. As an example, the Kasner solution (which is considered unphysical) in the new paradigm discovered, in the paper, represents a real big bang universe!

___Ram

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for your kind and inspiring remarks! I look forward to see your essay.

___Ram

Dear Cristinel,

Thanks for reminding me that the Weyl tensor (with 10 independent components) can be thought of as containing the information of the Riemann tensor (20 independent components) minus that of the Ricci tensor (10 independent components). So in the case of the vanishing Ricci, Riemann=Weyl.

I have tried to establish that space and `what fills space' are not two different entities. That is, by considering space means considering the accompanying fields as well. That the matter fields are present in the metric (without taking recourse to the energy-stress tensor), can also be proved by the conventional belief which considers singularity as the source of curvature in the absence of the energy-stress tensor. For this reason, I have considered Kasner, Kerr, Schwarzschild solutions. (For this purpose, I argue that if the source matter is present at the epoch of singularity, it must also be present at other times. That is, the source matter is already present through the metric field, in the Kasner solution.)

However, we must understand that the singularity is not the sole representative of curvature (in the absence of energy-stress tensor), since the conventional wisdom cannot explain the curvature of the Ozsvath-Schuckling solution (which is singularity-free). Hence the metric field (which has been shown to contain matter and gravitational energy in three cases) must be the real source of curvature.

Another reason, why the singularity is not an efficient representative of curvature, is the controversial character of the singularity (black hole) in the Schwarzschild solution. There are claims that the black hole mass must be zero [Narlikar & Padmanabhan, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 18, pp.659-668 (2008)].

The interpretation of the Schwarzschild solution, as a spacetime structure sufficiently away (of course that will be out of the event horizon) from some mass, is fine. In this case, the curvature present at those points can only be explained in terms of the gravitational energy (recalling that GR is a local theory). This is what I have emphasized in the essay.

The parallel you mention between the GR cases and the electromagnetic one, is interesting. Thanks. It may contain important information.

___Ram

Dear Antony,

Thanks for your interest in my essay.

___Ram

Dear Jacek,

Thanks for your kind remarks and for your interest in my essay. I also thank you for mentioning Maluga's work on the geometrization of matter. I shall read them in time.

Best of luck on your ambitious endeavor. The theory based on R^{ik} = 0 might fit in it. It is scale invariant, describes not only the gravitational phenomena in the solar system, but the whole universe, as I have showed.

Best of luck on your essay.

___Ram

Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your kind remarks. I don't understand how you can apply the evolving (time-dependent) Kasner solution inside a black hole represented by the static Schwarzschild (exterior) solution. The interior of a static spacetime is expected to be static. Anyway, the existing Schwarzschild interior solution, providing the standard representation of the interior of a static spherically symmetric non-rotating star, turns out to be unphysical, since the speed of sound (dp/d\rho) becomes infinite in the fluid with a constant density \rho.

While beauty should not be considered as a decisive factor for a physical theory, you seem to be unaware of the very Einstein's remarks of "low-grade wood" for the energy-stress tensor and the "fine marble" for the geometry (as he put it in a 1936 article in the Journal of the Franklin Institute). Thus shunning the "wood", ENHANCES THE BEAUTY of the "marble" in the extreme simplicity of the field equations R^{ik} = 0!