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

Prof. R.G. Vishwakarma,

Thank you for your reply. You said "Riemann tensor can also be non-zero when Ricci tensor is vanishing.". When Ricci=0, Riemann=Weyl, so we are in complete agreement.

You mentioned the Kasner solution, and that the matter source (the singularity) exists only at the time t=-1/n, and yet it has effects at other times too. This in fact happens in the Schwarzschild solution as well. The singularity r=0 is not necessarily in the present of an observer affected by the black hole's gravity. This is obfuscated when using the Schwarzschild coordinates, but it is visible for example in the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. Another remark: I think something like this happens with the electromagnetic field. Imagine a pair electron/positron attract each other and annihilate. Yet, the electromagnetic field sourced by their charges exists an indefinite time after they were annihilated.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Ram,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Dear Prof. R.G. Vishwakarma,

"we must understand that the singularity is not the sole representative of curvature (in the absence of energy-stress tensor)"

Yes, I understood this, because you've done such a good job in explaining everything well in the essay. I just wanted to make some remarks, which I hope may help. I will continue, although maybe you know the following.

In connection with explaining matter from spacetime (this time with nonvanishing Ricci), I find interesting the pioneering work of GY Rainich, who in 1924-1925 found the algebraic and geometric conditions curvature should satisfy, so that it corresponds to a source-free electromagnetic field. Wheeler and Misner built on this idea and that of Einstein-Rosen bridges in Classical physics as geometry, and coined the approach "charge without charge". Using a wormhole, the cohomology group of spacetime is changed, and we can have the appearance of an electric source, without having a charge.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Prof. Ram,

Your essay is near and dear to my heart (as I am interested in how field theories are mathematically represented and the Cosmological Constant problems). I have some questions concerning your essay:

1. You state "in the absence of which the solution must have a singularity, serving as the source". What singularity are you referring to? I know of the singularity that arises in linearized gravity but that is based on

[math]G_{\mu\nu}\neq 0[/math]

. (I am not yet familiar with Osvath and Schucking so will have to review their material).

2. Your equation 4 uses an M which seems to be based on the Poisson equation definition of energy density within a volume. I see your disclaimers on LambdaCDM not conforming with the Poisson concept of energy density anyway but you seem to be equating the energy density of a gravitational field with the same energy density that mainstream physics is using for "vacuum" energy density. True or no?

3. How can a constant of integration represent the energy density of a gravitational field since the constant wouldn't change but the gravitational field would need to in order to do work on regular mass?

Dear Ram,

Once again, I am fascinated by your ideas on the equation

[math]R_i_k=0[/math]

Such ideas should deserve a better consideration from the Scientific Community. Although, as you know, I have read your previous papers on this issue, also accepting one of them in The Open Astronomy Journal, I had lots of fun in reading this new Essay. Thus, I am going to give you an high score. Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers,

Ch.

Hello again Ram Gopal,

I shall also be pleased to give you a high score, now that my own essay has posted, and I can do so. I will give it a quick review first, to avoid confusion, because of so much reading since I first looked at your paper. But like Christian, I am impressed with the quality of your work and think you expressed your ideas well.

I hope you will look at my essay, when you get a chance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Ram,

The irreconcilable difference between Classical and Quantum Mechanics seems to me that in CM particles are thought to be only the cause of interactions, whereas QM can be understood only if we realize that in a self-creating universe where particles have to create themselves, each other, particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as the product, the effect of their interactions, of forces between them. As a result, a particle in CM is thought of as having a surface separating some content, mass (cause), from its effect on the environment, its gravitational field, so here there's a border between matter and space, as if space, though curvable by mass, has additional properties unrelated to mass, so particles in this view are fremdkörper in an alien environment, as if matter and space have been created separately. As this makes no sense, I agree with ''Einstein's earlier belief that "on the basis of the general theory of relativity, space as opposed to 'what fills space' has no separate existence ... [so] the mere consideration of a spacetime structure should be equivalent to considering the accompanying fields ... also.'' Though General Relativity is thought to be a background independent (a description of space without thinking it embedded in an 'Über-space'), by regarding the mass of particles to be only the cause of forces, mass becomes an intrinsic, privately owned quantity, i.e. an absolute quantity which but for practical difficulties can be measured even from without the universe, as if the gram is defined even outside of it, so the flaw of GR seems to me is that it isn't relative enough, not really background independent at all.

This same misunderstanding -that we think of the universe as an ordinary object we may imagine to look at from without, which comes down to assuming that the meter, second, gram and joule are defined even outside of it- has led to the mistaken belief that the Planck constant is the minimum energy quantum, the Planck length the minimum distance in the universe. If in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies so we need more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels at higher energies, then the energy gap between subsequent levels can become arbitrarily small: though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum. The Planck constant h then is like the number 1 in arithmetic: 0.5 < 1 < 1.5. If we can measure h more accurately, add another decimal at a higher energy, then we can write that number as 0.95 < 1.0 < 1.05. So if in our equations we again set h = 1, then every time we improve its accuracy by another decimal, we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10. In other words, the extent to which spacetime is defined, detailed somewhere, depends on the local energy density, so space is not built from discrete unit volumes which have the same size everywhere -and contain the same quantity of energy which indeed would lead to ''horrible fine-tuning problems''. The higher the energy density somewhere, the more detailed spacetime is, the greater the physical difference (observed lengths of rods, pace of clocks) is between adjacent positions, whereas the farther from masses, the emptier spacetime is, the less positions over a larger area differ. In my study I show why a self-creating universe (as opposed to a big bang universe) doesn't need any dark energy, nor inflation to explain observations. If particles are as much the product as the source of their interactions, of forces between them so there is no border between the mass of a particle and its gravitational field, then we can say that mass, a gravitational field is an area of curved, contracted spacetime, or, equivalently, that the gravitational field contains, represents mass, energy, so ''It is thus established that the source of curvature in (3) is the energy of the gravitational field present at the points exterior to r = 0'' indeed. To be continued in the next post.

In my study I propose a mass definition based on the uncertainty principle in the expectation that using this in GR might reconcile GR with QM: the less indefinite the position of a particle or mass center of an object is, the greater its rest energy is. If (see study) the distance between two particles is less definite as it is greater, so the indefiniteness in the position of an object also depends on the mass of the observing particle, their distance and relative motion, here mass is a relative quantity -if their energy is both the cause and effect of their interactions. Though one may object that it is not the mass of an object which varies with the distance it is observed from, only its expression as gravity, that only holds if the mass of objects only is the cause of forces.

If particles express and at the same time preserve each other's mass by exchanging energy, then the observed object owes part of its mass to its energy exchange with the observing particle, so here mass isn't the constant, privately owned quantity GR assumes it to be but instead is an interaction/observation-dependent quantity. That we always find an electron to have the exact same mass isn't so much because it is a constant, privately owned quantity but rather because the measurement is a standardized interaction. Anyhow, if particles are both source and product of forces between them, then forces and interaction energies obviously never can become infinite, so there are no singularities, no infinite bare masses and charges.

Real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which have managed to set up a continuous energy exchange: by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist (so no conservation law is violated), they force each other to reappear again and again at about the same positions after every disappearance. The uncertainty principle is often thought to say that spacetime is filled to the brim with virtual particles, their energy higher as we look at smaller scales: though this should have gravitational effects, none are observed. However, if the energy of particles isn't only the source, but also the product of their interactions, then their energy evidently only is as great as can be expressed as a force between them (a force which, as it only can be as great as the counter force it evokes, is as attractive as it is repulsive. For why gravity seems to be an exclusively attractive force, see my 2013 FQXi essay). So instead of saying that for energy to be a source of gravity it must have a position to be able to act from, we can as well say that for a particle to have rest energy, it must have a well-defined position. If the position of particles is less indefinite near masses, then the energy of virtual particles, like the price of real-estate, depends on the location: they are, in fact, part of the gravitational field, of the mass of its 'source'.

As to ''action at a distance'', in my 2012 FQXi essay I argue that there's something 'horribly wrong' with our notion of time: that the speed of light shouldn't be conceived of as referring to the motion of light but rather to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. As in a big bang universe, in the classical view it is the same cosmic time everywhere, here it takes a photon time to travel a space distance so there's no action-at-a-space-distance in GR. In contrast, in a self-creating universe it is not the same time everywhere, so here the photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, so here there is an instantaneous action-at-a-spacetime-distance. As I presume you to be a busy man, perhaps reading my 2012 essay would be the most efficient use of your time -sorry for this already far too lengthy post.

Regards, Anton