• Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)

  • When physics is geometry: a new proof for general relativity through geometric interpretation of Mössbauer rotor experiment. Celebration of the 100th anniversary of general relativity by Christian Co

Essay Abstract

General relativity is not only one of the greatest and most elegant scientific theories of all (perhaps the greatest and the most elegant), but also the best example showing that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick. It is indeed well known that Einstein's vision of gravity is pure geometry. In this Essay, we celebrate the centennial of this intriguing pre-established harmony between geometry and physics, marked by the year 2015, giving a correct interpretation of a historical experiment by Kündig on the transverse Doppler shift in a rotating system measured with the Mössbauer effect (Mössbauer rotor experiment). By using Einstein Equivalence Principle, which states the equivalence between the gravitational "force" and the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference (included a rotating frame of reference), here we reanalyze the theoretical framework of Mössbauer rotor experiments directly in the rotating frame of reference by using a completely geometrical general relativistic treatment. It will be shown that previous analyses missed an important effect of clock synchronization and that the correct, purely geometric, general relativistic prevision in the rotating frame gives a result which is in perfect agreement with new experimental results of a research group. Such an effect of clock synchronization has been missed in various papers in the literature with some subsequent claim of invalidity of relativity theory and/or some attempts to explain the experimental results through "exotic" effects. Our geometric general relativistic interpretation shows, instead, that the new experimental results of the Mössbauer rotor experiment are a new, strong and independent, proof of Einstein's elegant, purely geometric, vision of gravity.

Author Bio

Theoretical physicist, Ph.D in Physics at the Pisa University. I am Professor of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics at the Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e Ricerca "Santa Rita", Italy. I started to work on gravitational waves. In the last years my research was focused on black hole thermodynamics. I am also Editor and/or Editor in Chief of various international journals in the fields of Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Mathematics

Download Essay PDF File

Christian,

I just gave your paper a quick reading. I think it is interesting how the 1/5 correction emerges. I will want to read this again, for I would like to think one gets the k_1 and k_2 in one single derivation. Your essay is intersting and worthy.

Cheers LC

    Dear Mr. Corda,

    Thank you for your interesting essay, I have already brought up this question at this forum before. The plasma or dust around stellar objects is distributed accordingly with the intensity of the plasma or dust and gets diluted as the distance from the stellar object is increased. This has also means refraction of the electromagnetic wave, this is not even touched in GR and no corrections are considered either...

    Furthermore I believe math and physics intersect as far there are some quantities that can be measured, and part of math is unphysical and part of physics is unmathematical. These are reelected in my essay.

    I have also written an essay back in 2013 before about another paradox with regards to SR.

    Lorentz Symmetry brocken

    Good luck

    Kind regards

    Koorosh

      Hi LC,

      Thanks for appreciating my Essay. Getting the k_1 and k_2 in one single derivation should be intriguing. Let me know if you will find the way. I will think about it too.

      Cheers, Ch.

      Dear Koorosh Shahdaei,

      Thanks for finding my Essay interesting.

      Concerning your question, the issue of the intensity of the plasma or dust which gets diluted as the distance from the stellar object is increased depends on the variation of the gravitational field of the stellar object and, in turn, is a direct consequence of GR.

      Your statement that "part of math is unphysical and part of physics is unmathematical" arouses my curiosity. I will read comment and score your Essay soon.

      Cheers, Ch.

      That would be interesting to work on. I have sort of an idea about quantum computers with regards to this. I will relay that to you this coming weekend when I am home and have a bit more time.

      LC

      Dear Ted,

      I suggest you to start from my Essay!

      I will read comment and score your Essay soon.

      Good luck in the Contest, Ch.

      Hi Christian,

      Thank you for very interesting essay. I agree that Mathematic is Truth and pure geometry is the key. This view is highly underestimated. Einstein's theory was also my starting point to derive the correspondence rule which links a mathematical structure with an empirical domain. The best example of a correspondence rule is really General Relativity, where gravitational force that can be measured is only a manifestation of spacetime geometry that can be calculated.

      In my essay I extend this idea and I argue that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry. These geometric structures I find in the set of Thurston geometries with metrics and the wave transfer that make this still picture alive and evolving.

      I would appreciate your comments http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452

      Thank you.

      Jacek

        Hi Jacek,

        Thanks for finding my Essay interesting.

        I am going to carefully read, comment and score your Essay soon. The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry is indeed my dream of researcher and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist.

        Thanks again and best luck in the Contest.

        Cheers,

        Ch.

        I am pleased with your approach. I look forward to hearings from you.

        Prof. Corda:

        Thank you for your review of my essay. Brownian motion may be influenced by interaction activities. There is a clear hierarchy of size influences in dynamic steady-state thermodynamics.

        In inspecting yours, I find Einstein's geometrical "bending of space time" as the source of gravity difficult to follow. Should Nature be so complex?

        Somehow "activity" interactions of space and time seem appropriate to me, but obviously that gets complex too.. Ah, such is the human lot.

        You rate high in my book, altho you"stretched" the submission rules a bit.

          Dear Professor Corda,

          Thank you for your comment, actually I was considering gravitational lensing and light bending with regards to plasma or dust refraction of EMW.

          I wish you good luck in your essay.

          Warm regards

          Koorosh

          Dear Koorosh,

          You can merely call me Christian without any suffix.

          Thanks for clarifying. When we consider gravitational lensing and light bending with regards to plasma, the key point is that we must consider all the mass-energy of the stellar object. Let us assume spherical symmetry and that the plasma is distributed as far as a radius r1 while further distribution of plasma can be neglected for r>r1. Then, if we want to consider gravitational lensing and light bending for r=r1 we must add the mass-energy of the plasma to the mass-energy of the stellar object. In that case, we can use the general relativistic equations as assuming that all the mass-energy is concentrated in a singularity in r=0 (the theory in vacuum). Concerning dust refraction of EMW, in general, general relativistic effects can be neglected because dust around stellar objects is usually very far from the massive core of the object.

          Cheers, Ch.

          Hi Ted,

          As I wrote in your Essay page, you can merely call me Christian without any suffix.

          Thanks for your reply on Brownian motion.

          Concerning Einstein's geometrical "bending of space time" as the source of gravity, I think it is the most elegant intuition in the whole history of Science. I think that in, principle, it is not so much complex. What is really complex is its mathematical formulation through differential geometry and tensors.

          Concerning the other point you raised, what do you mean telling that I "stretched" the submission rules a bit?

          Cheers, Ch.

          Dear Professor Corda,

          I think Einstein was wrong.

          Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

          Warm regards,

          Joe Fisher

          Dear Joe,

          Thanks for your comment.

          I think that there are too much proofs on Einstein's vision of gravity which forbid to claim that Einstein was wrong, see for example this paper of Will.

          Cheers, Ch.

            Dear Christian,

            I am unaware of any way to apply the Equivalence Principle to rotating frames, as your analysis seems to suggest. One of your citations for this idea is Misner Thorne and Wheeler, but their formulation of the Equivalence Principle refers only to local Lorentz frames, not rotating frames. The Equivalence Einstein had in mind is between linearly accelerated frames in flat space-time and inertial (free-faliing) frames in a "uniform gravitational field". So the principle does not apply to rotating frames at all.

            On p. 5, you mention "light propagating in the radial direction" in the rotating frame. But light (in a vacuum) just won't propagate in the radial direction in the way you suggest, i.e. such that the angular coordinates are constant. The trajectory of what would be radially propagating light in the original frame will be a spiral in the rotating frame.

            Perhaps you could clearly state what you take the content of the Equivalence Principle to be, since you have in mind something different from the usual understanding, which can be found (for example) in Misner Thorne and Wheeler. There are also standard distinctions between a Weak and Strong Equivalence Principle, but neither of those corresponds to what you seem to have in mind.

            Regards,

            Tim Maudlin

              Dear Tim,

              Thanks for raising these important criticisms. Some clarifications could be indeed needed. For rotating frame here I mean the frame in which the observer sees the detector at rest (the absorber orbits around the source). Clearly, in that frame photons propagate in the radial direction. You are of course correct in highlighting that Equivalence Principle has local behavior. On the other hand, rotating frames generate the centrifuge acceleration in the radial direction cited above, which, in turn, defines a locally accelerated frame. Thus, it seems to me that the application of Equivalence Principle is completely legitimate.

              Cheers, Ch.

              Dear Professor Corda,

              Only abstract proofs of abstract mathematics exist for Einstein and Newton. An abstract proof can only be wrong. Reality can only be reality.

              Please either try to refute my contention that real light is inert and there is no physical space or accept it.

              Joe Fisher

              Dear Professor Corda,

              Quoting from your essay, "Thus, our results are a celebration of the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's presentation of the complete theory of general relativity to the Prussian Academy as intriguing pre-established harmony between geometry and physics" I agree with the first part; but disagrees with the rest: " and a strong endorsement to the statement that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick".

              My argument is that 'gravity is reaction to motion', and so gravity of a body bends its own path. The mathematical results valid for a 'curved space' is valid for a 'curved path' also. Mathematics simply cannot say which model is the right one, and thus can be tricky. Refer my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics

              I propose the hypotheses: Fundamental particle of matter moves at the speed of light;. energy is motion and force reaction motion; hence both are finite and are equal. Starting from fundamental particles, the step by step integration of matter into a pulsating system can be explained. Force being finite, the distance between bodies cannot be arbitrary, and so the present Earth- Moon distance can be theoretically predicted, and this provides the proof for the hypotheses. Please visit: finitenesstheory.com.