• 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

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.

          Dear Jose,

          Thanks for your comments. I prefer to read your Essay before replying you. I will do it soon.

          Cheers, Ch.

          Dear Christian,

          Your essay is very interesting even though I am not sure I perfectly understood everything.

          I agree with you that geometry is the key.

          In my essay, I propose an intriguing list of equations for fundamental constants that show the recurrence of Phi (the golden ratio) and 8Pi-1 (a ratio I have discovered).

          If you have the time, please take a look and let me know if you think these are just coincidences.

          All the best,

          Patrick

            Dear Patrick,

            Thanks for finding my Essay very interesting. I am very fascinating by the golden ratio, thus, I will be very pleasured to read, comment and score your Essay soon.

            Cheers, Ch.

            Dear Christian Corda,

            I very much enjoyed your essay. Your treatment of the Mossbauer experiment was one I had not seen previously. However, in your essay I did not find as clearly stated your reply to Jacek above, specifically:

            "The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of space-time geometry is indeed my dream of research and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist."

            I too share essentially this vision and I'm optimistic that we are not that far from seeing results of this approach. I wonder how you reconcile 'instantaneous' entanglement with this view? I do not. I have, in my current essay, discussed a novel approach to Bell that I hope you will read and find interesting. I would appreciate any questions or comments you might have on this topic, as I believe entanglement to be completely incompatible with the fundamental approach you outline above.

            My best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

              It is my understanding that the equivalence principle works both ways. A frame in flat spacetime, say far out in interstellar space, and another frame falling in a radial gravity field or being frame dragged by any sort of gravity field have equivalent physics. Similarly a body on the hard surface of a body that is the source of a gravity field is equivalent to some accelerated frame in distant flat spacetime. By sitting in my chair the local physics is equivalent to being in an accelerated frame with g = 9.8m/s^2. If there exists a deviation this would be the same as saying the gravitational mass of a body is different from the inertial mass.

              If there is a difference in the application of the EP to inertial and accelerated frames it would be news to me. It would be profoundly disappointing as well. I think a more general form of the EP is to say that the quantum vacuum is equivalent in different frames. Further I think that ultimately inertial and accelerated frames are themselves equivalent in quantum gravity.

              Cheers LC

              Thanks LC.

              On the other hand, the use of the Equivalence Principle in rotating frames in general and in the Mössbauer rotor experiment in particular has a long, more than fifty-year-old, history. In the paper of Kündig, i.e. ref. [3] in my Essay, which is dated 1963, one reads verbatim: "when the experiment is analyzed in a reference frame K attached to the accelerate observer, the problem could be treated [7] by the principle of equivalence of the general theory of relativity". Reference [7] in the paper of Kündig is the historical book of Pauli on the theory of relativity dated 1958. Thus, it seems that Tim Maudlin was wrong in his above comments. Here the key point is not the viability of the Equivalence Principle in treating this problem, but the issue that previous literature did not take into due account clock synchronization.

              Cheers, Ch.

              Hi Edwin Eugene,

              I am happy to know that you very much enjoyed my essay. Thank you very much.

              Yes, you are correct, I could have inserted my reply to Jacek directly in my essay. On the other hand, that is really a dream and I am optimist like you in thinking that we are not that far from seeing results of this approach.

              Concerning the point that you raise on how one could reconcile 'instantaneous' entanglement with this view, I do not too. Entanglement is a quantum, non local effect, while general relativity is a classical, local theory. In any case, I will be pleasured to read, comment and score your essay soon.

              Cheers, Ch.

              I'd like to sit down, maybe today or tomorrow, and see if the k_1 and k_2 could be derived as k = k_1 k_2 in a single derivation.

              We can think of this rotating system as a model for a rotating QCD string, such as a meson, in a Regge trajectory, or a superstring. In this latter case the extreme rotation approaches the condition for a black hole by the Regge pole or trajectory J ~ E^2. At some point the system is rotating so enormously the particle horizon according to an observer riding with the frame, say on one arm of the thing. approaches that frame.

              LC

              Hi Christian,

              "The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of space-time geometry is indeed my dream of research and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist."

              I agree with this idea because I have the proof of it. In my system space, time, matter, energy and interaction laws are all arise naturally from basically random numbers. That leads to reality manifesting in Geometric Probability.

              You can run the programs and see the results and the code is visible. Please do not be discouraged by the grand claims, they are natural outcome of the simulation. I just did what I was allowed to do with all the possible relations between these random numbers.

              Essay

              Thanks and good luck.