• 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

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.

              There are two standard forms of the equivalence principle. The Weak form states the equivalence of inertial and passive gravitational mass, which implies that all massive particles will fall along the same space-time trajectories in the presence of only gravitational effects. The Weak Principle is what is tested by the experiments of, e.g. Eötvos. Note that it has no consequences for the behavior of light. The Strong principle states the empirical equivalence of experiments done "at rest" in a constant gravitational field and in a constantly linearly accelerating lab with no gravity. That principle does have implication for light. But the Strong equivalence principle is restricted to comparing constant linear acceleration to a constant field. It does not even properly hold for labs on Earth, where the gravitational field is not constant, although the differences are of second order. (Consider stretching your hands apart and dropping two masses, measuring the distance between the hands and the distance between the place where they hit the floor. In a linearly accelerated system in flat space-time, those distances will be identical. In a lab on the Earth, they will not, since the gravitational field is not constant (they will hit slightly closer together, as they are both falling toward the center of the Earth, as it were. Similarly, a water droplet in a space station orbiting the Earth will be slightly elongated by tidal effects, and one in inertial motion in flat space-time will not. So not all "free-fall" is the same.)

              The Strong Principle does not have any application at all for rotating systems. If you check your own reference (Misner, Thorne and Wheeler) you will verify this. Check Wald (for example) as well.

              In the first part of this paper, two coordinate systems are laid down on flat space-time. Obviously, these coordinate systems do not change the space-time geometry at all: it is flat in both. The line element, of course, takes a different algebraic form relative to the different coordinates, as it must. This is just the same as using different coordinate systems on Euclidean space, and has no connection to the Equivalence Principle.

              To clarify the situation, one cannot just talk about "accelerating" systems: the Strong Principle compares linearly accelerating systems in flat space-time to systems with a constant field. But rotation is not a linear acceleration. There is no gravitational field that will will mimic, as it were, the apparent effects of rotation. It you think any gravitational field can produce a "centrifugal" force, try to specify how. No stress-energy tensor will produce the same apparent physics is a non-rotating lab as there is in a rotating lab.

              I see what Kündig states, but the claim is not accurate.

              Regards,

              Tim

              Dear Christian,

              As usual you wrote an interesting essay. I also believe with your conclusion remark that "Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick". However, I do subscribe that Geometry is also a "Force" like Newton's gravitational Force. In my essay, KQID prescribes that Existence is geometrical and it is a mere Einstein complex coordinate points(numbers as in Pythagoras') or in this mathematical expression Ψ(iτLx,y,z, Lm). I am surely derived my theory from a very different paradigm however the outcomes must be about the same especially in our experiences and scientific experiments. KQID must also be able to explain and predict more than the dominant paradigm of today.

              As usual, well deserved high score and best wishes,

              Leo KoGuan

                Dear Tim,

                I am happy to see that you did not reply to my rebuttal on the motion in accelerating frames as you should have understood to be wrong on that issue. I regret to inform you that you are wrong also on your interpretation of the Equivalence Principle. First of all, and contrary to your claims, standard forms of the Equivalence Principle are 3 instead of 2. You missed the most famous one, i.e. the Einstein Equivalence Principle, which is the one that I use in my Essay. It states that the weak Equivalence Principle holds, and that, in addition, the outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime. This has consequences for the behavior of light. In fact, it is well known that among the most important tests of the Einstein Equivalence Principle are gravitational redshift experiments. Thus, your claim that only the strong Equivalence Principle has consequences for the behavior of light is wrong. You are wrong also when cite the Strong Equivalence Principle which has nothing to do with the issue here. The Strong Equivalence Principle states that "The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its constitution" and "The outcome of any local experiment (gravitational or not) in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime." In other words, differently from the Weak Equivalence Principle which considers point masses, the strong Equivalence Principle considers small test bodies (with respect to the source of the gravitational field) i.e. objects that exert a gravitational force on themselves, for example the Earth in the gravitational field of the Sun. This is not the current case, because here we are considering photons, which do not exert a gravitational force on themselves. Differently from the Einstein Equivalence Principle the Strong form considers also gravitational experiments in a freely falling laboratory.

                But the issue where you are really wrong is in claiming that Equivalence Principle does not have any application at all for rotating systems. As I explained in the technical endnotes of my Essay, the Equivalence Principle is also involved in the observation by Einstein that the gravitational "force" that an observer experiences locally when standing in the gravitational field generated by a massive body (the Earth) is equivalent to the pseudo-force experienced in an accelerated (non-inertial) local reference frame. Although you seem to do not understand this issue, a rotating frame is an accelerated (non-inertial) reference frame. You miss the point "locally". Rotation generates locally a linear acceleration. Locally, the apparent effects of rotation can perfectly mimic the gravitational field of the earth. You must merely choice an angular velocity and a distance from the center of the rotor for which the square of the angular velocity multiplied for the distance from the center of the rotor equals 9.80665 m/s^2, i.e. the gravitational acceleration of the earth. In the rotating frame of my Essay, i.e. the frame in which the observer sees the detector at rest , that local acceleration will have radial direction. Thus, the analogy with a local gravitational field is absolutely complete. You cited MTW and Wald. The fact that in those books the possibility of using the Equivalence Principle in rotating frames is not considered does not mean that that possibility is wrong. Those textbooks does NOT claim that it is wrong, merely they do not consider it. The book of Pauli considers it instead. I add that, differently from you, I am not particular interested in what is written in textbooks. My own knowledge of a theory does not come from blindly accepting wisdom from textbooks; textbooks do contain mistakes, so I only accept scientific facts when I fully understand the arguments on which they are based. My above argumentations are completely sufficient in the current case.

                Cheers, Ch.

                Dear Adel,

                Thanks for your comments. I will read, comment and score your Essay soon.

                I wish you best luck in the Contest.

                Cheers, Ch.