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

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 Ch,

I think I know how to do this k_1 + k_2 within a single treatment of the metric. We go back to the metric

ds^2 = Adt^2 - 2ωr^2dφdt - dr^2 - r^2dφ^2

for A = 1 - (ωr)^2. Now divide this entire equation by dt so that

(ds/dt)^2 = A - 2ωr^2(dφ/dt) - (dr/dt)^2 - r^2(dφ/dt)^2

This is the gamma factor for the system with ds/dt = 1/γ. The Lorentz gamma factor is then approximately after binomial theorem etc

γ =~ 1 + ½[(ωr)^2 + v_r^2 + 2ωr^2Ω + r^2Ω^2],

where v_r is the radial velocity and Ω is the angular velocity of the particle.

The particle is a photon and in the experimental set up it is set in a radial direction. The standard gamma factor for a particle does not pertain to a photon, but we are using that here with the idea that v_r is the speed of light or very close to that. We might consider the beam of photons to be just a highly relativistic beam of electrons, where these behave approximate to massless particles. We now consider that the photons are constrained to remain in a type of photon guide or fiber optic. This means the photons have an angular velocity component to them with

c^2 = v_r^2 + (ωr)^2.

The radial part we just write as c or unity as an approximation and we substitute this into the gamma factor, here modified to account for a photon that makes this different from the standard definition, to get

γ =~ ½ + 2(ωr)^2

This is then used to compute the time dilation dτ = γdt. We let dt -- > dr and the time dilation integrate along the radial direction

τ = ∫^R(½ + 2(ωr)^2)dr = R/2 + (2/3)ω^2R^3 = R(1/2 + (2/3)v^2R).

The R/2 can be eliminated if we just consider the difference in gamma factors as the relevant factor so that δγ = 2(ωr)^2 is the relevant factor to compute redshift factors.

Cheers LC

Dear Christian,

Thank you for reading my essay and glad that you liked it. I went through that link that you posted and it was very interesting, I also need to go through your essay very thoroughly because I have not gotten the right results for the gravity as I have for the others.

Indeed the exotic results that I am getting is even surprising to me and I am not too sure what to make of them, but I do have a general idea. I did rate your essay and I may have some questions for you later.

Thanks

Dear Christian,

A rotating laboratory is not "freely falling", i.e. subject to only gravitational effects. Put otherwise, a body "at rest" in a rotating frame (i.e. with constant spatial coordinates) is not following a geodesic. That is why it isn't an inertial frame.You are not separating linear acceleration from rotation, which are quite different. The Strong Equivalence Principle is confined comparisons between effects in various circumstances, none of which include rotating labs or rotating frames. (The physical effects of rotation were, of course, whole point of Newton's bucket experiment, which gets the same explanation in relativity as it does for Newton: rotation is an objective feature of some motions.)

One application of the principle is this: experiments done in a lab "at rest in a constant gravitational field" (to a good approximation, a *non rotating* lab on the surface of the Earth, but that is only approximate) will display the same phenomena as a *linearly accelerating* lab in flat space-time. That gives the "bending of light". Another is the (approximate) equivalence of a non-accelerating lab in flat space-time to a *non rotating* lab in "free fall" on Earth (again this is only to first order since the field on Earth is not constant). There is no principle equating a rotating lab with a non-rotating lab in any gravitational field. Phenomena in a rotating lab will not even be spatially isotropic (referring to the rotating coordinates).

It is kind of odd that you say I cited MTW, I only brought it up because you cited it as one source for the application of the Equivalence Principle to rotational situations. Since you seem to concede that they nowhere make such a claim, perhaps you should remove that citation. Now you say you do not trust textbooks. If so, then don't cite them, especially when they do not make the claim you are trying to establish.

There is a reason that the SLAC was built as a linear accelerator, rather than a closed circuit like the LHC, and that reason has to do with the difference between linear acceleration and non-linear acceleration. Your claim that rotation is the same as linear acceleration is not accurate. And no Equivalence Principle, including the one you cite above, equates rotating labs or rotating frames to non-rotating labs or non-rotating frames.

Regards,

Tim

The equivalence principle simply states that freely falling frames are equivalent to a purely inertial frame independent of gravity. Similarly a frame that is accelerated and one on the surface of a gravitating body are equivalent:

we ... assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system. -- Einstein, Albert (2003). The Meaning of Relativity.

Departures come about for two reasons. The weak EP is a form of Galileo's principle, and it says the motion of a particle in a gravity field is the same as on an accelerated frame. This insures Galileo's observation on the independence of mass of a body with respect to its motion. With the weak equivalence principle the main departure is due to tidal forces and the radial direction of gravity. so the WEP requires that the size of the frame in a gravity field, say the dimensions of a lab sitting on the surface of a gravitating body, be very small relative to the dimensions of the gravitating body. The Einstein EP (EEP) says that any local non-gravitational experiment in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime. This is the inertial idea of being in a freely falling frame, such as the infamous elevator. Again if this frame falls through a region of a gravity field so that tidal forces are apparent there are departures. The strong EP (SEP) says that the velocity of the frame relative to any outside frame, such as a distant coordinate system, is not a determinant of the measured physics on that local frame. There is again locality of measurements required to eliminate tidal forces. This means that gravitational physics is purely geometric. This is "strong" because it makes reference to regions of spacetime that are removed from any local frame.

When it comes to the rotating frame and the EP, we have certain stipulations that are required. Certainly for the WEP and EEP we require that the dimensions of any local frame be small. This holds for the SEP as well, but we have another stipulation that physics in the lab frame be independent of motion relative to the outside world. This does not happen with the rotating frame. One clear departure is the Coriolis acceleration 2ωxv, which in the rotating frame is rather apparent if there is some motion of a particle relative to the rotating frame. An observer on a frame which observes motion of a freely moving particle as cycles or circles, with no central gravitating body present, suspects then that they are on a rotating frame. As a result the additional caveat for the SEP with rotating frames is that the motion of a particle not under any local force in that frame must have a small velocity v

Dear Christian,

An interesting essay, offering a simple and elegant resolution to a puzzling experimental problem. Very nice work.

Do you know this paper by Bini et al.? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0106013

Best wishes and good luck in the contest!

Christine

Hi Christian,

I always look forward to your essays, because I know I can expect a maximum of theoretical prediction and numerical result, with a minimum of blah,blah, blah ...

It is evidenced that relativists do not often get due respect in this forum -- I hope you are an exception. The time synchronization issue does indeed cross boundaries of classical and quantum gravity, and rotation is key to the geometry of time synchronized systems.

I hope you get a chance to visit my essay where, in part, I examine rotation in the complex plane (Euler's geometric interpretation of C) that may have the potential to join Hilbert space quantum dynamics to the continuous functions of classical spacetime.

All best,

Tom

Dear Christian,

I enjoyed your essay, and I agree with you that "General relativity is [...] the best example showing that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick." And what is the best way to show once more this, than to confirm its validity by explaining the deviation in the Mössbauer rotor experiment, deviation which was even considered an evidence against general relativity's adequacy. That's a good way to answer the contest's question, and in the same time to celebrate 100 years of general relativity. Congratulations!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Christian,

Your essay as always is a rich educational resource, and it's a perfect sentiment for the 100th celebration of General Relativity - a strong and independent proof which reveals the full geometric interpretation of gravity. You provide an excellent analysis of the Mossbauer effect - one I haven't seen before, and your geometric interpretation of time dilation and clock synchronization are absolutely enlightening! You spell out specific pivotal ideas and back them up with technical rigor and lucid experimental evidence; I thoroughly thank you for this solid approach. I also appreciated the application to GPS systems at the end of your essay, a field I briefly consulted in many years ago. A class act contribution to this topic and the forum, I give it the highest rating.

My essay also brings out how changing the mathematical representation can educe quite amazing revelations in physical explanation, and discusses General Relativity's geometric interpretation as a key feature. Furthermore, it mentions the geometric effect on the Turing machine, and uses relativity theory in understanding the multiverse explanation of self referentially induced superposition. Please take a moment to read my essay and rate it as well,

Thanks, Steve