A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW by Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren

Dear Bayarsaikhan,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and lyrics filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give such ideas. Yours faithfully, Vladimir

Dear Bayarsaikhan,

I read your article, skipping over the math and just trying to grasp your concepts. My problem with current physics is that it is highly abstractly mathematical, i.e., it is never stated what the equations apply to. And it's not just that they're reserving judgment until the ultimate basis of reality becomes clear. Many of them (Stephen Hawking & Max Tegmark, for example) honestly think there IS no basis other than naked equations. I find this foolish.

And, while it seems you have tried to make some sense of things, I find your "spatial fluid" and "anti-spatial fluid" almost equally abstract and undefined. For example, you seem to envision your fluid(s) to be perfect ones, i.e., imaginary (all the actual liquids we know of are particulate and viscous). That's fine as a first approximation, but to my way of thinking, it cannot be the fundamental basis of reality.

I like this relevant quote from Parmenides: "Only that can really exist which can also be thought."

quote

We presume that dynamically curved space-time, time dilation and length contraction in Special and General Theory of Relativity can be characterized by a change in sink flow field pattern of spatial fluid caused by a change in the spatial fluid sink rate of material objects. Also it is conceived that light propagates through a vacuum at light speed, c constantly relative to its ambient spatial fluid only

end of quote

I like this section very much and it is why I gave the essay a rating of a 10. This has some similarity with

https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1310

Acoustic geometry for general relativistic barotropic irrotational fluid flow

Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington), Carmen Molina-Paris (Leeds University)

(Submitted on 8 Jan 2010 (v1), last revised 6 May 2010 (this version, v2))

"Acoustic spacetimes", in which techniques of differential geometry are used to investigate sound propagation in moving fluids, have attracted considerable attention over the last few decades. Most of the models currently considered in the literature are based on non-relativistic barotropic irrotational fluids, defined in a flat Newtonian background. The extension, first to special relativistic barotropic fluid flow, and then to general relativistic barotropic fluid flow in an arbitrary background, is less straightforward than it might at first appear. In this article we provide a pedagogical and simple derivation of the general relativistic "acoustic spacetime" in an arbitrary (d+1) dimensional curved-space background.

Comments: V1: 23 pages, zero figures; V2: now 24 pages, some clarifications, 2 references added. This version accepted for publication in the New Journal of Physics. (Special issue on "Classical and Quantum Analogues for Gravitational Phenomena and Related Effects")

Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

Journal reference: New J.Phys.12:095014,2010

Although Baryarsaikhan is using a different methodology, the idea of using of fluid metaphors for General relativity has an extremely distinguished history, and I urge those reviewing this essay to also look at Matt Visser's essay above and to come to your own conclusions.

Hi dear Bayarsaikhan,

I have read (quickly) your interesting article and just can say that it seems to me a serious work within accepted criteria and with its professional level. It deserves to good evaluation, in comparison with the represented many others. Your works in gravity area have intrigued me. In addition, you have interest as well as you are a specialist on the elementary particles area that also close to me. I can say many favorable words, but for realistic authors it should be more important to hearing about lacks and criticism than to listening beautiful words. So let me tell some points that I see can be important.

- You treys to solve problem of gravity by entering a new kind of reality (we can call this by different names - it is not so important). In my view (and not only!) this way cannot be effective (despite you can get many correct solutions and results!) I can drive your attention on the Jayant Narlikar's gravity theory (and co) for example. It gave whole spectrum of quantitative results similar to Einstein's GR, meantime it are based on the Mach's principle that seems very different of GR basic assumptions! I mean the known results are not enough to say; "Now we known physical nature of gravity." There are many modifications of gravity theories using the ether, the hypothetical particles Lessagions, or gravitons, different kinds of fields, as well as unclear - unexplainable modern category "space-time" (entered by Minkovsky, after it curved by Einstein) etc. These all theories give results; however, no one does not give yet causal explanation of gravity! So, it must show to us that we need look on some other side to get the explanation of gravity. In my view, this question may be solved only after when we will understand the physical essence of basic particles. It is good you are a specialist in this area as well. I can offer you to check my works (see in Refs). I have gone in this way - the particles in first, then the gravity that derive as universal properties of elementary particles. It will very long way, of course, but it bring to a completed building!

So, I can welcome your article and to wish you successes!

Dear Ch. Bayarsaikhan,

although I have other understanding of the nature of space, time, movement, gravitation and other fundamental categories of a material world, I respect your approach and appreciate your serious scientific work presented at the FQXi contest.

Nevertheless, I am assured of hopelessness of the researches leaning on conclusions of the Theory of relativity. I consider the principle of relativity and the gravitation concept of Einstein at least incorrect, without looking at faultlessness of mathematical models.

I wish you successes and good luckw!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir A. Rodin

Dear Bayarsaikhan

Yes, I agree that //The speed of light in vacuum is constant// However, on //relative to 'Space' itself, instead of relative to a material object// it is not so unequivocally as this seems. Particularly, from this imagination has been arisen the existence of ether or (absolute system of measurement) that breaks Galilean relativity principle. This theme is large to start discuss it right here. Check please in my article (in Refs) What I need to say It is there. I cannot say you will accept with me, but I do not have other answer. I already have evaluated (and criticized also) your work earlier (see my previous comment)

Let my wish you success!

Dear Bayarsaikhan

Your formula is interesting of course, but I am talking about pure theoretical derivation of G. Of course we can get its value using known some other values as for example M(sun) and orbital parameters of planets, M(earth) and satellite orbits, r(sh) for some known body, average density of matter in the cosmos and Hubble constant etc. The matter is that all such values we had know by calculations only, where we has using experimentally opened Cavendish' constant G. Thus, G hides inside of all such kinds of values, and we can get it from there by some necessary transformations. Then we can understand that it will incorrect to accept such results as a "pure theoretical" deduction. Meanwhile, I have used in my formula (38) the single parameter - Compton's wavelength of electron that we know by independent of gravity ways. So, it can be taken as pure theoretical result. We can continue our discussion in future, and now let me just ask about on your decision/evaluation on my work because the time now is limited.... let me know please.

My best wishes in any case!

Dear Bayarsaikhan

Your formula is interesting of course, but I am talking about pure theoretical derivation of G. Of course we can get its value using known some other values as for example M(sun) and orbital parameters of planets, M(earth) and satellite orbits, r(sh) for some known body, average density of matter in the cosmos and Hubble constant etc. The matter is that all such values we had know by calculations only, where we has using experimentally opened Cavendish' constant G. Thus, G hides inside of all such kinds of values, and we can get it from there by some necessary transformations. Then we can understand that it will incorrect to accept such results as a "pure theoretical" deduction. Meanwhile, I have used in my formula (38) the single parameter - Compton's wavelength of electron that we know by independent of gravity ways. So, it can be taken as pure theoretical result. We can continue our discussion in future, and now let me just ask about on your decision/evaluation on my work because the time now is limited.... let me know please.

My best wishes in any case!

Dear Bayarsaikhan, actually I did not study the Fly-by effect and know this problem not so well. So I cannot tell something certainly on this subject, but only that there are not exact finalised dates on this effect. Maybe your formula really gives its quantitative description - but it can be confirmed and accepted after of finalised observed results - I can wish only it will be like that!

And what about second point of my post?

I still hope hearing you!

Regards

Very interesting essay that gives a vision of what could be the Planck Landscape (10 e-20 to 10 e-35 m) that I also present in my essay "THE SCALE LANDSCAPES OF THE UNIVERSE".

It is not the same vacuum than nothing.... vacuum space is something fluid that could contain other smaller universes with different space dimensions: the KK spaces ?