Tom,
Sorry you knocked me down thinking I presented Newton. Newton had 'action-at-a-distance', which you will not find in my equations. Indeed, one can derive Einstein's field equations via iteration on the 'weak field equations' (although a geometric algebra approach makes absolutely no mention of field strength, so I interpret the equations as valid for any strength.)
I will re-read your essay and try to comment meaningfully.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Edwin Eugene,
I like the way that you present your ideas in terms of a posthumous discussion of physicist. It is fun to read, and you explain some concepts really well.
However, I disagree with your conclusions. In particular, what seems decisive to me is how you would answer the following question: does your "local gravity as ether" theory make any concrete experimental predictions that DIFFER from the predictions of GR?
If the answer is "no", then it is simply a matter of taste whether one would like to adopt Einstein's formulation or yours. I would say that it's folklore among physicists that the gravitational field can, in some sense, be seen as some kind of "ether" if one really wants to. It is just that one doesn't gain anything from doing so.
But if the answer is "yes", then you should simply propose an experiment that decides between the two theories. How you feel about GR's and SR's different "time dimensions" (the word is simply chosen by you to make it sound implausible) is then completely irrelevant. The result will then either be a falsification of your approach or the Nobel prize for you.
Best regards,
Markus
Edwin Eugene,
I didn't mean to knock you down. Sorry if I did.
In any case, it's a matter of concept, not equations. "Time flows equably ..." is Newtonian. "the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity" is equivalent to Newton, nonlocal or not.
Einstein/Lorentz time dilation and length contraction are physically real, because spacetime is physically real, and they manifest locally because they are measured relative to local conditions. This does nothing to Einstein's perfect clock, however, which is synchronized with the initial condition and continuing to any later time.
Best,
Tom
Tom,
You state your beliefs clearly, but you don't address any arguments in my essay. Obviously before writing this essay I understood that it would step on many's beliefs. That's just the way it goes.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Markus,
Thanks for reading and commenting.
The answer (briefly mentioned on page 9) is yes: the "local gravity as ether" does make concrete experimental predictions that differ from the predictions of SR. It is an axiom of special relativity that one cannot measure the velocity of any inertial frame (such as the railway car) from within the inertial frame itself. According to my theory, one can do so and I have designed an experiment to do just this.
I do not understand how one can add a new universal time dimension, t', to a new inertial reference frame, and not think of it as a new 'time dimension', but as you say, this is terminology. Physicists have a way of sweeping problems under the rug. For example, Einstein's time dilation is symmetric in nature, but in reality (GPS) it is not.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Edwin Eugene,
The central concept of Einstein's theory is a belief?
Best,
Tom
Tom,
Yes -- a mistaken belief. But your question indicates why you got nothing from my essay, as you seem not to accept the possibility that your belief can be wrong. I don't wish to argue beliefs, so there's nowhere to go from here. As Markus notes in the following comment, an experiment would be appropriate, and as I answered him, I do have an experiment to propose.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Ed,
I have long thought that a covariant form of gravitation in which energy density distribution in inertial domains, interacting with each other, could be found that corresponds with results of GR. Having said that, what do you mean that, "Einstein's time dilation is symmetric in nature, but in reality (GPS) it is not." How do you understand the LT to figure into the assemblage of several kinds of maths that is the computational devise called General Relativity? And how was GR applied to the orbitals assigned to GPS satellites which were launched and are continually controlled using Newtonian mechanics? please - jrc
Edwin Eugene,
My program is experimentally-based, too, with an experiment already proposed.
Best,
Tom
Hi jrc,
We agree (in principle) on your first sentence re: energy density distribution. Let me address your question about the failure of Einstein's 'space-time symmetry', in which "your clock runs slower than mine, while my clock runs more slowly than yours." This is supposed to be 'observer-dependent' as either can be the "rest frame". Thus, the GPS ground station will see the satellite clocks running slower, while the satellite should see the ground state clock as running slower. This does not happen! The ground state is always the fastest clock. This agrees with my energy-time interpretation of SR, in which clock rates are viewed as energy state dependent and are asymmetrical, but contradicts Einstein's 'space-time symmetry'. The ground station clocks have no "energy state changes" - they are in the 'rest frame' established by local gravity and do not move. The satellite clocks start on the launchpad and experience significant energy state changes to achieve 'escape velocity'. They always run 'slower' then the ground station.
[Note: I am separating SR velocity-dependent time-dilation from GR's gravity-dependent dilation as the asymmetry in question violates SR.]
Thanks for your question and for giving my essay serious thought.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Thanks for the response Ed,
I understand your argument as being that the onboard clock mechanism, the oscillation rate of Cesium atoms, is altered in relation to the earth clock by the momentum imparted by acceleration to escape velocity. This would then reflect as you propose that the earth clock is stable in the local inertial frame and the sat-clock slow due to its orbit maintaining the momentum load on the Cesium.
So then the next question is; what in the 45,000 nanosecond/day advancing rate of the sat-clock at its orbital distance. The sum of the lag and lead results in the onboard clock registering 38,000 nanosecond/day ahead of earth time, and of course has to be continuously compensated to within a 50 nanosecond window. If the gravitational force due to energy density interaction, causes the Cesium to vibrate more rapidly, would that shed momentum over time? jrc
jrc,
Your first paragraph is essentially correct. Your second paragraph shows that you understand some of the mechanics.
The gravitational effect makes the satellite clock run faster, the special relativity effect makes it run slower. In essence, since in my theory the 'clock' is counting cycles, not measuring time, in GPS the counts are adjusted to make all clocks run at a common time, which Phipps calls 'collective time'. Having understood what they're doing, I have not delved into the details that you ask for, and it's not immediately obvious to me where variations enter the picture. The main point is that the clock 'adjustments' are always based on the ground clock running the fastest, which violates Einstein's special relativistic 'space-time symmetry' and validates my energy-time approach.
Going out this evening, so will be off-line.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Have a good time, Doc,
I have looked at it from a perspective of having a consistent unitary field rationale, but then the complexity that immediately evolves in considering even small numbers in aggregate, require some kind of ontology beyond 'stacking' oranges. The quantity of energy in aggregate fields of specific force densities must also be conceived as differentiating what makes positive from negative charge operate as observed without resorting to "well, I'll just make it rotate". I seriously think that as density characteristics go, what we observe as the earth's 'magnetosphere' measurable way out into space, is actually still at electrostatic density in the aggregate field volume. And probably only of the denser region we associate as *negative* that operates in separation of atomic centers. So I ponder that sort of thing to try to metaphysically develop a measurement ontology that might project as quantities of energy in bulk for the electrostatic, magnetic and gravitational volumes of the entire field. What I found just in a theoretical, background independent, free rest mass; is that smaller volumes in a sphere at higher density, consumes less quantity in that volume than does the variation of density decreasing across larger volumes, as a sphere's volume computes on radial increments. And that's true for any mass quantity sitting on the benchtop in the realm of contemplation. Most of the mass in my computations is in the outermost shell, just at a much lower energy density range. I have no guess at how vast the earth's gravitational limit would be if it were calculated as if in the void.
Ed,
Is there an orbital configuration (not necessarily for the Earth) wherein the effects of GR and SR exactly offset each other? If so, does that provide any insight?
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
G'morning Ed,
I just ran across this browsing for generalized energy density estimations, and it looks a close fit with what you are doing. It is towards finding a scalar term for gravitational energy density in flat (Euclidean) space, and if its on NASA then they take it seriously. search tag:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/possible_scalar_term_#3
onward! through the fog. jrc
Dear Edwin Eugene,
A fun and imaginative way to introduce the fundamental property(ies?) of time. Bringing popular and well-known physicists together in a situation for a discussion to write an excellent expository essay. thx
However, we know that time essentially imposes a causality criteria on modern theory. That is best discussed in
N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality", hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000. I would suggest that you consider that criteria, as it is (partly) solved by the No-Boundary Wave Function.
But there are several other criteria. In fact Karen Crouther wrote a nice essay further delineating the requirements in a modern context.
Among them is the requirement for finite particle representation geometry that replicates QC/ED quantum state algebra. The finitary criteria is necessary for mathematical consistency, per
G. Takeuti, Proof Theory, Dover Publications, 1975.
I explore these further criteria toward a logical foundational formula in my essay, which I encourage you to read as well.
Wayne Lundberg
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092
Dear Gary,
You ask an interesting question about orbits that allow SR and GR time dilation effects to cancel. I would expect such to exist, but have not calculated this. Since the 'escape velocity' is a very special value, I would start there and see how SR and GR compare. I like your curious mind. Often just thinking of the right question is the key to insight.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Wayne Lundberg,
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I've looked at Seiberg, Susskind, and Toumbas on 'Space-time Non-commutation and Causality' - they discuss "the other term is an "advanced" wave which appears to leave the wall before the incoming packet arrived." They then say a conflict with Lorentz invariance is relevant. As you know I reject space-time symmetry in favor of an asymmetric energy-time interpretation of special relativity. Susskind's most recent book (my ref 19) claims to derive the Lorentz in two inertial frames, like Einstein. That this approach is inherently geometric is reinforced by Susskind's advice:
"when confronted with one of these paradoxes, you should draw a space-time diagram".
In other words, don't use logic (leading to 'paradox'), use geometry. Susskind is still big on strings, which many physicists have moved away from. Hartl, Hawking, and Hertog in "The Classical Universes of the No Boundary Quantum State" believe that the quantum state of the universe determines whether or not it exhibits a quasi-classical realm. I have very little faith in theories based on "the quantum state of the universe."
If I understand your essay you wish to construct fundamental quanta and properties from geometry:
"... All fundamental particle quanta, mass and energy quantities are attributed to a geometric basis [having a dual algebra, with no geometrical properties left over]."
While I tend to agree concerning "foundational theorem which defines geometric-algebraic space-time objects.", I perhaps misunderstand the attempts to define "finite particle representation geometry" that replicates QC/ED quantum state algebra. While I believe geometric algebra is the proper framework: (combining algebra and geometry) I do not believe that elucidating the product terms [as I understand other essays to do] and placing them in one-to-one correspondence with the elementary particles is the correct approach. The LHC has shown that a perfect fluid results from Pb-Pb and Au-Au collisions, and I believe a fluid dynamics model is required to produce the particle zoo (utilizing Yang Mills gauge). I believe the pseudo-stable states resulting actually do have geometric properties, but I see these as 'end states'. I do not see geometric properties as initial states, and thus do not believe such geometry fundamental. I hope I have understood your essay correctly.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Edwin Klingman,
In nature, everything is interconnected and, of course, time is connected with energy. Besides, time is associated with inertia, momentum, movement and space. The question is what connections are short and direct, and which are indirect? Let us consider these connections on the example of an electron. If the internal energy of an electron is kinetic energy, then any point that is part of the electron has zero rest mass and moves at the speed of light. The zero mass of points in a closed volume forms a nonzero mass of the electron. Here the points are very conditional definition - these can be any structures with nonzero dimensions. The motion of points inside an electron is an internal process of an electron. This motion causes a continuous change in the state of the electron, since each point continuously changes its spatial coordinates. The change in the state of the electron forms the proper time of the electron. Now imagine that the gravitational field has one single property - the action on the speed of light, and the smaller the distance to the central mass, the speed of light is less. Let the electron be placed in a gravitational field. In this case, all processes inside the electron slow down in proportion to the decrease in the local speed of light and this leads to a dilation of the electron proper time. In the case of an electron moving relative to the central mass, the average rate of processes inside the electron is additionally slowed down and this leads to an additional expansion of the electron proper time. Both forms of time dilation are observed in the GPS satellite system. In reality, the gravitational field has not one but two fundamental properties, and the combined action of these properties causes various adventures for the electron, including its gravitational acceleration. More details are shown in the essay.
The length contraction caused by gravity can be discussed in the future. Here I note that the rate of time flow in different frames of reference can differ very much, but any two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are also simultaneous in any other reference frame. So, I give You a high rating.
Best wishes,
Robert Sadykov
Dear Edwin, time is not fundamental. Fundamental is the movement of physical space, which for Descartes is a matter. Time is a synonym of total movement space (ether, as you say). I appreciated highly your essay. You forgot to rate my essay. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.
Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko.