Hi Colin,

Before this contest closes, I wanted to thank you again for the positive remarks you made on my blog. Of all the entrants you understand me the fullest. We do not agree on everything...so what. However, we both see QM as a phenomena that has been forced into the microscopic. When it explodes onto the dimensions of the universe physics will be changed.

This essay contest will be noted by historians as having two entrants having a foresight into the future.

Being understood is such a pleasure.

Thank you,

Don Limuti

    Thanks Don. It is good to feel appreciated, and back at you. For sure, our ideas resonate nicely.

    Colin

    Dear Colin,

    You wrote an interesting essay in which you compared and contrasted alternatives to the current paradigm on gravity. I will offer some comments which are meant to help you consider possible ways to present them in a way that your ideas will be more likely considered by the relativity community.

    1. On page 2 you write:"It turns out that the radial escape velocity required for general relativity is the same as Newtonian escape speed. This coincidence indicates that the foundation of general relativity is entrenched in the classical realm."

    I suspect orthodox relativists will dock you for this because, as I understand, the coincidence comes about because of a cancellation of two factors. Now, you might have meant that the fact that the cancellation which results in the same escape velocity is exact indicates that the foundation of GR is entrenched in the classical realm, but that requires an application of the principle of charity of which you may or may not be the beneficiary.

    2. I know that you have pursued the idea of multiplicative potential for some time now, and unfortunately I do not recall the answer to the following questions, so I ask now: Can you derive it from the Einstein Field Equations (EFE)? If not, is this because they require a modification? You gave an alternate potential formulation for the Schwarzschild solution. If the latter is not correct, do you mean that its derivation from the EFE is faulty or that you need modified EFE? Although I have only tangential contact with the relativity community, I think that they might be more receptive to an approach formulated in terms of field equations. Of course, that also means that any of the observed predictions of GR, most recently gravitational waves, also have be accounted by it.

    3. The cosmological implications seem intriguing but unfortunately my background is too little to be able to seriously evaluate them. Questioning Hubble recession seems like it might be a radical step for many cosmologists.

    I do hope that your ideas are seriously considered and compared to experimental data. It might be that GR still has some surprises in store for us.

    All the best,

    Armin

      I like this essay a lot!

      You certainly got me thinking Colin. I especially like the idea of applying the product integral to relativistic motion. Truly inspired! Your approach is not quite fully refined, but it has much to recommend it over the standard formulations. Well done! I have a lot to say, but I'll rate a few more essays first - while there is still time.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Dear Colin,

        Thank you for your asking about CMB.... My Paper on CMB is available at

        http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0226

        CMB is nothing BUT star light, Galaxy-light and Light from Other inter stellar & Inter Galaxieal Objects in the Microwave region. CMB anisotropies and variations were were calculated and and discussed in the in the above paper given by the above link

        I request you please have a look at this paper and calculations..........

        Best Regards

        =snp

          Thanks snp. CMB is starlight. That is what I have been thinking. Just downloaded your paper.

          Cheers

          Colin

          Hi Jonathan

          I read your essay when it first came out. I wanted to work out an idea about a kind of circular symmetry before commenting, but then a bit of exhaustion set in which was quite debilitating, and made it easy to put things off . I did manage to rate your essay and several other nice ones the day before the deadline, and have recovered some energy after a good sleep and some exercise.

          Will post to your essay blog later today, hopefully before the old brain gets tired and fuzzy.

          Al the best to you,

          Colin

          Thank you Colin Walker,

          You please ask me any questions if you need. I will try to clear your confusions....

          Best regards

          =snp

          Dear Colin,

          It appears that your response was cut short by the cyberpoltergeists lurking around here, ha.

          Armin

          Hi Armin. Here is my response which was cut short. I recall copying the text into the window, but then editing it. This is an updated version.

          1.

          Hi Armin. Here is my response which was cut short. I recall copying the text into the window, but then editing it. This is an updated version. OK. It does not like angle brackets, which are used in HTML tags.

          1. - I am ignorant of many of the details of general relativity, including the one you point out. I think my statement ought to be evident after the succeeding argument about redshifts (and hence potential energy) requiring relativistic treatment which leads to the Machian escape velocity, regardless of those details. After all, that escape velocity leads to a different metric.

          2.1 Can you derive it from the Einstein Field Equations (EFE)? - No.

          2.2 ... is this because they require a modification? - Yes.

          2.3 ... do you mean that its derivation from the EFE is faulty? - I do not contest the Schwarzschild solution of the EFE.

          2.4 ... or that you need modified EFE? - Yes.

          Either the EFE or the underlying differential geometry for gravity (or both) will need modification. For this latter consideration see the document tangent.pdf at the revisingnewton website in the References, which modifies the equation of the tangent to have the properties of a logarithmic differential instead of a linear differential. It seems to me that these are clues which might chip away at the problem of how to procede.

          So, I have a relativistic gravitational potential energy function, yielding a Machian escape velocity, which has an associated Machian metric. It is almost like a textbook problem, where you are given a premise (Machian potential energy), and the answer (Machian metric), and are expected to provide the theory (something like general relativity, which I bypassed using G-P coordinates to get the metric).

          3. Questioning Hubble recession seems like it might be a radical step for many cosmologists. - I have been working on tired light for quite a while. On posing a question to JV Narlikar about the possibility of publishing a paper on Hh, he responded, "Infinite patience is required". At this point I am just hoping that someone with sufficient background might see the logic in my arguments. I finished reading Bohm's Quantum Theory just before New Year, having Started last April. I read it like a novel - over 600 pages - mostly just scanning the math. What struck me was that, over and over again, he would take a classical formula, treat it using Planck's hypothesis, and get a quantum result. Radical as the viewpoint might be to a cosmologist, Planck's hypothesis is fundamental to quantum theory.

          There are challenges with experimental accuracy. Eddington measured the deflection of starlight by the Sun to first order (1 part in 10^6). Today, measuring to second order (1 part in 10^12) is difficult, but seems achievable. This level of accuracy is required to discriminate between GR and other possible contenders, given that GR already passes first order tests.

          Cheers,

          Colin

          Dear Colin,

          Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.

          I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.

          Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:

          For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. If this difference is already ruled by observations (which I don't know) you could also consider e^(e^x), in which case the differences occur at second and higher order. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least woth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.

          All the best,

          Armin

          Dear Colin,

          Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.

          I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.

          Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:

          For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. If this difference is already ruled by observations (which I don't know) you could also consider e^(e^x), in which case the differences occur at second and higher order. Alternatively, you could look into expansions of log(x), which would seem trickier but more in line with what you said about logarithmic differentials. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least worth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.

          All the best,

          Armin

          Dear Colin,

          Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.

          I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.

          Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:

          For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. Alternatively, you could look into expansions of log(x), which would seem trickier but more in line with what you said about logarithmic differentials. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least worth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.

          All the best,

          Armin

          A couple of quick updates:

          1. I misremembered, it is in the limit of omega towards infinity that BDT reduces to GR.

          2. I came across a useful scholarpedia article by Brans himself:

          http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Jordan-Brans-Dicke_Theory

          He explicitly mentions Mach's principle, and he also has an alternative solution to the spherically symmetric static situation to which you can compare.

          All the best,

          Armin

          Dear Armin,

          Thank you very much for your idea about Brans-Dicke. That really looks promising, but more complicated than what I am prepared for, from a quick look at the Wiki. I will need to work up to that with a better foundation.

          Just read your post, and heading off to read the article by Brans, which really looks like an ideal reference.

          Thanks as well for suggesting the relationship between the field equations and the potentials as a direction for research. This ought to be my next step. I probably would have muddled around with details without seeing a way forward, so these suggestions are of great interest and highly appreciated.

          There is a saying "You should never meet your heroes," which is a pessimistic view of the human condition. However technical, science is social enterprise. It is hard not to take the reactions you experienced personally, but it is a good sign that you can acknowledge the pressures which might lead to dismissive behavior, that stone wall of indifference. I am fairly convinced that no argument can be put forward to change the paradigms of gravitation or cosmology, and only recognition of some physical observation will bring about renewal of these theories, as it has in the past.

          One thing that has surpassed my expectations is the advance of observational and experimental technology. Until 1998, I never expected to see a Hubble diagram as anything other than a hypothetical straight line on a graph. So I am ultimately hopeful that my concerns about gravitation in particular will be resolved objectively by experiment.

          On that note of optimism, Cheers,

          Colin

          25 days later

          Dear Armin,

          I followed up your excellent tip about Brans-Dicke and found that Yilmaz's exponential metric is what I call the Machian metric.

          Dicke has said that Yilmaz's field equation is the local field equation needed for the exponential metric in isotropic coordinates. It has been shown to violate the equivalence principle. Although I expect the violation is beyond our current means of detection, this possibility can be set aside as less than ideal.

          I think that the problem with this sort of modification is that it does not address the basic issue, which is that a multiplicative process duplicating relativistic composition needs to be incorporated, instead of trying to add something as compensation. It looks like the field equations would need to be modified in a way that has not been proposed. And that is information gained!

          Regarding your dimensional theory and special relativity, if you look at the transverse variation due to gravity in my table of dimensional variability, you will notice that it exhibits the same sort of variation as the Lorentz factor, on substituting that for the gravitational scale factor. Perhaps it is less of a conceptual stretch to see GR as having two branches of dimensionality (radial and transverse), if SR is considered to be associated with the transverse branch by virtue of their matching dimensional variability.

          Many thanks, and best wishes,

          Colin

          Write a Reply...