Indeterminacy generated by space-time by Jiří Šrajer

Dear Jiri Srajer,

Yes! "Just to understand a model does not mean to understand reality."

The model is epistemology, reality is ontology. This is why "the equations say nothing about how we should interpret the results of calculations."

You say, "For objects moving at different speeds in relation to the observer, time runs in different directions." That is an imaginative take on 4D-ontology. I think it runs in one direction.

I like the way you verbally invoke spacetime curvature, to get some vortex around each particle. But then you say that "a spacetime vortex around each particle causes gravity." I agree with your association, but would reverse the cause: gravity causes a spacetime vortex around each particle, the gravitomagnetic field circulation. The moving particle induces a gravitomagnetic field circulation (del cross C). This is the deBroglie model. I like "elementary particles are vortices". But vortices are not ultimately stable. You want a vortical 'soliton', which is a torus.

For a related view of spacetime, please see my essay

deciding on spacetime

Thanks for a well written essay with original thoughts, good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Jiri Srajer,

I read the essay and I was also - like Edwin Eugene Klingman - very pleased by the remarks about the differences between understanding physics and doing physics.

In his comment Edwin Eugene Klingman mentioned the problems that are involved if we try to "visualize" general relativity with phenomena like particles.

Personally I doubt that Albert Einstein had published his theory of general relativity if he had known about the existence of the Higgs field. Because the existence of the flat Higgs field - and the Higgs field is flat in nearly the whole universe - contradicts the curvature of space. To say it straightforward: the curvature of space is non-existent.

The reason that general relativity is so accurate isn't because it describes Newtonian gravity. General relativity describes the influence of the electric field on mass (actually concentrations of energy). If matter is created, one or more local scalars of the Higgs field decrease and the energy of these scalars become part of the volume of the electric field (the Higgs mechanism). That's why it is possible to describe the influence of "gravity" with the help of only one field, the electric field. And of course by implementing the gravitational constant in the equations.

Matter represents always a concentration of energy (general relativity) and a concentration point of vectors (Newtonian gravity). That's why the gravitational constant represents both "push forces of gravitation" because the gravitational constant is just a measured value. The only phenomenon we know where both influences are not together is Dark matter. Because dark matter represents no rest mass (no Newtonian gravity).

Thus your hypothesis that "elementary particles are vortices" isn't so much besides reality. Because the "curvature" of space is the reflection of the magnetic field on the density distribution of the local magnitudes of the electric field. In other words, the "vortices" are manifestations of the electromagnetic field (like spin).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Jiří Šrajer,

I was interested in your essay as I had completely the reverse idea, i.e., that Relativity can be deduced from Quantum Theory. It is interesting, for example, that if you assume Nature consists of fundamental particles that all travel at the same speed, the speed of light, in an absolute space (a big if!), you can then derive the equations of Special Relativity, that is, you can show that time would slow, length would shorten, and mass would increase with acceleration in such a system (if you are interested, you can see the derivation in the end notes of my essay).

Having shown in outline how General Relativity could lead to Quantum Theory, I guess your next challenge would be to show in detail how the experimental results, currently explained and predicted by Quantum Theory, could instead be predicted by General Relativity - which would require a grasp of mathematics, I'm afraid, I do not have!

Thanks for your essay.

Best of luck in the competition,

David

P.S. What I meant to say is that I completely agree with you that there is a fundamental link between Relativity and Quantum Theory.

Jiri:

A new era dawns.聽 Old questions become quaint and historical.聽 Is the whole community ready?聽 Or is physical reality too dangerous for our collective understanding at this time?