I think if the 3-space has a volume measure then it has gravity in some sense. It is not Einstein’s gravity but that is a question of making adjustment so that an equation is satisfied and adding time. Can one do QM without a volume measure? Even if people develop a method of doing QM with a collection of functions, the continuity or some analog of differentiability condition will enforce some sort of rudimentary or possibly weak form of gravity via the weak topology induced by the collection of functions. Will people be able to do QM on a 3-space when it is only a point set without any structure that gives a feeling of some sort of measurability? Thus I cannot imagine that QM ⇒GR, GR meaning Einstein gravity. If implication is considered roughly as an association and we have GR⇒QM, then possibly it can be arranged that QM+(some extra but almost trivial assumptions) ⇒GR and one can gloss over those assumptions. It would be like going to New York from Boston via San Francisco. It is not natural. If we are justified in calling this “some extra …” as pre-gravity we can see the redundancy in the theory. I think that even if by the manipulation of dimensions (4 spacetime dimension coming from higher dimensions or lower dimensional space exploding in 4-spacetime, forgetting point singularity for the moment) the question discussed above involving measurability clearly remains. I also think that this emergence of gravity sensation is coming from the continuation of the idea and definition of the Newtonian gravity in our mind. We recall the formula in the linearized GR involving the Newtonian potential Φ. We have . By taking Φ zero or nonzero one switches gravity off and on. But is it really so? If one takes Φ=0, the Minkowski metric remains. Minkowski spacetime has gravity. It is a solution of the vacuum Einstein’s equation (with the cosmological constant zero). Newtonian potential Φ is simply an extra contribution here. Main part is 1. That 1 remains. It appears that one cannot switch off gravity. I think there should be more discussion on what is a simple theory so that undue and redundant complications can be avoided. Then it will be easier to see what appears to be fundamental and what should be considered derived.
Descartes and his assumptions about inertia are a much bigger problem for physics then Newton and his wrong assumptions about gravity.
Descartes corresponds to the problem of time and a misunderstanding of "aether". Newton corresponds to the problem of gravity and a misunderstanding of Aristoteles.
The biggest problem in physics is the creation of two mathematical rooms: The object that gets observed and the rest of it which creats "space". Find the mistake in any of the above concepts using math. This is impossible because mathematicaly the problem is hidden in space.
To solve the problem is rediculously easy. It honestly is. You just have to let go the lies. Because it is the lie which makes the problem a heavy problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6nyI5L-WbQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYv9ptQbrF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5CIAAhvFAw
Sorry the equation did not show up after "We have" in my question. And it is better to write: "Main part is -1. That -1 remains."
I think mistakes are not lies. Although for the most part we can forget Descartes and begin our concern with that of Newton, to understand the understandings of Descartes and Newton regarding Aristotle completely we need to know Ibn Rushd and Razi. Similarly for the jump from Newton to Einstein one may need to ponder on the three types of centripetal force Newton introduced namely absolute, accelerative and motive.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus