In the context of gravitational waves detection, there are several conclusions to take it as a wrong approaches. The equations which resulted such predictions itself is based on the fluid mechanism i.e. these are corresponding abstractions from fluid dynamics to GR which gave foundation for the inertial effect in empty space and hence for the inertial mass to Equivalence principle. I personally question that the plane linearized solution to get such resulting wave mechanism of gravitational field or say space-time fabric should be permitted only on the edge or outer surface of such fabric (like for ex., a vibrating object inside the water pool shows a waving pattern on the surface level and not inside the water pool, which means a perturbed result as a whole allows such ripples on the surface pool, only). As we have no guaranty that we and our labs are at such surface level or at the edge of universe. Such collision between two merging black hoes should create such ripple only at the edge of universe, not inside our labs. This is an indirect expression which my previous question was really addressing to ______
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_we_ignoring_extra_planes_of_space-time_fabrics_to_represent_the_curvature_around_a_dense_mass_M_in_GR
? So through this aspect, does the linearized solution of gravitational wave to detect in our labs is possible??
The statements about the fluid dynamics analog are incorrect.
The mathematical description of how gravitational waves, without any assumption that they are linear-which gravitational waves are not-propagate can be shown to be consistent and that only matters.
The response of the detector can be, similarly, described and the backgrounds to the signal, also. The statement that gravitational waves have been detected is the statement that the signal measured by the detector, is consistent with the presence of gravitational waves, once the background effects have been subtracted.
Stam, I think you are addressing to the final result for such analogy; for what I meant about. But I am addressing to the basic elements which as a final state or say consequentially resulted to be so. The stress-energy-momentum tensor is the output of fluid dynamics that is applied to GR in order to relate the inertial effect that a mass M implicates (see Ch.4 of a first course in GR, 2nd edn for most easy and true explanations).
I am not getting what actually you mean " they are linear-which gravitational waves are not-propagate".
I meant not such linearization of wave but to the abstraction of isolation on the space-time fabric, itself. I am not talking here about the back ground effect only, rather I am intended to take such detection as an effect of some other phenomenon (like noise effect).
Hello Sydney Ernest Grimm
"It is impossible to increase or decrease the transfer of quanta, related to identical volumes of space", it sense some kind of matching to my point but not to the all. Please, read it once more. I always tried so much to make the problem as simple (I am very much impressed by Dirac and Throne type of explanations) as a high school boy could understand it but I don't know what the problem with me that I could never done it properly. Sorry, for your inconvenience.
Hello Sydney Ernest Grimm ,
I didn't mean as you said "only emerge at the boundary of the merging black holes and not inside". The limit of space-time known till date is infinite because, we have no limit on the boundary of Universe. If it is possible, say, there is limit and we could approach to its end, at the mean time the collision between two merging blackholes would create a ripple at that last limited point of universe, not at the boundary of the blackholes. As we are presuming it now as like you mentioned above, my point degrades to such assumptions. If it is so as you meant, there is no point to raise this question.
Thank you for your recommendation, I read it 3 yrs ago where my conclusion about micro-world is same as it is said in paper. I support the conclusion.
There is nothing surprising in an existence of the gravitational waves; which aren’t, of course, some “spacetime ripples”, though. Matter’s spacetime isn’t the pseudo Riemannian/Minkowski space, where either space or time dimensions are/is [mathematically] imaginary and where essential part of distances between spacetime points are imaginary also.
In the reality Matter’s spacetime is absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container/ spacetime, where Matter exists and changes; where all in the spacetime is mathematically real.
As well as this spacetime fundamentally cannot be transformed by any material and/or non-material object, including a “mass” or an “observer in a reference frame”; that can do only possible Matter’s Creator.
Correspondingly the GR has rather indirect relation to the objective reality, Gravity by no means is a result of some “spacetime curvature”; Gravity is simply 4-th fundamental Nature force, which in a lot of traits is similar to the fundamental Nature EM force, and so there can be some gravitational waves like the EM waves.
As well as
“…it cannot be a disturbing of the gravitational field itself…”
that isn’t so, people detect gravitational waves having frequency near 4.1.10-7 Hz thousands of years already observing changing of the heights of tides depending on Moon phases. And corresponding disturbance of the Moon+Earth gravity field spreads in the space with the speed of light without any problems, including, for example, Martians, if make some LIGO, can detect this disturbance.
Cheers
BB: Does the gravitational wave detection is real?
The fact that dozens of optical and other telescopes were able to find and then study the kilonova that caused GW170817 based on the location and range given by LIGO proves that the waves are real and LIGO's detection was valid.
Sergey Shevchenko ,
If you read your comment yourself properly, you would know that your arguments are debating within themselves. Moreover, you said that spacetime curvature is not the representation for gravity (I made it correct your point is opposite), then we are fooled till date learning this as true, right? I amazed by your kind of interpretation, so much, much more. Tell me if gravitational wave is not a kind of ripple type with the medium path as spacetime fabric, how we get frequency to get the destructive interference by either stretching or squeezing the normal fabric through which two constructive light waves were already blowing?, how it would be the electromagnetic-type? why interferometer (that works on principle of coherence) is used to disturb on such constructive phases?
Dear Bishal Banjara,
“…you [SS] said that spacetime curvature is not the representation for gravity..”
that is indeed so; there cannot be some transformations/deformations of the Matter’s spacetime besides that possibly could be done by a possible Matter’s Creator.
Matter’s spacetime, again, is [5]4D Euclidian manifold, where the dimensions, i.e. two temporal and three spatial dimensions, are determined by that at utmost fundamental depth the primary logical elements, which are fundamental “bricks” on which every particle, further body, etc. is built, have 3 independent degrees of freedom at changing their states in the absolute space and two degrees of freedom at changing their states in two times.
Again, that is utmost fundamental level in Matter, any concrete material object or “reference frame” fundamentally cannot impact [“contract”, “dilate”, “bend”, etc.] on the spacetime.
The gravitational waves, again, exist with a large probability, as EM waves evidently exist, since these two [Gravity and EM] Natural forces are rather similar. However, they are different in that Gravity is totally universal force, when EM acts only if its specific charges interact. The charge in Gravity is the gravitational mass, and every particle/body has such mass [and every particle/body has the inertial mass also, though]. Including EM quanta, photons, have these both masses also, when in the GR it is postulated that photons have no gravitational mass and so move in gravitational fields without changes in their energies.[That is rather strange postulate, but it isn’t unique strange in the GR, though.]
Thus when the EM force/wave can be decreased by some shielding, there cannot be, at least in weak fields, of some gravity shielding; and some disturbances of the gravity field [as Earth+Moon gravity example in the SS post above] can be detected by some instruments, for that there is no any necessity in some “ripples of the spacetime”
More see, for example SS posts and papers that are linked in the posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_scientists_trying_to_merge_gravity_and_quantum_physics_even_though_gravity_is_just_the_curvature_of_space-time
Cheers
Dear Bishal
We have to agree with Stam:
The statements about the fluid dynamics analog are incorrect.
Hello Cesar,
As I didn't get what he is meant about properly (he didn't replied to my comment), please explain me on your own words. Also, I would suggest you to read my comment on his post.
Dear Bishal
Of course, your question is very interesting, in the sense that, --- it seens to me ---, you wish to understand the degree of reality that can be associated with a gravitational wave. In fact your question can be extended in the sense of understanding the degree of reality that can be associated with space-time. If theoretical physics combines mathematical models and abstractions of physical reality to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena, "how can one understand that something which is apparently pure abstraction (space-time) acquires in some degree the status of something real, palpable?" This is your question, basically, if I understood correctly.
Scientists from LIGO use to say that: "In Einstein's theory, space and time are aspects of a single measurable reality called space-time. Matter and energy are two expressions of a single material. We can think of space-time as a fabric; The presence of large amounts of mass or energy distorts space-time – in essence causing the fabric to "warp" – and we observe this warpage as gravity. Freely falling objects – whether soccer balls, satellites, or beams of starlight – simply follow the most direct path in this curved space-time."
It is not a substance, however. Despite tha fact that it bends in the presence of mass-energy and momentum.
I do not have a final, definitive answer about this. I do not think anyone has it so far. There are lines of thought in this regard. The most varied. All who seek such a response, surround the problem, use in general language artifice to seek to associate reality and abstraction. It is indeed an enigma.The concrete fact is that, in a way, this realization is built and measurable. Measurable reality as LIGO says.
Hello Cesar,
Your generalization on my quest is focused on my example only, so far as I have understood. Ok, one could get mathematical abstraction for plane fabric of space-time, there is no doubt. But to understood or to get a practical result, the same such abstract should not be valid in general. I will give you a very simple example (but not to exact meaning, just ex.): let we have a very large spherical mass, if I slice-up it into many pieces horizontally, there will be so many horizontal disks of varying sizes. If one take it out a single such disk and placed a heavy spherical metal at its center, and do some kind of experiment on the plane and obtained some conclusions. He can't say that the same result is valid to such whole sphere, as if the metal is placed on the center of that large sphere. Here, the real case is, we have slice-upped theoretically (obtained linearized solution) and calculation is done through it but the result is expected to be obtained from as a whole (like the obtained linearized solution is applied as if there is no other such slicings).
Hello Thierry, not only that but how we basically assume about the light flow either wavy or particle nature, is not definite though our current physics on the issue just stock on closing eyes and opening eyes. We indeed have enigma fundamentally that which way to accept for light flow. And if we follow the particle nature we indeed have such issue on that, I believe.
Hi Bishal
My generalization is not focused on your example. It is related to your question about the meaning of what you call "reality of the GWs detection". Your classical examples are based, according to its intrinsical logics, on material substances, placed in a three dimensional world, with invariant geometrical shapes and volumes, placed in a static universe and considering an absolute referencial. To understand GWs one shall adopt a new way of thinking.
Hello Cesar, one could say it is different than Classical sense but the expected result was purely based underling within the classical concept. see for eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s06_jRK939I and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOPEPVYAnU
“…It is the structure of the underlying quantum fields that generates all the quanta….”
It seems that that isn’t completely correct, when it is as rather reasonable to suggest that the quanta can be at least two types: (i) -“circular quanta”, e.g. in electro- and gravi- static fields, that are generating not by fields but the charges, and (ii) – “simply/traditional” quanta, that are generated at relaxation of excited level of the charge systems, including that are composed by the electrostatic fields.
I.e. it seems as rather rational that eventually all “fundamental Nature” physical fields [not as, e.g. a “field of velocities”] are generated by the charges.
More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494 ; Sec. 3 Some consequences from the model – gravity, electricity, etc.
Cheers
Hello Sydney, Albert Einstein used the word “aether” to clarify his opinion about the position of General relativity in relation to the universe. He told the students at Leiden university that there is an aether that underlies spacetime because without phenomena there is no theory of general relativity. Is it? If so, how and when did we terminated to use the MODERN concept of relativity without linking to QFT?
Hi Bishsal
I never heard anything about that. I am not of coyrse owner of the truth, but this information must be clarified. Einstein was the scientist who developed the more important theoretical framework to deny the existence of the "aether"...
Hi Bishal
Of course, to deny the existence of the aether as a consequence of assuming two principles, 1) the constancy of the velocity of the ligth, independently of the velocity of the source and 2) the asumption that the Lorentz transformations are the appropriate transformations involving the space and time coordinates of inertial reference systems. Of course the non existence of the aether was experimentally proven much before in 1887 in the extraordinary experiment perfirmed by the great Michelson and Morley. I, by the way, have performed this experiment using lazer beans with my graduate students dozen of times in the last years. I allways feel very impressed by the revolutionary ideas of these two great scientists. My students feel the same. Concerning this information about Einstein which I cannot confirm i am a litle bit skeptical. But as I told you we have to open our minds, even in those times of fake news...
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,
“…Dear Sergey Shevchenco,
Maybe there is a better topic to express your thoughts about the origin of quanta…” , etc.
That is rather strange recommendation, just you write many times here about “QFT”, and with seems rather small relations to the gravitational waves. That is a minority, though, so about some other points in your posts, which seem as rather questionable:
“…the concept of the aether was a phenomenon too. It didn’t create all the phenomena, it just “filled up” the emptiness around and between the known phenomena. The aether was the carrier of forces and not the creator of reality…”
- aether even in late 1890-th – first 1900-th wasn’t a “carrier [of some uncertain] forces”, it was “luminiferous aether”, i.e. a medium where EM waves spread, as, e.g., water is the medium where anybody can see well observable waves; which don’t carry some “any forces at all”, the water waves are disturbances in water, which appear at some impact on a water in, say, a point. And just the waves, not the water, are the “carriers of forces”, which, for example, break the coast.
.
“…Einstein’s concept of the “aether” at that time (~ 1920) was more like modern QFT. An underlying reality that creates the observable phenomena in the universe…”
- QFT isn’t some “underlying reality”, it is a theory, which invented humans aimed at a description of this reality. Including, it doesn’t create something in the reality, anything in the reality can be created only by some material interactions of material objects [particles, bodies, fields], and provided that some portion of energy is spent. Thus, again, QFT only in better case, in some points where it is indeed adequate to the reality, indeed phenomenologically describes some results of some impacts/interactions/processes/forces in Matter, having at that till now rather vague imagination about the forces. An example is in the SS post above: there is no any “underlying fields” that “generate quanta”, on the contrary, all fields are some compositions of quanta that are created by some charges [electrical charges, masses, possibly quarks for the strong force and something unknown for weak force]
So we have no any grounds to “forget the concept of the aether”; moreover, it seems as rather probable/rational that it, as, for example a dense lattice of primary 4D logical elements, indeed fills the absolute 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, when all/every particles [and not only, anything else are also] are some disturbances of this lattice, which . move in the 4D sub-spacetime with 4D speeds that have identical absolute values be equal to the standard speed of light.
This fundamental speed [of light] is just the fundamental property of the lattice/aether, and, for example, because of photons move in the 3D space only, they move just with this spatial speed, and when any force impacts on a photon, it fundamentally, again because of the aether property above, cannot change its speed and only at impact changes photons’ energy/frequency.
The QFT has no any rational ground for the constancy of the speed of light, and so only [as that was in SR also, though] postulate its existence. So
“…In my opinion it is better to forget the concept of the aether because we have QFT (but QFT is incomplete, vague and has a lack of foundations, so there is a lot of research to do)…”
- that is indeed true, and some inferences from QFT, which relate to fundamental base of the informational system “Matter”, should be made with some precautions, since such inferences can be too bare declarations and be too far from the reality…
With kind regards, Sergey,
Cheers,
Hi Bishal
Concerning the discussion about QFT, i feel confused because the discussion cite "QFT" as this combination of letters indicates in an absolute way an unique kind of theory. In reality there are dozens of QFTs... so, any strong statement about QFT should "disantangle" what kind and type and domain and effective or not deggrees of freedom are being considered and and and .... people is talking about...unfortunately stated as it was, I cannot give any contribution to the discussion...
Hi Thierry
This a very strange argument. If the aether does exist all of our present knowledge of electromagnetism, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics etc, which represents the basis of the technology that gives support to modern computers, accelerators, tvs, dvds, communication devices and so on is wrong and those instruments do not exist as well...
Hi Thierry
Of course I have!
It is a long history. I start with the following point.
The non existense of the aether was contested by Einstein by considering two principles: 1) the constancy of the velocity of ligth and 2) the imposition of the Lorentz transformation of space and time coordinates of inertial frames. These are the coordinate transformations that maintain the invariance of physical equations when one consider inertial frames.
As a consequence, he demonstrated the validity, without any doubt, of the Maxwell equations. And that the velocity of ligth is correctly defined as the square root of the inverse of the product of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. As predicted by Maxwell in the development of his famous 4 equations.
This is a fundamental concept in the development of all modern devices, from computers to all communication and nanotech systems.
If the aether was real, and if you consider Galileo/Newton space and time coordinate transformations, Newton equations are shown to be invariant to these transformations but Maxwell equations are not. This means that electromagnetic systems show different behaviour when considering different different inertial systems. In order to impose the same behaviour it is impositive to assume a modification of the equations of the Maxwell electromagnetic fields that demand to redefine the terms of the transformed equations that break the invariance. This is the origin of the conception of aether. In order to impose invariance one has to redefine the term that breaks the invariance as a non constant velocity, which depends on the coordinates of space and time. And also one should consider a new referencial, with some kind of absolut character, which act as some kind of "carrier" of the ligth.
There are many other consequences. I came back on this topic.
@all, previously I thought that the context of light speed is not the subject to discuss under this question but as I see more approach of all regarding the light speed, aether, I shall not miss the point to show my work on this regard starting right from the beginning of it's Formulation right through Maxwell (actually Oliver). What it particularly focuses is, there is fundamental leap which resulted to obtained such result of strange. The case is within the derivation that starts right back from the dielectric phenomenon. In the derivation of Displacement vector (current) to the case of dielectric, the fundamental misleading was held on the relation of Electric field strength relation across the dielectric which let an unknown mistake of assumption of imaginary dielectric for any kind of real dielectric placement in between the parallel plates. That starts from the relation E=E0-Ep which actually should be E=γ(E0-Ep) . The further result of consequence is fully treated on my book which if you have interest on this, I could upload the photographs of pages.
I don't know by nature, if light speed is not relative but by the way of mathematical expressions, this is not totally ensured. Further, the Maxwell's expression or derivation let the speed to be constant to the case of stationary observer only, but Einstein put forth it straightly to the overall cases which is a kind of giant mistake, I believe.
Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,
‘…The non existense of the aether was contested by Einstein by considering two principles: 1) the constancy of the velocity of ligth and 2) the imposition of the Lorentz transformation of space and time coordinates of inertial frames…This is a fundamental concept in the development of all modern devices, from computers to all communication and nanotech systems.”
The non-existence of the aether was contested by Einstein in fact by two reasons: (i) that was before suggested by Poincaré, to who Einstein believed and “used” his ideas without limitations; and (ii) – this non-existence in necessary in the 1905 –1908 years SP version and further in the 1908 [Minkowski] version, because of the aether can exist in some absolute spacetime and be a base of corresponding absolute reference frames, when if the absolute reference frames exist, then two postulates in 1905 paper evidently require some additional explanation with using some more common physical arguments, including – why the postulated constancy of the light speed exists, and is this fact indeed so fundamental that could be some postulate? And why that is something more then only some experimental outcome? – as that was used in the Lorentz theory, which was developed in some standard way, when in some theory [existent mechanics and electrodynamics] after new experimental results some corrections are introduced that fit the theory to the results. For Poincaré that wasn’t too big problem at all, he was a conventionalist and for him it was enough when some theory is in consistence with experiments: “it works and so let it work”.
Including when Poincaré developed the [purely mathematical] version of deducing of the Lorentz transformations by the condition of the invariance of the “interval”, where some either space or time are [mathematically] imaginary, for him that was nothing more then a next interesting property of the transformations, as earlier deduced by him fact that they form the group.
And that was just Minkowski, who this invariance claimed as existent in the objective reality phenomenon, and thus the recent version of the SR appeared. Where, as that all textbooks assert, Minkowski space is the real Matter’s spacetime, that the inertial frames, even anything what moves, really transform this spacetime by using some magic forces and further this transformed [“contracted”, “dilated”, etc.] spacetime also by using also some magic forces, really transforms real material objects, i.e. ”contracts the lengths” of bodies, “dilate thick rates” of clocks, etc.
All that in the SR seems as some evident fantasy; besides, what is more important, from the postulate in yet in the 1905 year paper, that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every the reference frames are totally equivalent and legitimate, immediately evidently, directly and unambiguously any number of evidently senseless consequences follow; seems utmost simple and known one is the “Dingle problem in the SR”. As well as nobody observed till now imaginary space, time, or distances between Matter’s spacetime points.
And of some transformations of just the space or time; all what was/is observed experimentally is contractions of lengths of real bodies and slowing of thick rates of real internal processes in real clocks, particles, etc. any measurement of just space or time transformation principally is impossible, Matter’s spacetime is simply [5]4D empty container, emptiness hasn’t measure.
“…If the aether was real, and if you consider Galileo/Newton space and time coordinate transformations, Newton equations are shown to be invariant to these transformations but Maxwell equations are not.”
In this quote there is evident semantic flaw: existence/non-existence of the aether has no any relation to what human what coordinate transformation uses. In the reality the existence of the absolute Matter’s spacetime and so existence of some aether [where, besides, every material object is some always moving in the aether as its disturbance] by no means contradicts with, say, invariance of Maxwell equations, etc., more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628; and at least the paper “Informational model…” linked in the SS post above.
Moreover, the existence of an aether is quite natural, for example, because of the experimental facts that photons move [in the absolute space] only with the speed of light, when the accessible 3D spatial speed of having rest masses material objects is limited [by the speed of light value; and in the reality every material object moves only with 4D speed of light]; and by not only these reasons.
Cheers
Dear Sidney
"But don't forget that Einstein didn't mean the classic aether, he admitted that there is an underlying reality and used the name "aether" because at that time there were different concepts about the "aether"."
Your comment sounds more appropriate. About an underlying reality. Thanks.
Hello Thierry, I think I didn't make you clear in my quest of light speed. Please, see the main portion of the chapter which is attached here.
Dear Thierry,
The fundamental Nature force Gravity is rather similar to the fundamental Nature EM force, but they aren’t identical. For example in the electrodynamics the charges don’t change at EM interactions, when if gravitational masses interact, then their summing mass becomes be lesser comparing with the case when they are free on the gravitational mass defect; here rather possibly exist some “additional” gravitational interaction of the gravitational fields, since theyrather possibly have some energy, when possibly any energy has both, inertial and gravitational masses, etc.
So correct theory of Gravity will not so simple as electrodynamics is seemed, at that, however, even electrodynamics, in spite of its famous efficiency, has a lot of principal problems…
Cheers
“…By the way, the question https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_quantum_fields_made_up_of_really is more suited to discuss the speed of light, QFT, etc. Isn't it better to keep this question only for gravitational waves?..”
that isn’t correct principally, and including by the reason that till now there is no quantum theory of Gravity, when in the advised thread above only the known quantum fields are discussed.
Though this reason isn’t too essential comparing with the fact that in this thread just the gravitational waves are discussed, when the nature of these [very possibly indeed existent] waves in physics can be different; in the mainstream and initially in this thread only the GR interpretation of the waves, i.e. that they are “ripples of the spacetime”.
However for anybody, who understands what are the fundamental notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”, it is quite clear, that the concrete acting of the absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” in the concrete informational system “Matter” as the concrete Matter’s spacetime cannot be impacted/transformed by any material object, including “by masses”, that can do only possible Matter’s Creator, and such transformations, if appear, will cause rather essential changes in all other [besides Gravity] laws and links between material objects, what will be rather possibly well observable.
Besides, the Matter’s spacetime is absolute even at possible absence of the Creator, since from the SR postulate that there is no absolute spacetime and all/every reference frames are completely equally equivalent and legitimate any number of evidently senseless consequences follow. Thus there is the possibility to observe the absolute motion, and that is possible already now, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709.
However from that astronomy doesn’t observe some deviations from “near Earth” laws and links on billions of light years in the space and so in billions of years in time, the possible Creator seems has no reasons to change in Matter something. Besides possible “space expansion”, but this effect has no relations to the gravitational wave problems.
Thus to discuss scientifically this problem it is necessary before to make more clear a number of problems, starting from what is correct definition of Matter’s spacetime, what is the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, including what is Gravity’s quantum effects [since, for example, the EM waves are formed by “quanta”, i.e. photons ] etc.; so corresponding posts are quite pertinet here.
More see the SS posts above and the papers linked in the posts.
Cheers
Dear Thierry
Just as a practical example, among a myriad of other examples that I could enumerate for you, I just quote Global Positioning System (GPS).
I imagine you have a cell phone with a GPS application. Well, the GPS system represents one of the most celebrated triumphs of the theory of relativity. And what is this system based on? Basically, in Lorentz's transformations and in the constancy of the speed of light, the two principles which supported, on the one hand, the confirmation of the accuracy of Maxwell's laws as well as the confirmation of the results of Michelson's experience in 1881, of the velocity of light, and, on the other, it represents the full proof of the non-existence of the aether.
The GPS system is therefore based on the established and proven principle that cyclic configuration rates of atomic clocks are affected, in a very well-defined way (as predicted by Lorentz transformations), by variations in their velocities relative to the Earth and their position in a gravitational field. In addition, the GPS system is completely consistent with the modern definition of the "meter" as corresponding to the distance light travels in free space in c ^ (- 1) second.
Now, since you have a great sense of humor, I take the liberty of doing two little taunts to you.
1. Construct a GPS system based on the existence of the aether, as well as consider the Galileo/Newton space-time coordinate transformations, and finally consider the velocity of light as a position-dependent and time-dependent function, instead of a constant. as the mechanists in the beginning of the last century believed. Then trace your path from your work to your home. Then tell me what happened. Surely you will not have been able to get home with your new apparatus based on the 18th and early 19th century physics. I wonder where you will have arrived. Certainly very far from home.
2. You believe in the existence of aether, that the coordinate transformations of space and time of Galileo/Newton (which are only valid when the speeds considered
Dear Thierry
You said: "I have proven ad nauseam that every alleged proof of SRT is in fact the effect of the retarded fields in electromagnetic devices, resulting in equations, which SRT tries to mimic."
I am sorry to have to say that you have to publish your
Again Thierry
You have to publish and submit your ideas to the scientific community. Should publish in a peer review journal. Otherwise
Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,
“…the GPS system represents one of the most celebrated triumphs of the theory of relativity…”
it seems as evident already that the GPS system represents nothing that could indeed confirm both [since on Earth’s and satellites’ clocks operation both factors exist – the motion of the clocks and Earth gravity], the SR and the GR.
The main feature that differs the SR from, for example, the Lorentz theory is just in that when the Lorentz theory was developed for real [mathematically] Euclidian Matter’s spacetime [what indeed correct] and the coordinates “x”/ “x’” and “t”/ “t’” in the Lorentz transformations relate to concrete material bodies’ coordinates and to some ad hoc “local time”, every textbook now, when writes the formula “x2’-x1’=(x2-x1)(1-v2/c2)1/2”, and the analogous formula for the time relation, always claims that these letters in the SR fundamentally relate to whole Matter’s spacetime and so they describe real “relativistic effects”, i.e., “the space contraction” and the “time dilation”; and that is claimed in the mainstream as “discovering in the SR of fundamental properties of the space and of the time”.
In the GPS systems there is no any direct observations of both these relativistic effects, there are indeed changes of distances between concrete material bodies, which constantly interact by the gravity and slowing down of material tick rates of material clocks.
As well as the GPS doesn’t confirm the GR, which is based on the postulate that photons [EM signals between the clocks in this case] don’t change their energies/frequencies when move “along geodesics”, and so the difference of some clocks’ tick rates, if they are in different gravity potentials, is caused by “the gravitational time dilation because of the spacetime curvature” only, when in this case, as that was in more simple Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments also, can two different effects act: the losing/obtaining photons’ energies and some material gravitational impact that results in slowing [in greater potential] of the [material also] clocks’ rate.
Thus, again, there is no any real experimental confirmation of both relativity theories, when to explain/describe the really observed effects and to explain what are the Lorentz transformations, what the letters in the transformations above are, when the transformations are valid and when not; how gravity impact on material objects so that the internal processes in the objects indeed slow down;
and, besides, why the GR is wrong when predicts this slowing’s value as well,
when all processes in Matter happen, of course, in the absolute [so, relating to this thread question, which cannot be transformed and so there cannot be some “gravitational waves as ripples in the spacetime, which are solution of the Einstein’s equations”] Euclidian Matter’s spacetime [which isn’t of course, imaginary Minkowski/pseudo Riemannian space] becomes be possible in the informational conception.
For convenience I repeat here links to corresponding papers:
What is the physical meaning of Lorentz transformations, why and when they are valid: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628
How to observe the absolute motion: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709 http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0190v4.pdf
Why the GR predicts incorrect gravitational slowing down of internal processes in material objects and how this fact can be observed experimentally [when, in contrast to GPS and PRS experiment only tha\e gravity impact acts]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0031 DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4332.9925 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment
Cheers
Hi Bishal
Returning to your question about gravitational waves I will try to answer it using the stardard way scientists from LIGO and cosmologists understand the problem. Since I cannot write the GR formulae here I will add some files to explain the way we see this problem. After a few posts I will give my own answer to your question ok? Please be patient. By the way, your comment "the equations which resulted such predictions itself is based on the fluid mechanism i.e. these are corresponding abstractions from fluid dynamics to GR..." does not correspond to the common sense among cosmologists about GWs.
Hi Bishal
It follows a short and compact version of my view about your question. I start with gravitational waves in Einstein’s linearized theory.
The conception of gravitational waves was presented by Einstein a bit later after his formulation of GRT, still in 1916. His linearized field equations may be writte as
𝑅𝜇𝜈 − (1/2)𝑅𝑔𝜇𝜈 = 𝜅𝑇𝜇𝜈
by assuming that the metric gravitational field 𝑔𝜇𝜈 may be represented by a slightly perturbed Minkowski metric 𝜂𝜇𝜈, so that
𝑔𝜇𝜈 = 𝜂𝜇𝜈 + 𝜖ℎ𝜇𝜈,
with 0 < 𝜖 ≪ 1.
The next step corresponds to develop the left hand side of the first equation in powers of 𝜖 and neglect all terms involving 𝜖^𝑘 with 𝑘 > 1.
Now, as a result of this procedure, Einstein has obtained the field equations of linearized general relativity:
ℎ̄𝜇𝜈 = ℎ𝜇𝜈 − (1/2) 𝜂𝜇𝜈 ℎ𝛼𝛽 𝜂^𝛼^𝛽 as
□ℎ̄𝜇𝜈 = 2𝜅𝑇𝜇𝜈, □ = 𝜂𝜇𝜈 𝜕^𝜇𝜕^𝜈 .
Outside the sources, 𝑇𝜇𝜈 = 0, and we have a system of decoupled relativistic wave equations □ℎ𝜇𝜈 = 0 for each component of ℎ𝜇𝜈.
Thus, the linearized general relativity theory admits solutions for which the perturbations of Minkowski spacetime ℎ𝜇𝜈 are plane waves traveling with the speed of light, with different propagation vectors 𝑘𝜇 and any desirable wave front, the so called the gravitational waves.
I return to these points.
Hi Bishal
Returning, briefly...
Einstein then showed that GWs carry energy, and he developed a formula for the energy loss expressed in terms of the third time derivative of the mass quadrupole moment of the source.
LIGO/Virgo team detected weak GWs and they treated them theoretically as plane waves as predicted by the linearized theory.
I will be back to comment the detection of GWs and my view about the meaning of the reality of gravitational waves.
Hi Bishal
For the detection of gravitational waves, LIGO built resonant bar
detectors consisting essentially of large cylinders placed inside a vacuum chamber (isolated from vibrations). Einstein's predictions indicate that when a gravitational wave interacts with the bar, it can excite resonant modes and cause variations in its length.
Concerning the detection of GWs, the heart and soul of the instrumental design used by LIGO is a Michelson interferometer (see the schematic view attached: a laser beam is split into two sub-beams that travel down orthogonal arms, bounce off mirrors, and then return to recombine).
At this point, the detection of GWs is very similar to the experiment carried out by Michelson and Morley which demonstrated the non-existence of aether.
In this context, yes, the detection of GWs corresponds to a real effect, that is, the variation in the length of the detection bars.
Hello Cesar,
thank you very much for your explanation.Those are all we have. Let me reexplain you. Suppose, I have a spherical mass and according to Einstein's concept (as you mentioned above) if I have to consider the stress-energy-momentum tensor around that mass I have to take a 4-dimensional axes around it and calculate the resulting components. Within the same limit, we could have a linearised solution to specify some kind of one specific plane. But my question is, the orientation of that sphere could be taken in 4 pie angle substension such that the above explanation that is based on GR (not the linearsied one) lies at just a single point of whole 4 Pie substension. Sorry, for your inconvenience.
Hi Bishal
Unfortunately my equations in a previous post disappear...no problem...
Well if you have a spherical mass distribution you cannot produce GWs! Because GWs are the result of a suden quadrupole moment deformation of the mass source! And the time fluctuations of this quadrupole moment produces perturbations in the Minkowski spacetime, seen as plane waves traveling with the speed of light, the so called GWs.
Hello Cesar,
The spherical mass in my post mean a reference source, without any source also there will be no problem to my question. I used spherical in order to represent the easy way interpretation of 4 pie angle substension. Ok, " time fluctuations of this quadrupole moment produces perturbations in the Minkowski spacetime", but my question is addressed to the point that a isolated solution for linear case is not applicable to the region where there are enormous indefinite number of possible ways of orientation of such Minkowski spacetime. Our usual understanding is possible, if and only if we are sure that we only have a single fixed orientation of such spacetime such that any disturbance from central point would yield a resulting suden quadrupole moment deformation.
“…In this context, yes, the detection of GWs corresponds to a real effect, that is, the variation in the length of the detection bars.”
In the GR the GWs are, as that the GR postulates, some transformations of the real Matter’s 4D pseudo Riemannian spacetime, or as that usually they say relating to the LIGO experiments, real “ripples of the spacetime”. When the real Matter’s spacetime is evidently [because of from the opposite assertion any number of evidently absurd consequences follow] absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold.
Besides, from the, even if they indeed exist, detected transformations [“variations in the length of”] of the interferometer’s bars by any means doesn’t follow that these variations are caused by just “ripples of the spacetime”. The arms are nothing more then some material structures, when there can be in Nature, and are a huge number of some quite material impacts that can cause in material structures material deformations.
Besides, the variations of the bars indeed can be caused by some disturbances of the gravity field [that is created by the 4-th fundamental Nature force “Gravity”] of some system of masses if this system changes its properties, for example, when a pair of masses interacts with creation of one body, which has both, gravitational and inertial masses lesser then the bodies’ masses sum before the interaction because of the gravitational mass defect; so in the bodies’ gravity field corresponding disturbance starts to spread in space; and such disturbances indeed can impact by some ways on the bars.
In that there is nothing impossible, people thousands of years detect the GWs with frequency near 4.1.10-7 Hz observing changing of the heights of tides depending on Moon phases.
Etc…
Cheers
Hi Bishal,
You must take care when dealing with the definition of referentials in general relativity, since there are no (and you should not consider) absolute reference frames in this field of study. It seems to me that you are trying, I still do not understand the reason, to define an absolute reference system immersed in spacetime.
As I have already mentioned about it in my previous post (Are we ignoring the extra planes of fabric of spacetime....) about the frame independence and it is true, what GR seeks is to work out at particular point instantaneously by the measure of infinitesimal change in the very closed previous point. And it is the reason the most solution of singularity problem use its advantage by transformative methods. So, frame is not applicable through the point of a single referring observer but through the global point of view, we should have to fix certain frame to analyze the problem.
Hi Bishal
when I mention the quadrupole moment (see previous pos), please remember that this idea has some similarities with the idea, for instance, of the electric quadrupole moment Q of a nucleus, which is usually defined as the quantity
Q = SUM_k^A e
with e denoting the electric charge and (z_k, r_k) the position coordinates of the kth nucleon; in this expression, the quantum average, denoted by , is taken over the nuclear charges for the state which has the maximum component of spin I in the z direction. The quantum average is taken over all the protons in the nucleus and of course, one should consider in the ddetermination of this average the completely antisymmetric wave function which describes the stationary nuclear quantum states of the nuclear system (solutions of the Schrödinger equation with nuclear potentials).
The electric quadrupole moment Q of a nuclear state with spin I is a measure of the deviation of the nuclear charge distribution from sphericity.
And there are quadrupole transitions in some nuclei than can produce radiation. In some sense, there is some degree of similarity of this effect with quadrupole transitions in matter sources that can produce GWs.
I come back to this point.
Hi Bishal
There occur for instance electromagnetic quadrupole transitions in nuclei and nuclear deformations represent some kind of prerequisite for thre existence of collective rotation of quantum systems in general. There are still higher order transitions in the nuclear case, such as octupolar transitions. Could it be that in the case of gravitational waves, octupolar transitions would not be interesting to examine? It is a question that populates my mind presently.
Hi Bishal
You said: "... The equations which resulted such predictions itself is based on the fluid mechanism..."
Well as I told you, GWs have nothing to do with fluid mechanics, unless you trying to make some kind of "analogy"...
See, the way you pose your question refers to an issue intrinsic to us humans.
We are beings who, in contact with the outside world to our mind, we behave with as materialistic beings. Our senses reflect this sensation. We like to touch things, to reveal their "identity". We like to hear, to have contact with other people, our fellow human beings. We like to see, to taste. It happens that theoretical science is a mental construction. It is not a mirroring of reality. It does not pretend to reproduce, as a logical clone, reality.
Theoretical physics represents a conceptual vision, embedded in logic, expressed through mathematics, but it is not reality. It is a theoretical and mental description of alleged elements of reality. Reality cares little about our view of it, about our conceptual, metaphorical, modelistic description of it. Well.
The concept of space-time is inserted in this conceptual context. It is an abstraction. What puzzles us all is that this conceptual abstraction --- in some ways, not yet well understood by all of us, scientists, I confess, with no fear of going beyond my scientific convictions --- it seems, materialize in a way that we do not understand well, but we measure the effect of this materialization through the detection of gravitational waves.
I like Researchgate, largely because people interested in science, who are not necessarily part of the conventional form of what we call official science, participate intelligently and democratically in debates of this nature on scientific aspects allegedly well known by the official science. I prepare many of my theoretical physics classes bearing in mind the issues that are discussed here. Are there elements of plague-science and pseudo-scientism in Researchgate? There are. But this is part of the debate of ideas and the basic idea of democratization of this debate as proposed by Reserchgate. It is very simple to identify, and this is clearly not your case, such pseudo-scientists. They are usually masters of the truth, they do not accept proven facts, and when confronted they offend people and they bcome absolutely angry at confronting their "genius ideas", never recognized by the international scientific community.
But the questions you put here are usually very interesting and reveal a person, you, extremely interested in understanding the fundamental logics that guides scientific thinking. That's why I like to try to answer some of your questions. And thank you very much because I can think in an unusual way, out of the box, as we are commonly accustomed inside the "official science", when facing your interesting questions.
Dear Sidney
Interesting approach. It seens to me that you are trying to understand the essence of our present knowledge about the universe, its constituents and spacetime on basis of some kind of holographic notion of the universe, i.e., the notion that the observable universe, matter and spacetime represents some kind of "materialization" or realization of quantum bits of information, similarly as the "materialization" of digital bits of information in a computer.
By the way Sidney,
What do you mean by "but if there is a constant of time and a constant of length, these constants create a puzzling relation between GR and reality..." i did not get it...
Hi Sidney
Thanks for the answer but there are conceptions, ideas and definitions in your statements that I have to disagree. I will come to these points asap. Best.
Hello Ceasr,
Ok, I suppose that my analysis of analogy concept is wrong. Your point "theoretical science is a mental construction. It is not a mirroring of reality. It does not pretend to reproduce, as a logical clone, reality", how would you interpret the reality of measuring the GW through the depictive way that brought the causality of real-effect measuring. I have recently commented on a post regarding the mechanism of space-time, whether materialistic or not (I noticed you read it as I saw your comment in that post). If you discard such kind of analogy, we should have no such real detection, supporting that LIGO didn't measured the true GWs.
Hi Bishal
Sorry to take so much time to return. Too much work to do...
I do not claim that your use of analogies is wrong. You can of course use analogies to try to understand physical concepts. No problem. It is usual in physics that this kind of use be made. But it is necessary to understand exactly in what sense an analogy can be applied to a physical problem. It is possible that your analogy may in some circumstances work, as long as you know with precision the physical limits of the analogy.
Now, with respecto to your interesting and profound question.
Take as an example a gravitational wave traveling at a right angle to the plane of observation of an object, directly to or directly away from the observer. What may happen in this particular case is that the gravitational wave can stretch all vertical distances between particles and "simultaneously" squeeze all horizontal distances or stretch all horizontal distances and squeeze all vertical distances between particles. This is an material effect of gravitational waves that can be in principle observed. There are other geometric possibilities and associated effects.
But your interesting question concerns the "materiality of gravitational waves" since they affect dimensions of real material objects. Well, see, consider for instance some predictions of the Lorentz transformations related to inertial observers.
And consider, first of all, for example, the question of simultaneity of events in Special Relativity. The Lorentz transformations predict that, if two events are simultaneous in a given inertial frame, they will not necessarily be simultaneous in another inertial frame, the reference of an observer for instance. The first referential in this case is the own reference associated with the events, the so called proper frame. That is, the non-simultaneity of events is a real event, as observed in one of the inertial references, the so-called observer’s frame; insofar it is a measurable and real effect, but it is fundamentally due to the formal structure of the Lorentz transformations and the relative position between observer and events.
That is, in special relativity, the Lorentz transformations describe how measures of space and time, as performed by two observers in relative motion, change when measured in each of the reference systems.
Consider as another example the so-called Lorentz spatial contraction. For an inertial observer, A, an spacecraft for instance may undergo spatial contraction in the direction of the relative displacement, as its relative velocity approaches the speed of light. This spatial contraction occurs in the frame of the ship, B, its own referential (proper frame)? No. It is an effect observed by observer A. That is, it is a real, material effect for the observer A, but it is fundamentally due to the formal structure of the Lorentz coordinate transformations.
Concerning GWs, you may think of ripples of gravity, or fluctuations of gravity, as a way of supporting your longing to seek a material nature for these effects.
From what I understand, you have a great admiration for the physics developed by Newton. So do I. I have great admiration for Newton. Have you ever wondered, when using Newton's Laws, what is the material nature of the gravitational force? An invisible force (Newton theory does not predict or describe any kind of intermediate materiality between two massive interacting bodies, that is, two real bodies interact with each other, but what kind of material exchange would exist between them for this interaction to occur?), derived from an instantaneous potential interaction (the relative velocities between events can reach even infinite velocities), based on the transformations of Galileo (where time is an absolute quantity) and other related questions.
Of course, we understand and accept that Newton formulation is a model description of reality.
Hi Bishal
Continuation...
As I told you before, See, the way you pose your question, you refer to an issue intrinsic to us humans.
We are beings who, in contact with the outside world to our mind, we behave with as materialistic beings. Our senses reflect this sensation. We like to touch things, to reveal their "identity". We like to hear, to have contact with other people, our fellow human beings. We like to see, to taste. It happens that theoretical science is a mental construction. It is not a mirroring of reality. It does not pretend to reproduce, as a logical clone, reality.
Theoretical physics represents a conceptual vision, embedded in logic, expressed through mathematics, but it is not reality. It is a theoretical and mental description of alleged elements of reality. Reality cares little about our view of it, about our conceptual, metaphorical, modelistic description of it. The concept of space-time is inserted in this conceptual context. It is an abstraction.
Our description of reality is based in mental models, which represent our internal pictures of how the world works. Mental models are the conceptual and operational representations that humans develop while interacting with complex systems.
Dear Sidney
Thanks for the message. The discussion of "realization and matterialization of mental constructions" is indeed challanging. But think about when you talk with someone through skip for instance, you are not interacting with the real person, but with an image on the computer or handy screen, product of a complex system of technical devises. That mimics all reactions of the person, his image and so on. Ask yourself what kind of phenomenology are we talking about in this case? How can you define reality in this case? As an example of all-inclusive point of view? Cheers.
Hello Cesar,
I think whatever you tried to made me understand is, the theoretical physics is all about Philosophy, right? But I see it quite differently. And I expect others too. You mentioned this is not reality. I question if something new ideas and concepts are theorized, then according to your view there is no need to test it (because, it is not approaching to relaity), why there is construction or what is the purpose of CERN, LIGO, NASA, Hubble Telescope, Satellites,...who are claiming that they are testing the reality....and why every academics journals are peer viewed?
I don't take it simply as a poetry.
Hi Bishal (and thanks Sidney)
I was trying to give my view about our modeling conceptions about reality and our obsession in trying to understand "reality". Theoretical physics is a mental model based on logics and tools (math, empirism, philisophy, etc) invented by humans to "understand" reality. It is a bridge that connects our obsession to understand reality with the "real" world. Now, are there material elements of reality? Yes. Of course. And this is the focus and locus of CERN, LIGO, etc. The connection between these different "worlds" is the chalenge. Sidney is right. We are part of both worlds. We are not independent observers. We are intrinsically part of the chalenge.
Hello Sydney,
Everything in the science is not perpetual (specially theoretical portions), we can take it as an ancient story of observing the elephants by blinds. But it is the truth that deems under emergence of next alternative which suffice the earlier form of existence. And such emergence occurs when an experiment that is based on open depiction, observation fails. As like how would we interpret the reality of measuring the GW through the depictive way that brought the causality of real-effect measuring. Accordingly if the observed result fails then the whole theory fails. I don't have to explain more, I think we all knew this. So, a theory is totally based on experiments. There are many theories, they are not in consideration because, their prediction is different than reality (like string theory). I think there is no place for theory which don't predict the true observable predictions and the matter may be either directly or indirectly.
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,
“…Unfortunately, we don’t know the origin of reality. What simply means that we don’t know all the universal rules that create observable reality (phenomena like particles, forces, etc.)…”
That isn’t completely/fundamentally so. Fundamentally the answer on the questions what is the “reality”, in this case what is Matter?, is known: in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 ]
it is rigorously proven that all what exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns/informational systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Thus Matter is some informational system [infinitesimal sub-Set] of the informational patterns “particles”, “forces”, etc. and without any doubts is nothing else.
As well as human’s consciousness, which studies Matter, is some, fundamentally non-material, informational system/ “computer with program”, which is self-aware, is able to obtain some information about the External [including about Matter], and is able to analyze logically this information.
Thus there is nothing principally impossible in that sometimes the consciousness rather adequately reveals some laws and links in the External. Including in Matter, which, as that follows from humans’ practice, is rather simple logical system, where, for example, for sure particles are some closed-loop algorithms, which run basing on “hardware” of “fundamental logical elements” [which are, of course, some informational patterns also], more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494
Including in the conception the fundamental for physics notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” are correctly defined, so , for example answers on such questions as
“…We just want to know “What is mass?” or “What are gravitational waves?”…”
are essential clear also – since the closed-loop algorithms, particles, are some 4D gyroscopes, which constantly move in the 4D Euclidian sub-spacetime of the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with the 4D speeds of light, i.e. corresponding “flipping points” along the algorithms moves along some 4D helixes,
all/every particles have spins, the inertial mass is the revealing of that gyroscopes resist to attempts to change their 4D rotation rates, 3D projection of the helix is the De Broglie 3D wave, neutrinos are fermions and so have rest masses, etc. As well as from the correct definition of what are Space and Time follows that Matter’s spacetime principally cannot be transformed by any material object, so the possible gravitational waves by no means are some “spacetime ripples”; and practically for sure, if exist, are some waves of the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, which seems is similar in many traits to the fundamental Nature “EM force”, which creates well known EM waves.
Etc.
Cheers
Dear Manuel,
“…Allow me to help clarify the difference between Newton's Laws of Motion and my findings…., motion begets energy – energy begets mass – mass begets the universe. This predetermined order is how nature obtains something (effects of existence) from nothing (acts that can 'only' come-to-exist)…”
I usually don’t comment your posts, but in this case the post above is addressed; so I’m forced to write a few comments.
First of all when somebody makes some assertion, and at any discussion at all, though, it is necessary before do define on some sufficient level of understanding the main terms and notions/phenomena that are used in the discussion; in other case assertion/discussion has no sense.
In this case in your post that are, for example, “existence”, “motion”, “energy”, “mass”, “Universe”.
Al these notions/phenomena can be [and are] rationally defined only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [see the link in the SS post above], besides, to define the notion/phenomenon “motion” is necessary before to define what are the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”, which can be and are defined only in this conception also.
Since you don’t define these notions/phenomena, the bold sequence in your post seems as rather questionable; and, for example, a natural questions appear – by what reasons and by what ways every phenomenon in the sequence “begets” the next one?, and, besides, what begets motion?
So regrettably it seems as not impossible if your finding cannot help [at least to me] clarify some problems that relate at least to this thread’s question.
Cheers
The last few posts here are seems outside this thread topic; so more relevant, since relates to the nature of Gravity, this case would be the last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_scientists_trying_to_merge_gravity_and_quantum_physics_even_though_gravity_is_just_the_curvature_of_space-time?view=5ace3000dc332de78e31cc0c
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books