Daniel Coumbe of the Niels Bohr Institute, in his April 21, 2021 Physical Review D article entitled "Is asymptotically Weyl-invariant gravity viable?", presents 6 criteria for a viable new theory of gravity. Do you agree or disagree? Are Coumbe's criteria meaningful? What would your own criteria be?
According to Coumbe, a viable new theory of gravity must be:
1. equivalent to general relativity in the low curvature limit
2. renormalizable in the high curvature limit
3. unitary
4. stable
5. free of curvature singularities
6. consistent with observation.
Coumbe is clearly assuming gravity must be quantized. Many physicists would disagree.
Article Is asymptotically Weyl-invariant gravity viable?
Also availabe at:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.06094
Kathleen Rosser: "If you were to look for a new theory of gravity to replace general relativity (GR), what criteria would that theory have to meet?"
The inclusion of possible influences from remote masses of the universe on local physical phenomena.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Local-effects-of-remote-masses
Dear Kathleen Rosser
1) equivalent to general relativity in the low-curvature limit,
No. If this implies that the new theory would use the geodesics model, as opposed to an (absolute-velocity)-dependent model. I say that because I proposed an (absolute-velocity)-dependent model to replace GR.
2) renormalizable in the high-curvature limit [ie. compatible with Quantum Field Theory, or having dimensionless coupling constants],
No, since it is implicit that Quantum Field Theory should be kept. In addition, high-curvature is model-dependent.
3) unitary,
?
4) stable,
?
5) contain no curvature singularities, and
Yes.
6) consistent with observation [where he means those observations usually associated with dark energy, such as inflation or cosmic acceleration].
My theory is consistent with all observations and predicts among other things:
a) the supernova cosmology project SN1a distances from their redshifts
b) the galaxy density 3D map of the Universe.
https://qsnyc.shinyapps.io/UniverseMap/?_ga=2.240362826.896784838.1602297614-603560526.1600356343
For an idea of the supporting observations:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-support-from-astronomy-does-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-HU-have/answer/Marco-Pereira-1
I am in the midst of correcting the support for Mercury Perihelion and Gravitational Lensing.
Maybe we could keep Einstein's general theory of relativity providing that it operates in conjunction with Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices pervading all of space. The sea of vortices would seem to be the source of 4D space-time.
Article The Lorentz Aether Theory
It all depends on what degree the Lorentz transformations apply to kinematics. The above linked article contains a strong argument for why LT applies to electromagnetic fields, but the argument for kinematics is not so clear.
The first 5 of Daniel Coumbe's criteria are General Relativity Theory (GRT) oriented and are therefore not part of the question. The sixth is the only partly valid approach. But is too limited. ONE of the answers is explain the the observations that GRT does not, (ad hoc additions included), Rotation curves of galaxies, periodic rotation curves of galaxies, asymmetric rotation curves of galaxies, redshift of galaxies ( the 0.8 correlation coefficient is too poor), rising rotation curves of some galaxies, derive the Microwave background temperature (the adiabatic universe concept fails this), etc.
Another set would be having a causal model of the small beginning with the double slit experiment and all the "interference" experiments that reject wave models of light, the problems of the accepted atomic structure models, etc.
Not my favorite reformation.
Would give more emphasis on
a) Simpler in mathematics
b) Include an energetical backgound
c) More physically intuitive.
Dear John Hodge https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Hodge
I agree. It surprised me that Daniel Coumbe did not include the galactic rotation curve as an observation that needed to be explained by a new theory of gravity. To me, that's the most important mystery, and the foremost reason for modified gravity.
I do not agree with Daniel Coumbe, the first and greatest problem is his demand Nr. 1:
1) equivalent to general relativity in the low-curvature limit
My comment: There is no “curvature”, this demand has been the main problem for quite a while now, because... like it or not, Albert Einsteins Theory of General Relativity is {quoting Wolfgang Pauli} not even wrong. Mass is defined as the product of volume and density. This is of course not wrong, but is very much limiting the expressiveness of the theory.
It can further be shown by an in-depth examination of Newton’s gravity, that two important variables were never found. The reason why they were never found is the strong belief that Einstein’s general relativity is the right theory... it isn’t ! However... the willingness of mainstream physicists to convince them self of these facts by making an in-depth examination of Newton's gravity is close to zero. “Einstein was right”, is indelibly carved into their brains and they get aggressive if you try to argue against that. And this is the real problem haunting physics: senseless stubbornness !
2) renormalizable in the high-curvature limit [ie. compatible with Quantum Field Theory, or having dimensionless coupling constants],
My comment: There is nothing to “renormalize” ! Defining mass as consisting of a number of atoms and mass-radius as a function of number of atoms and atom-radius solves the problem. Gravity is suddenly connected with basic atom physics, as shown by Niels Bohr {Coulombs law}, provided you know how !
3) unitary,
4) stable,
5) contain no curvature singularities
No comment for 3) 4) and 5)
6) consistent with observation [where he means those observations usually associated with dark energy, such as inflation or cosmic acceleration].
My comment: Fully consistent with observations, except for cosmic inflation and dark energy... both are result of a wrong theory. The observed red-shift of far away stars and galaxies is due to gravity and not result of a cosmic expansion... no complaining and no crying want to bring consolation here, but spontaneous arrogance {as usual} will call me names...
Examining Newton's gravity with an open mind is the only solution...
Dear all:
Our universe is held together by long-range gravitational forces, so we should expect a theory of gravity to take the long-range aspect into account. How do the existing theories fulfill this requirement?
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Local-effects-of-remote-masses
Kathleen Rosser
You said: I agree. It surprised me that Daniel Coumbe did not include the galactic rotation curve as an observation that needed to be explained by a new theory of gravity. To me, that's the most important mystery, and the foremost reason for modified gravity.
I hope you notice that HU explains both the Coma Cluster Conundrum and the Rotation curve of Spiral Galaxies using just the lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface topology.
In other words, the shape of the Universe is enough to explain away the need for Dark Matter.
In other words, Dark Matter is not a reason to modify Gravity.
HU introduces the Hypergeometrical Acceleration = v*c/R_0 where R_0 is the 4D radius of the Universe.
it is explained here:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-status-as-of-2019-of-the-search-for-dark-matter/answer/Marco-Pereira-1
and here:
http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WSN-101-2018-222-228.pdf
Dear Kathleen Rosser,
The two main theories of gravity (Newtonian, Einsteinian):were clearly disproved in the following writings:
Article Gravity a paradym shift in reasoning
Article A 2017. Fizikai Nobel-díj „gravitációs hullámai”
Research AZ ELMÉLETI TUDOMÁNY KÉNYES JELENSÉGE
One important argument is missing from these works which demonstrates an erroneous interpretation of GR in case of using 'the light deflection as it passes by near the Sun' like it prediction is... As it described in GR it can be easily demonstrated that it not an erroneous interpretation and it cannot be accepted as a prediction of the theory!
The new theory of gravity described in the:
Article Gravity a paradym shift in reasoning
Article Tényekkel igazolható a gravitáció valós oka
gives a real physical interpretation to gravity phenomena and few weeks ago arisen an forecasting points of the theory not present in the article.
So my criteria is if the gravity is a real natural phenomena that is why the new theory of gravity have to explain the gravity natural-physically!
Regards,
Laszlo
Kathleen Rosser first of all it must be solvable, while the 5 Einstein equations are not solved even using all computers together, besides the 4 simple cases.
Second, it has to be a graviton theory, a force particle of a particle model. Whole concept of the squeezd space is just a summarizing description, like waves on the see surface consisting of H2O molecules, consisting af atoms consisting of-....... etc.. Therefore such gravitation waves are none real entities, not elementary at last, while standard model of particles deals believining be really entities in those 61 "elementary" particles. And it must be united in concept with another forces, electro and magnetic ones etc.
By the way, the SRT does contain a now freshly discovered logical error in dealing with length contraction without differing to length units and measured distances, making it a wrong interpretation -which is my disovery described in 15 articles for now. And SRT together with GRT cannot explain how 2 inertial frames of the twins can have another time flow rate and why it is a preferred "moving" IF, while the "relativity principle" tells that they are no preferred IF's? Also I explained it in a new Level Relativity Theory by Doppler shifting the gravitons, which makes a new relativistic levels principle. This now changes everythink in physics.
But don't read it, untill You will lissen it told in news on TV by authorities. To be sure that some one did check the correctennes of my results.
Preston Guynn: "I wondered how would it be determined that our universe is held together as you describe? If it is supposedly expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating, what indicates that it is "held together" at all?"
The concept of an expanding universe, according to my present understanding, does not neccessarily imply the absence of cohesive forces, nor does it require the assumption of a big bang. On the other hand it might explain the limited range of gravitational interaction when assuming the latter to propagate at luminal speed c. The edge of our universe as seen from our location would be determined by the distance where the radial velocity in relation to our location comes close to c while everything beyond that limit doesn't contribute even within an unlimited universe. Expansion of the universe does not neccessarily mean dilution of mass density when mass is steadily recreated at an elementary particle scale out of the cumulative gravitational potential originating from remote masses. As proposed in an earlier discussion, see reference below, the gravitational potential energy of a mass m apparently just equals E = m*c2 = m*2GMu/Ru with G denoting the gravitational constant and Mu, Ru the mass content and radius of the visible universe.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
John Hodge You can create what You want, but if it is only one nature we lieve in, then the theory must explain all forces by just one principle. not many different. So if You can develope a gravitation theory which can explain all other forces.
For the moment we have more use in the particles model SM, having a concept of gravitons, which was left a place holder.
The reason why we cannot connect SM with GRT is that, we have to use a force interaction particle. Graviton. And till now GRT cannot describe the graviton and will not ever. that would be new theory which can. So GRT is to drop, if one wants to go next step.
Dr. Guynn,
You have asked too many questions for it to be possible to easily respond on this thread. The argument for why space is filled with tiny vortices begins with Maxwell's displacement current. This article here gives references to Maxwell's original papers.
Article Maxwell's Displacement Current and Capacitors
Kathleen Rosser Preston Guynn
In order to construct a new theory of gravity, covering a wider range of natural phenomena, it is necessary first to understand what we lack in general relativity or what prevents us from recognizing it as a universal theory for our period of time. And we lack the desire and courage to look behind the light barrier. We are bound with heavy chains by the ban on the possibility of moving at superluminal speeds, and even more so the possibility of instant jumps from one point in space to another, arbitrarily far from the observer. Initially, general relativity did not have a rigorous mathematical basis. Later, the curved (Riemannian) 4-space became its base. Scientists formulated signature conditions that did not allow breaks in 3-space and time, and also established a ban for material bodies to overcome the light barrier, which excludes the possibility of teleportation. This is the main barrier of general relativity. The observer's 3-dimensional body really belongs to 3-space, but his consciousness, in principle, is able to perceive new ideas and later bring them to life. However, before building a new theory of gravity, one should pay attention to experiments that do not fit into the framework of general relativity. These include Kozyrev's experiments on observing the instantaneous positions of distant stars, star clusters, and another galaxy; the results of Morozov, in which he connects the moments of changes in air temperature and humidity in areas of the planet's terrain at the moments of the upper culminations of stars from the constellation Carina that are hundreds and thousands of light years away; experiments in which a change in the weight of rotating gyroscopes was detected; the experiments of Podkletnov; measurements of Hafele and Keating, in which corrections to the readings of time standards flying along the equator along and against the axial rotation of the planet were found, the theory of Time as a fractal, where each fragment is a period of time (Shnoll's experiments), and others. Scientists so far ignore them as not fit in the framework of general relativity. But the rejection of results that could strongly affect the picture of an exploding singularity that took shape 100 years ago in cosmology still keeps scientists in the cramped 3-dimensional world. The new theory may include GR as a special case, but the creators of new theories of the world order must get out of the captivity of 3-D and rush into the multidimensionality of Time, where GR is one of the small bricks in the foundation of the infinite Universe, and our Universe is one of the countless bricks Be of finiteness ...
“If you were to look for a new theory of gravity to replace general relativity (GR), what criteria would that theory have to meet? …. Do you agree or disagree? Are Coumbe's criteria meaningful? What would your own criteria be?”
“…1) equivalent to general relativity in the low-curvature limit...”
- this criterion has at least one questionable point, since addresses to “the low-curvature” – whereas the “spacetime curvature” is postulated just in the GR - of really non-existent imaginary [mathematically] pseudo Riemannian space, which is postulated in the GR as the real Matter’s spacetime. That is fundamentally wrong, real Matter spacetime is the fundamentally real [mathematically] fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); more see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3.
Gravity fundamentally is nothing else than the [“fourth”] fundamental Nature force, which – as any other Force fundamentally nothing makes with the spacetime [and the spacetime makes nothing with any material object] – nothing makes with the spacetime.
Correspondingly criterion should be as “1) [really scientific Gravity theory should be] equivalent to Newton Gravity theory in low speeds and accelerations limit”
“…..2) renormalizable in the high-curvature limit [ie. compatible with Quantum Field Theory, or having dimensionless coupling constants]…”
- again, since that no any “curvature” really exist, this criterion is essentially meaningless, and, besides, the rather questionable mathematical trick in QFT “renormalization” is applicable only in quantum systems, whereas quantum Gravity theory rather probably will be developed after the “classical” Gravity theory, i.e. without any “renormalization”, will be developed – as that happened in QM/QED with the similar to Gravity EM Force.
“…3) unitary, 4) stable,…”
- that are rather vague and really inessential criteria.
“…5) contain no curvature singularities…”
- about “curvature” see above, it can be added, though, that in Matter fundamentally no singularities exist at all.
“…6) consistent with observation….”
- that is standard requirement for any scientific theory, whereas that
“…. [where he means those observations usually associated with dark energy, such as inflation or cosmic acceleration].…..”
- has no relation to the physical Gravity theory. The rather rationally introduced in standard cosmology “inflation” and “cosmic acceleration” are rather probably real processes at Matter’s evolution, however these processes are controlled with purposes and by energies that are outside physics. Official physics knows in this case really nothing; and introducing of “Λ term” in the GR equations of the ΛCDM model is purely artificial ad hoc attempt to describe the observed Space. To the Gravity Force – and so to the Gravity theory - that has no any relation
Though in this case it is possible to explain rationally some points, first of all – what is inflation, corresponding rational model is in the SS&VT informational physical model above, see the linked paper, sect. “Cosmology”, where, including, the problem of the “matter-antimatter asymmetry” in Matter practically for sure is solved.
Note also, that the indeed scientific Gravity theory with a rather non-zero probability will be based on the initial Gravity model in the informational physical model above, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, section “2.2.8 Mediation of the forces in complex systems”, where the initial Electric Force model is developed as well.
This Gravity model is testable, and at the experiment also rather probably the quantum Gravity effects can be detected, for example, in experiment with photons see - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34963 ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”. Another experiment see in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.800, which is also real test of the GR.
Cheers
Viktor Schatz
Agree, we live in one universe. Current theories that describe both Cosmology and quantum observations have many forces. But I agree there is only 1 force that manifests in many forms. I suggest the one and only force is magnetic in nature (gradient of an inertial medium). Most don't mention the requirement that the force must be related to galaxies and matter throughout the universe (Mach). I don't see how a graviton (a particle can provide the interference of light observation, the magnetic field observations, the electric field observations, etc.)
Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_model
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU
Hi. I think the theory should included all fields like electrical, magmatic, electromagnetic …,etc.
A black hole is a fundamentally different object than material bodies and phenomena of our material world. Within the framework of our scientific concepts, we can only say that for an observer, time stops at the surface of a black hole. Description in textbooks, for example, in Landau's Field Theory is only an attempt to copy familiar concepts and transfer them inside a black hole using the Schwarzschild metric. Formally, it is assumed that inside a black hole, time flows in the opposite direction, and the time coordinate and the spatial (radial) coordinate change places. But this is just a formal description, not a new approach. Any theory, especially a new one, should be based on the results of experiments, and the theory should explain their meaning. We can move with sub-light speeds in space, but we feel the flow of time only with our consciousness as the present, the past, the future. For us, only one moment of the present is real, and the past and the future exist only in our consciousness. This scheme of perception is well reflected in the Minkowski cone, where the upper cone (future) passes into the lower (past) through the point of the present, which is reality. Our life in the material world is only a moment between the past and the future. The structure of the cone resembles an hourglass, where the flip of the cone is the end of a certain period of the material structure, each period, on the one hand, is a part of a larger fractal, on the other, it is itself a part of a larger fractal (terrain, planet, Sun, Galaxy, .. .)
But any theory must be confirmed experimentally. Therefore, before building new theories, one should pay attention to the work of researchers of Time. Schnoll experimentally proved that in the course of various experiments, the time rate of the processes under study remains unchanged along the meridian and changes in the latitudinal direction. In addition, Schnoll discovered that if the device is oriented towards the North Star, the tempo of time does not change (according to him, time simply "disappears"). Isn't Polar for us the top of Minkoski's cone? The axis of the cone is directed to a point close to the Polar and is still approaching it. Most likely, it is the North Pole of the Earth that is the source of power for it with Time (energy food). Then the day is one of the periods of the Earth. And each period of the life of any body is the time of "digestion" of energy food from the structure of which it is a part.
We will not be able to advance in science if we perceive ourselves as purely material bodies slowly moving along the surface of the planet or. The realization of the fact that human consciousness can cover more distant horizons will help us to realize the possibility of faster ways of receiving the transmission of energy = information, up to instantaneous. Academician Morozov, by analyzing observations of changes in atmospheric temperature and humidity in different remote parts of the planet, proved that changes in atmospheric humidity and temperature are directly related to the moments of the upper climax of stars from the region of the Carina constellation, where the center of the Local Group of Stars is located. Moreover, this connection is realized only in the sidereal time system associated with the vernal equinox. The prime meridian passes through it, intersecting with the ecliptic at the equinox points. Thus, the Sun and its part of the Earth at this moment cross the equator, being fed by the energy of the Galaxy. This energy reaches us in a few hours, although the stars are hundreds and thousands of light years away. They transmit to us the energy of time, which affects the weather of the planet. If we go even further and take into account the results of the instantaneous impact on the detector of galactic stars and clusters, as well as the Andromeda Nebula, we will stop considering the “impossibility” of energy = information propagation at a speed less than light speed as an absolute truth.
You cannot just come up with theories without relying on an experimental basis. Otherwise, we will remain on a planet with a degrading Nature. It's not just about human pollution of the planet. In fact, global changes are taking place in the Galaxy, in particular, along the solar route, which runs near the most dusty equatorial part. The compaction of the dusty environment along the path of the Sun leads to changes in the entire solar system, including the Earth.
Olivier Denis
I am not familiar with your theory. Could you please provide the predictions of SN1a distances from their redshifts?
Here is the data:
https://supernova.lbl.gov/union/figures/SCPUnion2.1_mu_vs_z.txt
I asked this because this is the main data any theory has to model. It is the basis for the Cosmic Distance Ladder. Without knowing distances, one cannot say anything about Cosmology or the Universe.
Thanks,
Marco Pereira
Here are my parameterless predictions:
“…Hi. I think the theory should included all fields like electrical, magmatic, electromagnetic …,etc. …..”
- that isn’t directly so. Gravity is a specific fundamental Nature force, whereas all Forces are fundamentally different; and there cannot be some “Theory of Everything” that “unite” all Forces – or, more correctly the “Theory of Everything” will be a set of different theories of different forces, which, of course, practically always act simultaneously, and this theory will describe/explain the concrete contributions of Forces in every concrete physical task.
Including in this case the real Gravity theory must evaluate the contributions of just fields in gravitational interactions of material objects, whereas now it is unknown, say – have or not the Forces’ fields, including Gravity field itself, some gravitational mass?
- whereas, say, now in the GR publications some “black holes” with a magnetic field are widely considered, in spite of from this “hole in spacetime”, as that the GR states, nothing can escape…
Cheers
Olivier Denis
I asked for so little and you still couldn't provide it.
Instead, you provided filler...:)
I don't care about opinions. The only thing in science is what you can quantify.
You talk about homogeneity and yet, you cannot provide the Ruler to measure space.
In other words, it is useless to discuss or not the homogeneous principle (which is proved by the Cosmic Microwave Background).
You can see that the Universe was homogeneous to 1 in 100,000 parts.
So, please let me know when you figure out the basics of cosmology and I will pay attention to your ideas.
Cheers,
Marco
Dear Kathleen, thanks for the interesting question. I answer point by point.
1. The initial acceptance of the condition of weak curvature immediately excludes the possibility of correctly investigating the role of 4-dimensional curvature in the problem of describing strong ones, to consider fields with weak curvature as special cases of strong fields. Role is very important Research shows that the sign of the 4-curvature is related to the type of gravitational field. In particular, if we take into account the existence of gravitational repulsive forces, then it turns out that the positive 4-curvature is associated with the gravitational forces of attraction, and the negative - with the repulsive forces. As an example, we can consider the Schwarzschild-type gravitational field with weak gravity and the gravitational field of a rapidly rotating pulsar. Calculations within the framework of general relativity show that pulsars have repulsive energy.
2. It is possible to restore a strong gravitational field from a weak one only with large losses, since a general theory is usually built, and then its approximation is obtained. Otherwise, many subtle nuances will be missed.
3. The unitarity of the theory is related to the previous point. If we consider the model as a universal object, then any new discovery that does not fit into the framework of the established scheme will automatically be discarded as contradicting the unitary model.
4. In the real world, there are only separate periods of stability of varying duration. But to generalize their course for the future leads to stagnation in science.
5. Denial of singular states keeps us on a tight leash, forcing thirty or simply ignoring the results of studies that go beyond the postulates invented by humans. But man is a particle of the universe, and not its creator and ruler. Therefore, we must carefully listen to what is happening in the world, and not close our eyes to new phenomena previously unknown to us. In particular, singular states, for example, black holes, the time on the surface of which stops, should be considered as doors that are still locked for our consciousness, and not as annoying hindrances.
6. We do not yet know the nature of dark energy, but the existing interest in this problem indicates that many scientists are interested in solving it. Therefore, of course, you should pay close attention to all kinds of deviations in the behavior of celestial bodies, but you should not make such global conclusions about the nature of dark energy, in particular, that it stimulates the acceleration of processes. By the way, the problem of the red shift as a result of the expansion of the Universe due to the deformation of the 3-space is simply the opinion accepted by the majority as the most plausible explanation. But if we strictly solve the equations of zero (light-like) geodesics in the static (non-deforming!) De Sitter space, it turns out that the recorded redshift in the spectra of distant galaxies is due to the usual Doppler effect caused by a gravitational field of a non-Newtonian type. In Friedmann's theory, the displacement is caused by the deformation of the 3-space. So now is not the time to build a long-term theory, because we haven’t figured out the array of information we have obtained. And any theory works only temporarily until it is overwhelmed by results that are inexplicable within its framework. So there are no eternal theories. General relativity pointed out to us the existence of time as one of the coordinates, so its nature should be dealt with first of all. Perhaps it is the understanding of the nature of Time that will help us better navigate the multidimensional world. The development of general relativity can be in the direction of understanding the nature of Time. But for this it is necessary to stop being afraid of superluminal speeds like fire, and even more so of the possibility of instantaneous transmission of information in the Universe. Our physical bodies cannot move with the speed of light, but our consciousness can do it (if we do not deny this possibility in advance as "unscientific"). Einstein designated the role of Time as a rightful coordinate. Our business is to figure out what to do with this knowledge.
Dr. Guynn, You might find out that the physical cause of gravity is a separate topic from the cause of the electromagnetic field. To understand the latter, you first need to go back to Maxwell and then work up to the Lorentz transformations. That will eventually lead you into four-vectors and 4D space-time.
Then instead of following Einstein, retain the luminiferous medium. This will supply you with a physical standard for absolute rest.
As regards GTR, this would appear to be a case of understanding how the luminiferous medium distorts Newton's law of gravity, and perhaps that can be done using a four-vector analysis. But gravity itself will still remain a separate topic from electromagnetism.
Gravitational attracting force is an illusion producing by repelling force.
Frederick David Tombe: "But gravity itself will still remain a separate topic from electromagnetism."
I'm not so sure about that in view of c2 = 1/(ε0μ0) = 2GMu/Ru with G denoting the gravitational constant, and Mu, Ru the mass content and radius of our visible universe.
Dr. Fremery, The equation v2 = 2GMu/Ru looks like the escape velocity from the universe. On what basis did you assume that v = c? You neither know the mass nor the radius of the universe.
Frederick David Tombe: "On what basis did you assume that v = c?"
It is just the Schwarzschild radius of the universe: Ru = 2GMu/c2.
Dear Kathleen Rosser,
the starting point for a new start of a gravitational theory which takes the good part of GR is the revisitation of the gravitational redshift.
That is at the crossroads between quantum electrodynamics and gravitation...
For that a discussion on a new basis of the Equivalence principle is necessary:
putting together WEP and energy conservation.
The suggestion was provided by Dicke and indirectly by Schiff, but since theoretical physics is haunted by mathematicians who do not have a Physical intuition and consider the conservation laws sometimes important (because they define invariants) sometimes unimportant (they use to follow the slogan "energy is relative"), the result is that they ignored these crucial results or interpreted them the way they found more convenient for them.
Dr. Fremery, OK, but it's a big assumption. It puts gravity and electromagnetism together into a single formula without any prior justification. The speed of light will be a property of the elasticity of luminiferous medium whereas the gravity parts of GTR centres around the Newtonian escape velocity formula. There is no physical connection between the two.
We don't know what the mass of the universe is, and so even if we did manage to get something to travel faster than light, that may still not be enough for it to escape from the universe. We need to know the actual mass of the universe before we can calculate the escape velocity from any point in it.
“…But gravity itself will still remain a separate topic from electromagnetism.…..”
- again –: Gravity and Electric/EM are fundamentally different fundamental Nature forces, and so are “separate topics”, though in most of concrete physical tasks both act, and in physical elaborating of such tasks are, of course, “united” – in the elaborations; more see the SS post above 2 days ago now
“…the starting point for a new start of a gravitational theory which takes the good part of GR is the revisitation of the gravitational redshift.…..”
- understanding of what is “gravitational redshift”, which doesn’t exist in official physics, because of in the standard official GR it is postulated that photons don’t change energy/frequency at propagating in Gravity field; or, more correctly, because of in the GR there is no Force “Gravity”, and so corresponding field, “when propagating along geodesics in curved spacetime”, and the physical effect “gravitational redshift” is observed only because of that radiating, and receiving light, bodies are in different spacetime curvatures.
Thus in the bodies “gravitational time dilations” are different, and so, if a radiating body is in a spacetime point with larger curvature, than, say, a spectrograph on Earth, the spectrograph sees “redshifted” radiated light.
This postulate looks as rather questionable, including in the SS&VT 2007 initial Gravity model it is shown that really photons – as every other particle, has some Gravity charge “gravitational mass”, and photons change energy at the propagating;
- whereas – not, of course, “gravitational time dilation”, but real slowing down of internal processes in material objects that are gravitationally coupled in some systems, in the model is trivial – because of that the gravitational mass defect of the system, and so every object, is negative.
In official physics this the GR postulate is experimentally confirmed yet in first 1960s, in Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, however in these experiments two these physical effects could take part.
This problem, i.e. what is correct – the GR postulate above, or the initial Gravity model, can be really solved only in the experiment, where only one effect takes part, and that is quite easily testable now see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.800, where is only Gravity and no photons;
- and if the experimental outcomes will be in accordance with the GR, that would be more convincing confirmation of validity of the GR than the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments.
Experiment, again, can be made in a week with financing no more $200 000, and so rather probably it was made already, but the outcomes turned out to be outside the GR, and no corresponding publications appeared…
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, Yes, gravity and electromagnetism are different. Furthermore, I see a closer relationship between electromagnetism and inertial effects on the one hand, than between gravity and inertial effects on the other hand.
What is interesting though is how inertial motion can cause the same effects on an atomic clock that gravity does. So although they are different, but have the same effect, this should give us a clue as to the physical nature of both.
Both obviously cause a torque to act on the caesium atoms.
My criteria consist first of replacing the practice of counting cyclic activity of selected objects with direct representation of the property of time. This would be sufficient to lead to the replacement of the General Relativity Theory.
Dear Frederick David Tombe,
“…Dr. Shevchenko, Yes, gravity and electromagnetism are different. Furthermore, I see a closer relationship between electromagnetism and inertial effects on the one hand, than between gravity and inertial effects on the other hand.….”
- again, Gravity and Electric/EM Forces are fundamentally different; though are similar in many traits. Including relating to the inertial motion – in both cases a gravitationally [i.e. every], and electrically, charged body in inertial motion don’t radiate “ordinary” gravitons and photons, i.e. don’t radiate GM and EM waves. But that is all, if we say about inertial motion.
As to
“…What is interesting though is how inertial motion can cause the same effects on an atomic clock that gravity does. So although they are different, but have the same effect, this should give us a clue as to the physical nature of both.….”
- that isn’t so. “Inertial motion effect”, i.e. that if a particle, body, etc., moves with a speed V inertialy in 3D space of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Cartesian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), then intrinsic processes in the particle, etc., are slowed down in Lorentz factor comparing with the case when the particle, etc., is at absolute 3D space,
- is a kinematical effect [moreover, this effect depends only on current instant V value, and exists at accelerated motion as well],
- whereas the slowing down of intrinsic processes in a particle, etc., that is in a Gravity field is a dynamical effect.
So the causes that cause the slowings are fundamentally different. The slowing is possible at all because of the particles, bodies, etc., are fundamentally mostly some close-loop algorithms, which work basing on the [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] as a disturbances of the Matter’s ether – [5]5D dense FLE lattice.
The algorithms constantly cyclically run with frequencies ω=E0/ћ.and – since practically every material objects is a T-object [that has “rest mass” m0], its algorithm ticks with maximal rate if the object is at absolute 3D rest [why? – see the SS&VT Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3] having the energy E0=m0c2.
If an object moves in the 3D space, its algorithm becomes be diluted by “blank” FLE lattice steps, and so ticks slower. The ω above decreases – in the Lorentz factor, as that Pythagoras theorem prescribes.
When some bodies are gravitationally coupled, say, for simplicity in statics, Gravity Force – as that all other Forces do by their mediators - acts as exchange by Gravity mediators [“circular gravitons”], which are radiated by all/every particles of the bodies. At that if a graviton hits in a particle in other body, it transmits to the particle the momentum that is directed to particle that radiated the graviton; and, at that, it looks as rational to conjecture, that in this case the current tick of the algorithm becomes be broken, and so falls out the ω above.
That happens in any coupled systems with negative mass defect, including, say, in systems of bodies that have opposite electric charges the intrinsic processes are slowed similarly.
More see the linked above paper and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, section “2.2.8 Mediation of the forces in complex systems”.
Cheers
Frederick David Tombe
I had requested your paper " the Magnetic ether". I also examined the Biot-Savart Law and found it incorrect by experiment.
Article Magnetostatics relation to gravity with experiment that reje...
I think physics made a mistake when it separated the gradational mass characteristic from the inertial effects. Thus, the present Hamiltonian and la Grangian approaches are wrong in excluding dissipative effects.
Article Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small...
Dr. Shevchenko, It's a fact that when a caesium clock moves, that its tick-rate slows down. It's also a fact that when a caesium clock sits still in a gravitational field, its tick-rate slows down, and this can be calculated using the exact same formula as we use for the motionally induced retardation, simply by using the escape velocity for v.
So although gravity is not closely related to inertial motion, they both produce a similar effect on caesium atoms.
Dr. Hodge, What do you mean by the "gradational mass characteristic"? Can you give an example?
Dear Prof,
I inform you that I have proposed a demonstration to an important problem of fundamental physics concerning the universality of free fall or what we also know by the principle of weak equivalence (the equality between the gravitational and inertial mass ). This problem has been known as a physical principle since Galileo, Newton, Einstein and until now. This demonstration will render this principle for the first time as a physical law.
Please announce this demonstration in your university.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354130672_Towards_a_theoretical_and_mathematical_proof_of_the_universality_of_free_fall_the_equivalence_principle_and_the_confirmation_of_the_Einstein%27s_theory_of_general_relativity?showFulltext=1&linkId=612684b35567a03d006e65b2
Dr. Hodge, I would take the opposite approach. I would say that physics made a mistake when it equated inertial mass with gravitational mass. As for the inertial forces, they are of a distinctly different nature than gravity, and a deeper analysis should reveal that they are of the same nature as the electromagnetic forces.
Gravity is about an inflow sink. EM and the inertial forces on the other hand are about the effects of a sea of tiny vortices.
There is of course a commonality between the two, in that it's the same primary aether in each case, but gravity is about large scale inflow, whereas EM and the inertial forces are about a sea of tiny vortices that doesn't itself inflow into ponderable matter.
Dear Frederick David Tombe,
“…Dr. Shevchenko, It's a fact that when a caesium clock moves, that its tick-rate slows down. It's also a fact that when a caesium clock sits still in a gravitational field, its tick-rate slows down….”
- that is indeed so; and why that is so? – that is explained in the SS post above, 2 days ago now: that happens in both cases, however is caused by fundamentally different physical effects:
– slowing down of a moving with a speed V in 3D space a cesium clock close-loop algorithm tick rate “ω”, since the clock’s algorithm becomes be longer because of “blank” steps, which are spent on the motion in the 3D space, whereas the algorithm ticks as a sequence of [5]4D FLE flips in the sub-Matter’s spacetime that has 4D metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z),
- whereas slowing down of a cesium clock close-loop algorithm tick rate “ω” if the clock is in a Gravity field with some potential happens because of that at elementary interactions of gravitons with particles that compose the clock, in their algorithms – and so in the clock’s whole algorithm, the corresponding algorithms’ ticks become to be broken – i.e. aren’t algorithm’s ticks, and so fall out the ω.
Including, say, if a particle is unstable one, that means that the particle’s algorithm can be broken on some the particle’s algorithm tick with some probability, at that the particle decays. This probability is constant, and so particles decay exponentially,
- correspondingly moving in 3D space unstable particles live longer,
- and in Gravity field unstable particles live longer, however if an algorithm is broken by Gravity interaction, nothing happens with the particles, simply the ω of “true”, i.e. "with a probability of decay”, ticks decreases.
Whereas that
“… and this can be using the exact same formula as we use for the motionally induced retardation, simply by using the escape velocity for v.…..”
- is some questionable claim – the escape velocity has no relation to the “Gravity slowing”, which, say, exists in statics as well – in every stone on Earth “ω” in the stone is lesser comparing with the case, if the stone would not be in a Gravity field.
Besides – you don’t write “the exact formula”; if it is the same as that the GR predicts, it is practically for sure simply wrong; and, besides, for photons there is no “the escape velocity”, they escape if are radiated by any radiating mass, however their algorithms slow at “escaping”, and light becomes to be redshifted. Though in the GR it is postulated that photons don’t change energy in Gravity field, and the “gravitational time dilation” value really is two times larger than the real value.
More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.
Cheers
Frederick David Tombe
What is the name of your model. Is there a single paper describing your model and the experiments it explains (that the standard model fails to explain)?
I agree inertial mass and gravitational mass are different effects on bodies. The difference in the STOE (my model) is calculated in the gravitation constant (G). Gravitation mass is a characteristic of bodies. Inertial mass is a characteristic of the plenum (aether, space-time, etc.) whose value is determined by all Sources (spiral galaxies), Sinks (elliptical galaxies), and matter (warps the plenum with a tension field). Vortices are the charge (coulomb force) because the coulomb force was experimentally found to travel at many times the speed of light de Sangro (2012). The magnetic force is the single force that evolves into the other forces including gravity.
Well, that is in the STOE, a paradigm shift. It still has issues. So, I'm looking for possible changes to be better fit to experiment.
Dr. Shevchenko, Some people argue that the escape velocity is equal to the velocity of an inflowing aether, while in the inertial case, the v term is the velocity of the clock relative to the aether.
This however has been disproven by a gravity probe experiment. The escape velocity must therefore be the velocity of a different medium than the luminiferous medium.
The former however, will be the stuff of the tiny vortices of the latter.
It's all about the fact that both effects induce a torque on the caesium atoms.
As regards your own physical explanation for the commonality, I didn't follow it, but you might be alluding to what I have been saying. Something to do with gravitational flow interacting with the caesium atoms.
Dr. Hodge, My theory is known as `"The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field". This article here should lead you into it,
Article The Double Helix and the Electron-Positron Aether
Dear Frederick David Tombe,
“… Some people argue that the escape velocity is equal to the velocity of an inflowing aether, while in the inertial case, the v term is the velocity of the clock relative to the aether…”
- yeah, there are a lot of some people, who solve the really existent slowing down of intrinsic processes in material objects – again - in all/every particles and everything that is composed from the particles - problem, basing on rather strange initial assumptions; and on the RG make that sometimes too vividly, however that
“…..This however has been disproven by a gravity probe experiment. The escape velocity must therefore be the velocity of a different medium than the luminiferous medium.….”
- is equally strange claim, the physical term “escape velocity” is applied to concrete gravitational masses of concrete bodies, which really define a necessary energy that must be transmitted to other [gravitationally coupled with the first body] body so, that the bodies become to be free at motion of the bodies to infinity in 3D space. Mostly that is applied in the case, when gravitational mass of the first body is extremely larger than the mass of “escaping body”;
- and all that is by no means some because of “velocity of a different medium than the luminiferous medium”, etc. As well as relating to
“…As regards your own physical explanation for the commonality, I didn't follow it, but you might be alluding to what I have been saying….”
- is strange; what is written in the SS posts above have no relations to any motions of some mediums, including luminiferous medium.
However the Matter’s ether, which is “everyferous medium”, practically for sure does exist - as the [5]4Ddense lattice of the [5]4D fundamental binary reversible logical elements [FLE], which is placed, and fundamentally doesn’t move to anywhere in the spacetime, in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Cartesian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),
- and everything what exist in Matter is/are some disturbances in the FLE-lattice, which always move/propagate in the lattice with 4D velocities that are determined by the FLE properties, i.e. with 4D speeds of light, in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z); and, in parallel, in 1D ct-dimension.
Including that
“….Something to do with gravitational flow interacting with the caesium atoms.…”
- is, in certain sense, correct, however in this case the words “Something” and “gravitational flow” are strange. This “something” is called in physics by Newton “gravitational force” , and that is indeed a fundamental Nature force [that is another thing, that now in physics indeed, such “something”, as interactions in the systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, is postulated as that determine gravitational effects],
- and “gravitational flow” is really the flow of Gravity Force mediators – as all other Forces are actualized in concrete interactions by the Forces’ corresponding mediators flows,
- which – and mediators of Electric Force – with a quite non-zero probability are, as that is quite rationally conjectured in the SS&VT 2007 initial Gravity and Electric Forces models, are “circular gravitons/photons”, which – the mediators, impact fundamentally first of all on all/every fundamental particles in a body, including on electrons and quarks in cesium atoms, correspondingly also on atoms, etc., up to whole bodies, including clocks.
More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_PhysicsDOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, section “2.2.8 Mediation of the forces in complex systems” [about Gravity also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4332.9925],
- and for understanding – why the Forces models are reliable - the comments in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physicsDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3 .
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, It has occurred to me that before any constructive discussion can be had on this thread, we all need to establish that we each know exactly what General Relativity is, before we can reach any agreement on how it needs to be modified. Otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.
So correct me if I am wrong as regards my understanding of GTR. I will lay out my understanding in numbered points.
1. Knowledge of special relativity and 4D space-time has to be assumed as a prerequisite.
2. GTR begins with a general geodesic equation in 4D space-time without reference to any particular forces, apart from the inertial forces of course. This geodesic naturally imports STR.
3. This geodesic equation has many solutions, but one solution in particular is the focus of interest. That is the Schwarzschild solution which has the superficial appearance of the escape velocity formula, with the escape velocity being equal to 'c'.
Can we agree so far?
If so, then certain questions arise. The first question regards what exactly does the Schwarzschild solution mean, and in what physical context does it apply. If we then accept that it applies to kinematics precisely, then what are dealing with is Newtonian gravity corrected for 4D space-time. In other words GTR = STR + Newtonian gravity.
Can we agree so far?
I have developed an ether-based theory regarding this matter:
https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Density-Pressure-Mass-Charge-Technology/dp/1536121053/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=javanshiry&qid=1630922213&s=books&sr=1-1
Dear Frederick David Tombe,
Some concrete comments to your concrete questions in last post:
“…1. Knowledge of special relativity and 4D space-time has to be assumed as a prerequisite.…”
- yeah, that is so; and the GR, where rather strange “[general] relativistic properties of the space/time/spacetime and relativistic effects”, i.e. fundamentally non-existent interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, are postulated, was developed as some development of the Minkowski postulated also strange “[special] relativistic properties of the space/time/spacetime and relativistic effects”, i.e., “space contraction”, “time dilation”, and strange interactions in systems “inertial- frame-material-objects”, where a moving inertial frame “contracts space”, “dilates time”, and the “contracted” space contract lengths of real bodies, “dilated” time slows tick rates of real clocks, etc.
All these postulates appeared as illusory transcendent interpretations by the authors of the SR/GR of experimental data, since in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including for the authors, the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, “Matter” [and so everything in Matter], etc., were fundamentally transcendent. And till now are transcendent in official physics, and so the SR/GR till now are standard physical theories.
Again – practically all really fundamental phenomena/motions can be, and are, scientifically defined, and so further scientifically elaborated, only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, and, in application in physics, in the SS&VT informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3,
- where, including, the basic equations of the SR, including Lorentz transformations, etc., are really scientifically obtained and the initial models of Gravity and Electric Forces are developed; besides more 30 other fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified; more see the 2-nd link.
“…2. GTR begins with a general geodesic equation in 4D space-time without reference to any particular forces, apart from the inertial forces of course. This geodesic naturally imports STR…”
- as to “pseudo Riemannian” 4D spacetime and “geodesics” that indeed are some variations of Minkowski space and the SR “world lines”, however that “GTR begins with a general geodesic equation” isn’t correct. The GR equations define, first of all, the “curvature” of the 4D spacetime, which is created by some “mass”, and exists independently on – something is in this curvature, including “moves along geodesics” or not – as that Gravity field potential in Newton theory does, which defines trajectories of gravitational masses if the masses appear in concrete field – as that curvature in the GR does.
“….3. This geodesic equation has many solutions, but one solution in particular is the focus of interest. That is the Schwarzschild solution which has the superficial appearance of the escape velocity formula, with the escape velocity being equal to 'c'….”
- that isn’t so, “Schwarzschild metrics” nothing changes in the GR equations, the metrics is simply convenient at calculations of the curvature in some concrete cases. Including the famous “Schwarzschild solution, with the escape velocity being equal to 'c'”, i.e. when the curvature is infinite, and some “black holes” in spacetime appear, indeed exist – because of at escape velocity being equal to 'c' the solutions of the GR equations are singular; and again – independently on something escapes or not.
Really in Matter fundamentally there are no any “spacetime curvature” and no any singularities at all, more about what are “black holes” see the 2-nd link, section “Cosmology”.
“…..Can we agree so far?....”
- I cannot agree, see above, and in that
“…..If so, then certain questions arise. The first question regards what exactly does the Schwarzschild solution mean, and in what physical context does it apply. If we then accept that it applies to kinematics precisely, then what are dealing with is Newtonian gravity corrected for 4D space-time. In other words GTR = STR + Newtonian gravity.…..”
- again, Gravity is dynamical Force, and relates to kinematics absolutely analogously as that all other Forces do – it acts in the [5]4D fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Cartesian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), at that, since it looks now as rather rational to conjecture, the Gravity fields at charges motions transform in accordance with kinematical Lorentz transformations.
At that the GTR isn’t “STR + Newtonian gravity”, STR principally is applied only in the flat Minkowski space, etc. However this point isn’t essential – the development of the really scientific Gravity theory will be based on scientific understanding of what are “space/time/spacetime/ “Matter””, on that Gravity is fundamental Nature Force, which is in many traits similar to Electric Force, etc.
However these Forces aren’t identical, say in classical ED electric charge is fundamentally “relativistic invariant”, whereas the gravitational charge rather possibly isn’t, etc. Besides both Force theories must contain fundamentally “classical” and QM theories, whereas official physics QED has a number of transcendent postulates, etc.,
- and so it looks as rather rational that the scientific i.e. non-transcendent, Gravity and Electric Forces theories will be developed basing on SS&VT initial models – see the links in the SS posts.
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, Then we need to take a closer look at where Newton's gravity first enters into the analysis. The initial 4D space-time geodesic equation doesn't in itself predict gravity. Newton's gravity is introduced as being something that fits with a particular solution in spherical polar coordinates.
This part needs to be explained clearly.
I still see it as being a case of how gravity distorts the already existing 4D space-time continuum. I don't see gravity as being a warping of the space-time continuum. I see gravity as actually warping the space-time continuum. I see gravity as causing the warping. I don't see gravity as actually being the warping. I don't see gravity itself as being related to the 4D space-time continuum. I see it as an external effect upon the 4D space-time continuum.
Dr. Javanshiry, I have no doubt that an aether based approach will improve the situation. But we are not ready to discuss that yet. So far, I have seen no evidence on this thread that there is any common understanding of what General Relativity actually entails. Until that matter is sorted, we can't go any further.
We need to know exactly how the Newtonian gravity term falls out of the 4D space-time geodesic equation. I don't see it as something that would naturally fall out of this equation. I believe it has to be input as an external effect and then the two interact with each other, as in, gravity affects the 4D space-time continuum while the 4D space-time continuum distorts the Newtonian gravitation.
Frederick David Tombe
I think that there is no need for one faulty equation to fall out of another faulty equation. Sometimes there are unnatural stumbling blocks that we place in our own way. In Newton's equation f=ma there is the self-imposed misdirection caused by the inability to understand how to formally define the property of mass. The choice was made to make mass the third indefinable property of mechanics. The first two indefinable properties are the permanently indefinable properties of length and duration which physicists misleadingly refer to as space and time. Aside from these naturally indefinable properties, there are no other undefinable physics properties.
A historically defined physics property is a property that is represented mathematically as equal to a combination of other physics properties that have been previously introduced to us by direct empirical evidence. Each formally defined property must be defined at the time that it is introduced to us by its direct empirical evidence.
It is especially important that mass be made a formally defined property. Its definition is the link that would establish a direct connection between that which direct empirical evidence is attempting to communicate to us and all of the rest of physics. It is necessary to follow the lead provided for us by direct empirical evidence in order to develop a fundamentally unified physics. Without it, we will experience disunity. Disunity is at the root of the problem that you are flagging.
Direct empirical evidence consists of observing patterns in changes of velocities of objects. It does not include measurements of nor conclusions about either time or space. Einstein's equation is taught as if it includes information about the properties of time and space but, in fact, does not include measurements of nor conclusions about time and space. Instead, it includes conclusions about effects upon a selected object's cyclic activity and object-related length measurements. It is the use of the units of the second and the meter that cause this result. It is the units that represent all physics properties in calculable physics equations.
The equations f=-ma and f=G(M1M2)/RR lack important understanding, both conditions being due to the lack of a formal physics definition of mass. Einstein's equation lacks important understanding because of the lack of formal definition for mass and, because of the lack of measurements of both time and space. It concerns what happens to equations that contain an undefined property of mass and, insofar as actual equation variables are concerned, the equation substitutes for the immeasurable indefinable properties of time and of space.
The answer to your concern lies in putting into strict practice the historical method of formally defining a physics property. The current condition of changing the name "rule of measurement" into "operational definition" does not change a property that lacks its formal physics definition into a defined property. Examples of properties that have received their correct formal physics defintions are; energy, momentum, and force. Examples of properties that lack having received their formal physics definitions are; mass, temperature, and electric charge. E.ach of these properties are definable properties that should have had and could have had received their formal physics defnitions at the time that they were introduced to us.
The point is that neither equation representation of the property of gravity tells us what gravity is. Both lack definitional understanding and direct empirical evidence guidance. In support of this claim, I suggest that solving the equation f=ma for f/m=a tells us that the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. One can write an equation to show that Newtons divided by kilograms equal acceleration; however, that equation does not re-establish the needed connection between direct empirical evidence and theoretical physics.
The evidence of the existence of that connection is that all properties that are introduced to us by direct empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is their evidence. In the case of force and mass, this means that both must be expressible in terms of some combination of the properties of length and what physicists call time. Taking mass separately, its unit of the kilogram must be defined by equation form to be equal to some combination of meters and seconds. The Newton is then automatically defined in terms of some combination of meters and seconds.
If one uses this natural system of units for all physics properties, then those properties will exhibit fundamental unity. The re-establishment of fundamental unity to the equations of physics eliminates conflicts between faulty equations. A fundamentally unified physics eliminates theoretical conflicts.
The point of this message is that an undefined definable property is a source of disunity. Also, the inclusion of immeasurable properties in physics equations is a source of disunity. An example of the first condition is that the undefined status of mass causes f=ma to theoretically represent disunity. An example of the second condition causes Einstein's equation to theoretically represent additional disunity.
The corrections that are necessary to learn what is gravity are;
1) Formally define mass by a mathematical equation that expresses mass in terms of the properties of length and duration. Also, define its unit of the kilogram in terms of meters and seconds only.
2) Eliminate immeasurable properties such as space and time from the equations of the science of measurements, i.e., physics.
Dr. Putnam, Let me phrase my question a different way. In classical planetary orbital theory, we begin by combining Newton's gravity with the inertial forces, and this solves to an ellipse, hyperbola, or a parabola.
We never actually derive Newton's gravity formula in this context. We simply add it into the equation for the inertial forces in polar coordinates as an external force.
As regards Einstein's geodesic equation, we can assume that this includes the inertial forces, corrected for relativity, but we have no immediate basis upon which to assume that Newton's gravity is implicit in the equation.
However, when we consider the Schwarzschild solution, Newton's gravity emerges.
The question is, does it necessarily emerge, or have we merely added it in as a possible solution.
The question is important because the answer tells us whether gravity is included in the 4D space-time continuum, or whether it is merely superimposed.
Dear Frederick David Tombe,
- unlike your earlier posts the last post looks as contains too alternative [to official physics] approach, whereas as a rule I comment only official physics, and don’t comment alternative approaches. Though a few brief notes to the last post:
“…Dr. Shevchenko, Then we need to take a closer look at where Newton's gravity first enters into the analysis. The initial 4D space-time geodesic equation doesn't in itself predict gravity. Newton's gravity is introduced as being something that fits with a particular solution in spherical polar coordinates. …..”
- Newton’s gravity law is a typical physical law, i.e. when some physicist observers some physical objects/events/effects/processes in some systems of the objects, and finds that the involved in the events/effects/processes material objects in some concrete traits/parameters of systems of the objects behave analogously in many cases; and, at that, the parameters can be characterized quantitatively, he writes corresponding equations, and so substantiates corresponding theory, which describes not only the observed systems, but many other systems in Matter.
Just by this way the Gravity law was discovered by Newton, whereas, say, that Earth attracts bodies humans knew dozens of thousands of years before Newton; and that just the law means and describes. And it is valid in full independence on – what coordinates – Cartesian, polar, etc. – that is completely problem of convenience of mathematical elaboration of concrete physical tasks - are used at analysis of concrete systems of gravitationally coupled in the Matter’s [5]4D fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Cartesian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) bodies.
The spacetime – as that follows from the scientific definitions of absolutely fundamental phenomena notions “Space” and “Time” [see the links in yesterday SS post] - really is nothing else than the logical “empty container”, where Matter – and all/every material objects – is placed, and constantly evolves as interactions of material objects and systems,
- and the emptiness fundamentally cannot be impacted by anything in Matter, i.e. fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, and, relating to
“…I see gravity as actually warping the space-time continuum.…..”, etc.,
- “warped”; etc.; and cannot do anything with anything in Matter.
Again, for those, who indeed want to understand – what is “Gravity” it is necessary to read what is written in the SS&VT informational physical model, besides the links in yesterday SS post see the links in the SS post 22 days ago now;
- and how what is written in the links can be tested experimentally, including in the point that is much more important than, say, distinctions of Newton theory and the GR - the experiment where also rather probably the quantum Gravity effects can be detected, for example, in experiment with photons see - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34963 ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.
Another experiment see in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experimentDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.800, which is also real test of the GR.
To read the attached PDF it is useful as well.
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, Having observed all the responses and checked out a number of sources, I am coming to the conclusion that the maths of GTR is correct. In GTR, planetary orbits are solved using the standard Leibniz equation which contains Newton's gravity plus centrifugal force, but with an additional relativistic factor which is negligible in terrestrial situations.
This equation neatly fits into a four-vector format in tensor notation, suggesting that gravity does indeed manifest as a deformation in the 4D space-time continuum.
This of course doesn't explain gravity as such. There will have to be an additional cause for the singularity at the source of the gravitational field and the ensuring deformation in the surrounding space-time. But GTR mathematically describes the effect of gravity in conjunction with the 4D space-time continuum.
My only quibble with GTR is the failure to recognize that the 4D space-time continuum is in fact Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices. Without this physical basis for absolute rest, relativity runs into the problem of the clock paradox.
I have the new theory- it is written in the language of distributions theory
Dr. Pistea, Can we first hear about your understanding of general relativity as it stands, so that we know exactly what you are trying to correct.
Dear Frederick David Tombe ,
“…Having observed all the responses and checked out a number of sources, I am coming to the conclusion that the maths of GTR is correct.….”
- yeah, that is so. However form that some mathematical construction is correct by no means follows that this construction is correct also as a physical theory. Though - since Matter is rather simple informational system, which is based on rather simple binary reversible logics, and fundamentally universal laws/links/constants; and in Matter exchange by information between material objects at/as their interactions fundamentally happens with using exclusively true information, mathematics is indeed extremely effective tool at description and analysis of objects/events/processes in Matter. However mathematics is, nonetheless only tool,
- and from this fact there exist only some unique exclusions, an example – from the mathematical fact that the vector cross product doesn’t exist in 4D Euclidian space as 4D vector the physical consequence that really angular momentums of particles, which are 4D gyroscopes, don’t exist as a vector; and so, say, the observed 3D space projection of the 4D angular momentum [a tensor? bi-vector?] is two times lesser than the 4D angular momentum value.
Physics fundamentally isn’t mathematics, and GTR, which is fundamentally physically incorrect, is just an example of the point above.
“…My only quibble with GTR is the failure to recognize that the 4D space-time continuum is in fact Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices. Without this physical basis for absolute rest, relativity runs into the problem of the clock paradox.…..”
- the “clock paradox”, i.e. the Dingle objection to STR, exists in the STR, and isn’t a “paradox”, i.e. something in some theory that allegedly contradicts with, however in most cases is resolvable in, the theory. That is rigorously formulated absurd consequence that rigorously, directly, and unambiguously follows from STR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.
Correspondingly from this fact completely rigorously, by the rigorous “proof by contradiction” , it follows that Matte’s spacetime is absolute, the frames aren’t completely equivalent. And, again - Matter’s spacetime indeed is the [5]4D fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, , fundamentally Cartesian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct).
However from this fact by no means it follows that in the spacetime some “ether” exists, the existence of the [5]4D ether – i.e. [5]4D dense lattice of binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] follows only from that in this case so too many puzzles in physics fold into a one – and too rational - picture, that it looks as it would be too irrational if that would be incorrect.
Now upgraded version of the informational model appeared on the RG “The Informational Conception and the Base of Physics”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, where a number of points in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics are considered in detail.
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, OK, so you agree that the maths of GTR is correct. Fine. Nobody was saying that this is the end of the matter. As for 4D space, nobody was talking about 4D space. I know that the vector cross product doesn't work in 4D space. I have even written about that matter myself.
Article Pythagoras's Theorem in Seven Dimensions
We were talking about 4D space-time which is a different matter, and a 3D vector cross-product can operate within that.
As regards Maxwell's luminiferous medium, he was able to derive E = vxB from it, just as it can also be derived from the Lorentz transformation of fields.
That's why I suggest that Einstein's GTR needs to be merged with Maxwell's luminiferous medium.
Dear Frederick David Tombe
“…...Dr. Shevchenko, OK, so you agree that the maths of GTR is correct. Fine. Nobody was saying that this is the end of the matter. As for 4D space, nobody was talking about 4D space….”
- in that the maths of GTR is correct there is no fine; again – see the SS posts above – every mathematical construction, if it is in accordance with mathematical axioms, is correct. However that by no menas means that any, including GTR, mathematical construction is correct in phyisics, and GRT isn’t correct in this case;
- though GRT it is postulated is postulated that real Matter’s spacetime is pseudo Riemannian [imaginary mathematically] just “space” is 4D.
“…. I know that the vector cross product doesn't work in 4D space. I have even written about that matter myself. Article Pythagoras's Theorem in Seven Dimensions
We were talking about 4D space-time which is a different matter, and a 3D vector cross-product can operate within that…”
- in 7D Euclidian [real mathematically] space the vectors cross product is vector – in contrast to 4D, and practicall all other N>3D spaces;
- whereas, again, the fact that in the Matter’s 4D the Cartesian sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) of the Matter’s [5]4D fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally Cartesian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), the cross product of 3D vectors “R” and “momentum” is again the 3D vector “3D angular momentum”, is in full accordance with mathematics, and so, say, classic mechanics has in this case no problem;
- however in the STR 4D Minkowski space 4-angular momentum is the tensor, which is physically rather strange, tough.
Note also, that really in Matter’s spacetime metrics only the dimension “ct” is [“true”] time dimension, whereas the the dimension “cτ” is [“coordinate time”] dimension is really a specific space dimension, however till now in physics it is used as “time dimension”, since is just the “time what clocks show”.
“….As regards Maxwell's luminiferous medium, he was able to derive E = vxB from it, just as it can also be derived from the Lorentz transformation of fields.
That's why I suggest that Einstein's GTR needs to be merged with Maxwell's luminiferous medium. …..”
- sorry, but I wrote already that comment only official physics, and don’t comment alternative approaches; and so here only can point that for those, who really want to understand – what happens in Matter – see the papers that are linked in the yesterday SS above in the thread.
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, Do you have a problem with the concept of 4D space-time? Remember, we are not talking about 4D space. We are talking about 4D space-time, which is a different thing.
If not, what is your problem with GTR, seeing as you don't comment on alternative approaches?
Dear Frederick David Tombe ,
“…Dr. Shevchenko, Do you have a problem with the concept of 4D space-time?....”
- sorry, but from a number of SS posts above it should be clear for any normal human, i.e. who is able to think logically, rationally, objectively, non-standardly, and to read SS posts and links attentively enough, that in the SS&VT informational physical model, which is based on the rigorously proven “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 , there is no problems with any spacetime; since in the conception the [absolutely] fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are rigorously scientifically defined,
- in contrast to as that is any other physical theory, where the authors, since are outside the conception/model, have no any understanding – what the phenomena/notions above are, since they are fundamentally transcendent in mainstream philosophy and official physics,
- correspondingly in official physics in the theories the variable in classic physics/observable in QM phenomena/notions “space/time/spacetime” are defined by some transcendent ways, and for “space/time/spacetime” in the theories, first of all SRT and GRT, which are base for all other theories in physics, many transcendent “relativistic properties of, and relativistic effects in, “space/time/spacetime” are postulated.
Again, utmost fundamental and universal Matter’s spacetime is, again, the [5]4D fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Cartesian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), which cannot be “contracted” , “dilated”, “curved”, etc.; the metrics is determined by the utmost fundamental and universal degreases of freedom of the [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose Matter’s the utmost fundamental base - “everyferous ether” – [5]4D dense FLE-lattice, which is placed in the spacetime above.
Including
“…Remember, we are not talking about 4D space. We are talking about 4D space-time, which is a different thing….”
- in this thread we are obligatorily talking about 4D space, because of the thread is about GRT – and so SRT, where there is no “spacetimes”, in these theories Matter’s real spacetime are the Minkowski and pseudo Riemannian spaces,
- where, including, “space” and “time” are the same, and, say, as that is a popular wording in official physics, “space transforms into time, and time transforms into space”.
That is, in certain sense, correct – really the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), where practically all happens in Matter; which is observable and so is as some transcendent construction in existent physical theories; and correctly in the SS&VT informational physical model,
- is a “space”, since the cτ-dimension isn’t the time dimension. The “true” time dimension is the ct-dimension in the metrics above, however this “coordinate time” cτ-dimension is specific space one;
- it principally differs from 3D space dimensions in that 3D dimension provide existence of Matter as a binary logics system, whereas the cτ-dimension provides the possibility of reverse logical operations in Matter.
So, say particles and antiparticles move in the cτ-dimension only in opposite directions, however can move in 3D space in any directions; and, besides, for a lot of reasons the coordinate time is just “the time is what clocks show”
- however that isn’t as that is postulated in SRT “the time is what clocks read”; it fundamentally by no means “transforms into space” – and any space fundamentally by no means “transform into coordinate time”.
“…If not, what is your problem with GTR, seeing as you don't comment on alternative approaches?….”
- again sorry, but I have no problems with GTR, why and how? - that is clearly written in practically all SS posts in the thread.
And, again – it should be necessary to read the SS posts and links in the posts, first of all the papers that are linked in the last SS post above, where the 2-nd link is some conclusive review of the informational model, i.e. some sum of conclusions of concrete the models papers, and the first link is essentially the model itself, though, besides it, it is necessary to read the references in the paper,
- attentively, and so instead of such strange questions rather possibly really interesting questions appear. In such cases – ask.
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, If you have no problem with GTR, what point are you trying to make?
The Theory of Relativity lacks any direct empirical support for its claims. The theory rests upon the existence of two effects, i.e., that time dilates and space contracts. There is no direct empirical support for either claim. None! In fact, no one has ever written a physics equation that contained the direct representation of either space or time. There is no physics equation that predicts that time dilates. There is no physics equation that predicts space-contraction. Both space and time have always been substituted for by object-related measurements. If one wants to know what it is that physicists know, look at the units of the properties. All physics properties are represented in calculable physics equations solely by their units. It is the units that tell us what it is that physicists are measuring and are learning about.
Dear Frederick David Tombe,
“…Dr. Shevchenko, If you have no problem with GTR, what point are you trying to make?…..”
- sorry, but that looks as rather strange question. From the SS posts in this thread quite clearly follows, that I have no principal problems with GTR, including understand what are the GTR problems – that the problems are possible, the thread question implies directly also;
- and so I make in the posts explanations of what are GRT problems, why the problems exist, and what happens in Matter really – in direct accordance with the thread question. If you don’t understand that till now, it seems as that it is worthwhile for you to re-read the SS posts and links in the posts; if you really want to know the GRT problems and what happens in Matter really.
“…In fact, no one has ever written a physics equation that contained the direct representation of either space or time. There is no physics equation that predicts that time dilates. There is no physics equation that predicts space-contraction…”
- that isn’t correct in official physics. In the SR, which is standard physical theory, the Lorentz transformations are just “the equations that contain the direct representation of space or time”, i.e. the variables x/x’, t/t’, y/y’, z/z' in the transformations are postulated as they relate to all points in whole Matter’s spacetime – and just so from the Lorentz transformations the “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc., follow; and that is standard tenets in official physics, in spite of really that is fundamentally impossible – see the SS posts above.
That is another thing, that indeed
“…Both space and time have always been substituted for by object-related measurements….”
- where the real objects real lengths contraction and the real slowing down of real clocks tick rates are measured; what created for the authors of SRT/GRT illusion of corresponding spacetime transformations, which [illusions] the authors postulated.
However this point isn’t trivial, since besides the bodies and clocks – where it is evident that the bodies and clocks aren’t space and time, there is EM fields, which look on first glance as “space”, and which transform at electric charges motion in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, including are “contracted”.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
"that isn’t correct in official physics. In the SR, which is standard physical theory, the Lorentz transformations are just “the equations that contain the direct representation of space or time”, i.e. the variables x/x’, t/t’, y/y’, z/z' in the transformations are postulated as they relate to all points in whole Matter’s spacetime – and just so from the Lorentz transformations the “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc., follow; and that is standard tenets in official physics, in spite of really that is fundamentally impossible – see the SS posts above."
JP: It is taught that physicists work with time and space. It is the official physics doctrine that physicists work with time and space. However, physicists have never worked with time or space. There are no isolated controlled specimens in any laboratory anywhere. Never have either one been measured. All direct empirical evidence put forward as proof of time dilation and space contraction involves measuring object behaviors. Theoretical physicists accept indirect empirical evidence as confirmation of their guesses. There is direct evidence that objects contract. There is no direct evidence that space contracts. There is direct evidence that clocks slow down. There is no direct evidence that time dilates. Variables in equations may or may not be what physicists say they are. The equations model patterns. The patterns are learned from object behaviors. The equations make successful predictions about object behaviors.
SS I read your messages. Thank you for sharing your expert knowledge.
My input from working this out:
First, mass needs to receive its definition. The answer will shock the physics community. Secondly, temperature needs to receive its definition. This one could have been reasoned out. Thirdly, electric charge needs to receive its definition. The answer to this one will shock the world.
For readers who do not know how to define a physics property, here is the strict historical method: A physics property is formally defined by writing an equation that expresses the property in terms of a combination of other properties that have been previously introduced to us by direct empirical evidence.
It has to be stressed that it must be direct empirical evidence. The reason is theoretical physicists treat indirect empirical evidence as being equal to or even better than direct empirical evidence. Indirect empirical evidence is used to support their guesses about what can be usefully substituted into physics equations in lieu of knowledge.
The property must be defined at the time that it is introduced to us by direct empirical evidence. Today this method for formally defining physics properties is ignored by theoretical physicists. Their individual ideas of what is something is what is popularly taught as definitions.
They have added to the confusion that they have created about definitions by taking the one means by which an undefined property is definitely recognized as such and renaming it as an 'operational definition'. They changed the name 'a rule of measurement' into 'an operational definition'. No formally defined property needs a 'rule of measurement' or an 'operational definition' assigned to it.
Dr. Shevchenko, So what you appear to be saying is that you agree with the maths of GTR but not with the official physical interpretation. Is that correct? For example, it's only the clocks' physical mechanism that slows down and not time itself? Is that what you are saying?
James A Putnam,
“…It is taught that physicists work with time and space. It is the official physics doctrine that physicists work with time and space. However, physicists have never worked with time or space. There are no isolated controlled specimens in any laboratory anywhere. Never have either one been measured. ….”
- that the official physics doctrine that physicists work with time and space is fundamentally natural, because of the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are elements “Rules/Possibilities” of the “Logos” set;
- i.e. all/every informational pattern can be, and absolutely fundamentally are, in accordance with these Rules/Possibilities. Any/every informational pattern/system, including the informational patterns/systems “material objects” can exist only in concrete spaces, and any/every dynamical pattern/system can change only in the [“true”] time.
Correspondingly the informational system “Matter” exists and always constantly changes in its fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), and descriptions and analyses of systems of material objects essentially include spacetime coordinates, etc.
At that both - “Space” and “Time”, absolutely fundamentally have no “own” metrics [besides the above]. They compose simply “empty containers”, emptiness cannot be “measured”. If there is only one pattern, which only once changed, it is senseless to state that the pattern is “large” or “small”, and the change was “long” or “short”.
However if there exist at least two patterns, and at least two changes, the relative comparisons “larger”/“smaller”/equal, and “longer”/“shorter”/equal are possible. Matter is extremely rigorously logically organized system, where everything happens in complete accordance with completely universal basic laws/links/constants, and that allows to establish universal standard etalons for relative measurements of lengths, distances in 3D space, and time intervals; without these data, again, no rational physical analysis is possible
That is another thing, that “Space” and “Time” are completely transcendent in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, and in official physics for the informational system’s “Matter” spacetime a number of transcendent “relativistic properties and effects” are postulated.
Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_force_messenger_particles_really_explain_attraction_between_particles, and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics are relevant to this case as well.
Frederick David Tombe,
“…Dr. Shevchenko, So what you appear to be saying is that you agree with the maths of GTR but not with the official physical interpretation. Is that correct?...”
- that is correct only in that I agree with the maths of GTR – in that GRT is correct mathematical construction there is no any problems. However that “not [agree] with the official physical interpretation” – is a strange wording, practically in any of the SS posts above it is written, that the mathematical construction “GRT” fundamentallyisn’t adequate to the reality, so is adequate only in some cases; and so principally cannot have a rational physical interpretation at all,
- besides, of course, “official physical interpretation”, where, correspondingly, numerous marvelous transcendent – but completely legitimate in official physics - objects/events/processes appear in Matter, see the links above.
As to
“….For example, it's only the clocks' physical mechanism that slows down and not time itself? Is that what you are saying?…..”
- that is indeed so; and that also is written, in many already, SS posts in the thread, however, besides that, in the posts many other physical objects/events/processes/problems are explained, and, if you till now have understood only this point, that looks as that you at least read the SS posts not attentively enough; and the linked main SS&VT papers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3,
- didn’t read at all. Whereas that would be useful for you, if you really want to know – what happens in Matter.
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, You need to understand that people don't habitually read other people's papers until they have first cleared up a few basics. At the moment I am having difficulty understanding exactly what your point is. One moment you say that you agree with the maths of GTR while another moment you say that the maths is not adequate. Can you summarize your position?
For example, I can summarize my position as being that I accept the maths of GTR and STR, providing, that it is taken in conjunction with Maxwell's luminiferous medium as an absolute standard of rest, and where time dilation only applies to the mechanism of an atomic clock and not to real time. And where GTR is simply STR with the velocity term referring to the escape velocity in a gravitational field.
Can you summarize your approach in a similarly concise manner?
Dear Frederick David Tombe,
“…At the moment I am having difficulty understanding exactly what your point is. One moment you say that you agree with the maths of GTR while another moment you say that the maths is not adequate. Can you summarize your position?……”
- sorry, but my position in this case already few times is written in the SS posts above: I agree that “the maths of GTR”, i.e. GTR equations, are correct – just as, say, I equally agree that the math of equation x=y+z is correct, in both cases we have quite legitimate math, and nothing else/more.
But from that “the maths of GTR” is true by no means follows, that the GRT equations are true at applications in physics, and really the GRT equations are fundamentally wrong, since are derived basing on fundamentally wrong postulates; so are applicable in [real, not official in this case] physics only in some specific cases,
- an example see the SS posts above: GTR predicts “gravitational time dilation” really practically for sure two times larger than the real value, however correction of the GPS system that compensate the constant drift of clocks on orbits showings comparing with clocks on Earth showings, because of the clocks on orbits are in lesser Earth Gravity potential than the clocks on Earth, is correct, though is made in accordance with GTR,
- and that happens because of the GTR is based on also wrong postulate that photons don’t change energy/frequency at propagating in Gravity fields.
However the GPS system works as exchange by photons between the clocks on orbits and on Earth, and, since really photons change their energy in Gravity field, and this changing is equal to half of GRT predicted “gravitational time dilation”, at the exchange these two fundamentally different physical effects, i.e. real different slowing of clocks’ tick rates and the losing/gain photons’ frequency at the exchange are summed, and the correction is according to GRT, and GRT is correctly applicable.
However such cases are some exclusions in possible physical situations, and really instead GTR it is necessary to develop really correct theory of Gravity, which by no means is some transcendent unreal interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, as that in the maths of GTR is postulated/used,
- but of what is fundamentally real – of the “fourth” fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, and that with a rather non-zero probability should be development of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial models of Gravity and Electric Forces in framework of the informational physical model, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” and links in the section.
As to
“…For example, I can summarize my position…”
- again, I comment as a rule only official physics and don’t comment alternative approaches, including, besides, since if that happens, the commenting, as a rule, becomes be too long.
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, OK. So in summary, you think the equations of GTR are fundamentally wrong, but as a rule you don't comment on alternative approaches, apart from your own alternative approach.
And you are saying that the experimental evidence cited in favour of GTR actually has an alternative physical explanation outside of GTR.
You are saying that it is actually the clocks themselves in the GPS that slow down, due to the fact that EM radiation changes its energy according to the background gravitational field strength.
Is this your position?
“…You are saying that it is actually the clocks themselves in the GPS that slow down, due to the fact that EM radiation changes its energy according to the background gravitational field strength. Is this your position?…..”
- what happens in GPS rather clearly is explained in the SS posts a few times already, including in more simple case – the Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments, where not intrinsic processes in some “cesium clocks” – and so the clocks slow down their tick rates, but intrinsic processes in Fe-57 nuclei are slowed just in the Gravity field, and by no means – as that is in the GPS clocks also – “due to the fact that EM radiation changes its energy”.
The EM radiation, i.e. photons, - as any other material object, at least besides fields, change their energy at propagating in Gravity field, say, propagating up relatively to Earth surface photons lose energy and become “redshifted”, if down to Earth – blueshifted, and thus change their “ticks”,
- however that fundamentally different effect than the slowing down of processes in clocks, etc. the last happens including when the clocks , etc., are in statics in the field,
- as that was in the PRS experiments above, which “confirmed GTR” , since, as that is postulated in the GTR, photons don’t change energy/frequency, and so, say, if F-57 decays quanta were radiated by lower source - “up” to the F-57 that are on some height and so tick with larger rate that the radiating below F-57, and so radiating by F-57photons, at once as escaped from the nuclei, have lesser energy than if would be radiated by upper F-57,
- and so to obtain the maximum Mossbauer propagation through the upper Fe-57 it is necessary to compensate this difference of, as that GRT postulate, only of the lower and upper nuclei tick rates; and this compensation in the PRS experiments turns out to be in full accordance with GRT.
However really, though the difference of Fe-57 in different heights really fundamentally exists, it is two times lesser, than that GRT postulates; however, since the propagating up photons really were redshifted, the sum of these, again, fundamentally different effects , is equal to the GRT prediction.
And, again, to show that the GRT postulate that photons aren’t affected by [in this case Earth’s] “spacetime curvature” is incorrect, it is enough to make the quite simple and easy experiment, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.800
Cheers
Dr. Shevchenko, You are suggesting that the GPS clocks are speeded up when gravitational field strength reduces, due to the fact that the frequency of the EM beam is altered.
Then how to you explain the motion dependent aspect of clock-dilation?
A correction to General Relativity would simply require that Minkowski's 4D space-time continuum be equated to Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices.
Article Centrifugal Force in the Schwarzschild Field
Dear Kathleen Rosser
Sorry to say this is the fact that all our icons from past to now are wrong on Gravity...that is including from Mr. Galileo to Sir, Newton and to Mr. Einstein to now without exception. first none of them knew that our universe has several hundred billions of galaxies.
None of them knew anything about the nature of the Universe that has three dimensions, changing continuously momentary, and everything has life expectancy, yet all wrote jargon flat one dimension static formula in the past for our universe.
how sad it is that our brain waste on all these pseudoscience non-scientific question.
Ask yourself simple question, if ET can fly in our atmosphere why can we as well.
Please think new, not from last century scientists that did not know anything about anything.
Read new things that can not peer-review.
Article Gravity is an Internal Force
this is supported by fact, because the greatest truths are simple.
regards,
Frederick David Tombe,
- you next time write rather strange claims
“…Dr. Shevchenko, You are suggesting that the GPS clocks are speeded up when gravitational field strength reduces, due to the fact that the frequency of the EM beam is altered….”
- whereas already a number of times in the SS posts above it is explained, that tick rates of any clocks, including GPS ones, by no means depend on what frequency photons in any EM beam have.
And in the last SS post that is explained for much more simple physical situation when in the Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments the Fe-57 frequency is measured – as just that in GPS systems happens, but in this case many other effects are involved, and that is so more complex/vague case
[note, besides, though, that the rate of intrinsic processes in bodies, including particles, clocks, etc., depends not on “field strength”, which is gradient of Gravity field potential, but on the potential]:
- according to the GR the intrinsic processes in Fe-57 nuclei, which are on different heights, [in PRS experiment 0 and h] ticks with different sequences, and so at the Fe-57 decay, they radiate/absorb resonantly photons with corresponding different frequencies; and, say, radiated up by lower nuclei photons have lesser frequency that radiated/resonantly absorbed photons in upper nuclei on some Δω; and this Δω , measured in the PRS experiments, is in full accordance with the GR prediction, what is possible only if photons, propagating “along geodesics in curved by Earth spacetime” don’t change their energy, as that the GR postulates.
However that isn’t so, there is no some “spacetime curvature” fundamentally, Gravity is completely for sure nothing else than “fourth” – non-existent in official physics, since in official physics the GR is standard theory – fundamental Nature Force,
- which in a number of traits is similar to the Electric/EM Force, but differs from all other Forces in that all/every material objects have the gravitational charge – “gravitational mass”. Including photons have gravitational mass, and so at propagating in Gravity field with different potentials, their energy/frequency changes;
- whereas intrinsic processes in coupled by Gravity bodies indeed are slowed because of the gravitational mass defect, however this slowing is two times lesser than the GR predicts.
So in PRS experiments [and GPS] really the sum of fundamentally independent on each other physical effects was measured – and just that happens at informational exchange in the GPS systems. Real difference of the Fe-57 “tick rates” is two times lesser, than that the GR predicts; and this fact can be quite simply and easily tested; more see the SS post above
“….Then how to you explain the motion dependent aspect of clock-dilation?…..”
- again, here the word “Then” is superfluous, the “motion clock-dilation” – which in the standard SR is in accordance with the really fantastic the SR postulate, that at motion of some body “time becomes be dilated”, and this “dilated time” slows intrinsic processes in the moving body, including moving clocks’ tick rates.
Really there fundamentally cannot be any “time dilation” – as there fundamentally cannot be “gravitational time dilation”, however really intrinsic processes in moving, and placed in Gravity field, indeed are also slowing down;
- but , again, these slowings are fundamentally different, though relate to the same physical fact, that practically every material object is a close-loop algorithm, which always constantly runs cyclically,
- for a particle, body, etc., if it is at absolute rest in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), and doesn’t interact with other particles, etc., by any Force,
- the algorithm runs with the frequency ω=E0/ћ, and, since the “hardware” of the algorithms are the {5]4D binary reversible logical elements [FLE], which have [5]4D sizes be equal to the Planck length, lP, thealgorithm has concrete logical length N=λ/lP., λ is the Compton length of the particle.
When a particle, body, etc., is at rest in the 3D space, the particle moves with the speed of light along only cτ-axis, its algorithm ticks with maximal rate ω=m0c2/ћ , correspondingly having minimal length, N.
- however if it moves in 3D space, the real kinematic slowing of the algorithm’s ticks happens - because of the algorithm is “diluted” by “blank” steps in the space, so algorithms have larger lengths N.
The “gravitational” [and any other Force’s, if the Force compose a stable coupled system of particles and so with negative mass defect] slowing of the tick rates happens for sure fundamentally differently with the kinematic slowing above, and rather probably that happens because of that at every interaction of a particle algorithm with Gravity mediator, this interaction results in transmission to “irradiated gravitationally” particle elementary momentum that is directed to “radiating” particle,
- and, at that, in the irradiated particle such algorithm breaks down, and simply falls out from the particle’s tick rate sequence, so the frequency ω, i.e. the number of ticks in a second, decreases.
All that is written more in detail in linked in the SS posts SS&VT papers, first of all https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3,
- read and attempt to understand; I cannot rewrite the papers in the RG threads.
Cheers
Cite
Paul Pistea
Elephants ears clapping is a slower clock than colibri wings when flying. Use the fastest clicking particle to measure time în finest units. Time dilation will be smaller
Cite
Frederick David Tombe
Dr. Shevchenko, What you seem to be saying is that a a GPS clock ticks slower as gravity becomes stronger, but that this doesn't mean that actual time itself slows down. You believe that the stronger gravity has some physical effect on the caesium atoms.
Is that correct?
If so, many people have been saying this.
So what is your reason as to why stronger gravity slows down the tick rate of an atomic clock?
Cite
1 Recommendation
Paul Pistea
Like already said: to avoid singularities distributions theory is to use
Cite
Paul Pistea
Theory says that all clocks slow down when divina în gravitation, even clicking atoms
Cite
Johan K. Fremerey
Frederick David Tombe: "GPS clock ticks slower as gravity becomes stronger"
This apparently complies with slowing down of luminal speed under enhanced gravitational potential.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Cite
1 Recommendation
Paul Pistea
Dear Johan, you are right: light speed is not constant
Cite
1 Recommendation
Sergey Shevchenko
Institute of Physics of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine
Frederick David Tombe,
“…What you seem to be saying is that a a GPS clock ticks slower as gravity becomes stronger, but that this doesn't mean that actual time itself slows down. You believe that the stronger gravity has some physical effect on the caesium atoms. Is that correct?....”
- that the intrinsic processes in material objects/systems are slowed down, if the objects/systems are coupled in some gravitational systems, it is written in all, again - rather numerous in this thread, SS posts above; including that happens in GPS clocks in Earth Gravity field, and in Earth the intrinsic processes in all particles that compose Earth are slowed down in the clocks’ Gravity fields.
Including in this case the word “ gravity strength” isn’t in certain sense, correct, since the term “strength/ “strong”” is used in physics in this case for the Gravity potential gradient, whereas the slowing down is determined by the potential, i.e., say, if a field is uniform, and so the gradient is equal to zero, nonetheless a clock in such field ticks slower.
“…If so, many people have been saying this….”
- that the GR postulates – however, as that is shown in the SS&VT initial 2007 Gravity model [see links in the SS posts], the real value of the slowing down really is, at least for weak [potential] fields, two times lesser than the value that the GR predicts;
- and that is quite easily can be tested in at least last dozen of years; so the proposed in the model experiment [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experimentDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.800], which, if would be in accordance with the GR, that would be more strong confirmation that the GR is valid, than famous the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments;
- so the experiment was practically for sure made, but instead the GR confirmation the results turned out to be in accordance with the SS&VT model; whereas publications of such results is strongly prohibited in official physics.
Besides yeah, there existed, and exist, innumerous “the SR/GR refuters”, including which say that the clocks are slowing because of the Gravity field impact, however such claims as a rule are grounded by some the authors’ full stop physics, and only underline the official extreme validness of the GR; or repeat what is written in the SS&VT papers or SS posts, as a rule as they “always thought so”; that is rather usual practice in recent scientific community; however in such cases the thoughts aren’t grounded rationally as well, since that is possible only in the model above.
“….So what is your reason as to why stronger gravity slows down the tick rate of an atomic clock?…..”
- that is explained also numerously in the SS posts above, including in the last post, in passage that begins as “…The “gravitational” [and any other Force’s, if the Force compose a stable coupled system…” and up to the post’s end. Here is no necessity to add something, so read more attentively and attempt to understand.
Cheers
Cite
Kathleen Rosser
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Dear Paul Pistea and Johan Fremery,
About the speed of light: yes, the coordinate speed of light is slower in a gravitational field. But the proper speed of light is always constant, of course.
So the Shapiro time delay does tell us light takes longer to reach us. Interestingly, this is not because the path is longer, but because the light really does slow down in our coordinates as viewed from a distance.
Cite
2 Recommendations
Similar questions and discussions
An old question that is still fresh: Is gravity a Newtonian force or Einstein space-time curvature?
Question
2587 answers
- Parviz Parvin
No gravitational wave was measured yet, no graviton was detected accordingly. On the other hand no space- time curvature was observable. There is no successful experiment to validate the current theories. What is the nature of the mysterious gravity? What is the velocity of this effect ?
What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity? Question Asked December 6, 2019.
Discussion
12386 replies
- Nancy Ann Watanabe
My question is: "What are the major and most effective refutations of Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity?"
The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed. Many of the best Answers were probably posted at the beginning, in April of 2018, long before I joined Research Gate on the recommendation of some of my university colleagues. Out of respect for the initiator of the original Question, who states his decision to close his Question, I am posting a very similar question in the interest of accommodating the views of scientists who have not yet had an opportunity to answer the Question, and, possibly, the repeated and updated views of scientists who have already posted on the original Question at Research Gate from April 2, 2018, to December 2019.
Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe?
Question
6467 answers
- Oscar Chavoya-Aceves
We know that our star, the Sun loses about 10^-14 of its mass per year as a result of electromagnetic radiation and particle emission. That reduction in mass should show up as a decreasing gravitational red shift. Same thing should happen to entire galaxies. But isn't it true that the galaxies we observe that are farther from Earth are also the younger we see (because light has taken millions of years more to come to us) and, as a consequence the more massive when we consider entire galaxies? (Because we cannot possibly see them as they are, but as they were millions of years ago.) Shouldn't we expect, correspondingly that the gravitational red shift of an observed galaxy will increase with its distance to Earth?
Were some scientists right in showing that the Lorentz Force brings to a paradox??
Question
755 answers
- Stefano Quattrini
Several scientists pointed out a paradoxical consequence of the application of the Lorentz Force as an addendum to Maxwell's equations in the form given by Heaviside. There is at least one case where the momentum is not conserved...
From the script of 1911 Einstein and Laub to Coleman, Shockley, Furry, Boyer, Babson, Reynolds, Bjorkquist, Griffiths, and Mansuripur till 2012 it was pointed out such an issue.
See the link for details http://people.exeter.ac.uk/sh481/shockley-james.html
-----------
Einstein A and Laub J "Über die im elektromagnetischenFelde aus ruhende Körper ausgeubten pondermotorischeKräfte"
Ann. Phys. 26 541 (1911)
--------------
Coleman, S. and Van Vleck, J. H. "Origin of Hidden Momentum Forces on Magnets"
Phys. Rev. 171 1370 (1968)
------------
Shockley W "Hidden linear momentum related to the α,E term for a Dirac-electron wave packet in an electric field"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 3434 (1968)
-------------
Furry, W. H. "Examples of Momentum Distributions in the Electromagnetic Field and in Matter",
Am. J. Phys. 37 621 (1969)
--------------
Boyer, T. H. "Concerning hidden momentum",
Am. J. Phys. 76 190 (2008)
---------------
Babson, D., Reynolds, S. P., Bjorkquist, R. and Griffiths, D. J. "Hidden momentum, field momentum, and electromagnetic impulse",
Am. J. Phys. 77 826 (2009)
-----------------------------
Mansuripur M. Trouble with the Lorentz law of force: incompatibility with special relativity and momentum conservation.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 193901 (2012)
------------------------------
Is the electron mass strictly of electromagnetic (electrodynamic) origin?
Question
3488 answers
- Anatolij K. Prykarpatski
There exist theoretical evidences that this hipothesis is true, especially, it is strongly supported by the Casimir type electron stability mechanism suggested by Prof. Hal Puthoff in his nice work: Puthoff H.E. "Casimir vacuum energy and the semicalssical electron". Int J Theor Phys, 46, 2007, p. 3005-3008, as well as in the works by Valerii B Morozov, 2011 Phys.-Usp. 54 371 doi:10.3367/UFNe.0181.201104c.0389
"On the question of the electromagnetic momentum of a charged body",
Rohrlich F. Self-Energy and Stability of the Classical Electron. American Journal of Physics, 28(7), 1960, p. 639-643,
Prykarpatsky A.K., Bogolubov N.N. (Jr.) On the classical Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics, the inertia problem and the Feynman proper time paradigm. Ukr. J. Phys. 2016, Vol. 61, No. 3, p. 187-212
and by Rodrigo Medina in the work "Radiation reaction of a classical quasi-rigid extended
particle", J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006) 3801–3816 doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/14/021
The last one is very learning and also solves the well known "4/3"-problem formulated by Abraham, Lorentz and Dirac more than 100 years ago.
What medium is curving in General Relativity?
Discussion
1176 replies
- Sergei Eremenko
GR geometric meaning of curved spacetime lacks explanation what physical media really curves. Can quantum vacuum of virtual particles be that media? Does curvature of spacetime means uneven distribution of that quantum vacuum?
Is there a misspeak in Einstein's train and embankment thought experiment, as described by Einstein in the 1952 edition of his book ?
Discussion
803 replies
- Gary Stephens
Is there a misspeak in Einstein's train and embankment thought experiment, as described by Einstein in the 1952 edition of his book "Relativity, the Special and General Theory" ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you could argue that Einstein meant it, loosely speaking.
But since the whole of reality hinges around this conception, it is probably not remiss to bring it up.
On page 26, Einstein says, in relation to the famous train and embankment thought experiment --see below. "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A."
But if we compare this statement with the animation found here (scroll 1/4 way down) :
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html
we notice that as far as the observer moving with the train, situated at M', is concerned,--- according to what he can possibly know (he can't know of things distant to him) -- the light flashes reach him simultaneously, and that is all he can know. What I mean to say is that statement "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A" is not true, (as it is worded.) He will see no such thing. If this observer were moving, say to the left, within the carriage, then it is true that "Hence the observer will see.." -- but instead he is fixed in the middle at M', of the moving carriage, and from his perspective he will only know that two flashes reach him simultaneously.
So either Einstein's description of what the observer in the carriage would see is wrong, or the animation showing the light rays reaching the middle of the carriage is wrong.
I say wrong, but really this can be thought of as "loosely speaking"- but it is important to be clear about this, for the reasons outlined above.
In one of A. A. Robb's treatises, he says : "Thus, according to the view here adopted, the only really simultaneous events are events which occur at the same place."
And the two light rays meeting in the middle of the train carriage (in the above example) will always be "at the same place" and will always be "simultaneous," and this goes for what-ever frame. They can't be "simultaneous" and "at the same place" in one frame and not in another.
This is a very confusing subject, and I have been confused before, so I apologize in advance, if the above arguments are error.
Is there a solid counter-argument against Dingle's old objection to Relativity Theory?
Question
6482 answers
- Iván Guzmán de Rojas
Herbert Dingle's argument is as follows (1950):
According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates,i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, 3 consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless the question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A - which it requires no super- intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.
Related Publications
Inflation as an amplifier: The case of Lorentz violation
Article
Full-text available
- Yuri Bonder
- Gabriel Leon
Modified gravity theories are supposed to incorporate low-energy quantum-gravity effects and, at the same time, they could shed light into the dark matter and dark energy problems. Here we study a particular modification of general relativity where local Lorentz invariance is spontaneously broken and whose physical effects, despite a decade-long ef...
f(R)$ Gravity Inflation with String-Corrected Axion Dark Matter
Preprint
- S. D. Odintsov
- V. K. Oikonomou
It is quite well known for some time that string inspired axionic terms of the form $\nu (\phi)\tilde{R}R$, known also as Chern-Simons terms, do not affect the scalar perturbations and the background evolution for a flat Friedman-Robertson-Walker Universe. In this paper we study and quantify the implications of the presence of the above term in the...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics