In GR Einstein has demonstrated a rod undergoes a length contraction when it is placed along a radial direction into a gravitational field and that contraction is the more great the more the rod is near mass that generates the gravitational field. Instead a rod that is placed along a tangential direction undergoes no change.

I feel, space and time both are dilated; it can be concluded using Schwarzschild solution of GTR (general theory of relativity).

In Special Relativity, in the reference frame supposed at rest there is a time dilation and a length contraction with respect to the reference frame in relative motion. In GR, independently of the relative speed and because of gravitational field, Einstein demonstrated a length contraction along the radial direction of the field and that contraction increases when the rod is nearer gravitational mass. He demonstrated also a time contraction due to the gravitational field and that contraction increases when clock is nearer gravitational mass.

In Schwarzschild's metric things are different. In fact  that metric produces a time contraction like in Einstein's metric. Nevertheless it produces a length dilation because of the gravitational field and that dilation increases when rod is nearer the Schwarzschild radius. This length dilation is in disagreement  with the length contraction in Einstein's metric.

It doesn't  mean one of the two metrics is wrong but it means a third solution is possible in order to explain physics of gravitational fields.

Dear Sasso

I think there is a missing ring between the view of Einstein and Schwarzschild, which gives the comprehensive view about the gravity. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. I think also there is a necessity of new physico-mathematical models that go beyond tensor models. It doesn't have to mean nevertheless a complication of those models but on the contrary a simplification. I think contemporary research has to go that way.

Dear all

I agree, that they are on equal footing

However the Schwarzschild solution, shows two different behaviours of space and time the time is dilated while space is contracted, So how this can be on equal foot?

Putting space and time in equal footing in essence leads to a four vector formulation (ct,x,y,z). One consequence, then, is a rotation in 4-D space time continuum, by Lorentz transformation matrix, when (ct)2 -x2-y2-z2 remains an invariant quantity (note the difference in sign for space and time coordinates in the expression for invariant distance),

γ   -βγ  0   0

-βγ  γ   0   0

0   0    1   0

0    0   0   1

It leads to both time dilation and length contraction. So we see that it is not true that if time undergoes dilation, length necessarily has to expand, for space and time to remain in the same footing. It is all there in special relativity. And of course, we all know that special relativity can be looked at as a limiting case of general relativity.

In the context of GR, if an atom is placed in a gravitational field, then spectral lines shifts w.r.t gravity free case, the formula is λf = λg(1+ gh/c2). Because(1+ gh/c2) > 0, wavelength of light emitted by an atom in gravity free space is greater than so if it is placed in a gravitational field; or in other words λg

The statement that space and time are on "equal footing" is not a mathematically precise one. A better statement would be to say that both space and time become flexible in order for the local speed of light to remain c. A mathematically precise version would be to say that the spacetime interval is an invariant which is what constrains or determines the metric terms in whatever coordinate system you choose to work in. So your worry that the g_00 and g_11 metric terms look as they do in spherically symmetric coordinates is due to the fact that the local speed of light must be c. 

If we examine the spacerime interval s2:(ct)2-x2-y2-z2, where meanings of c,t,x,y,z are known, we understand the only case in which that interval is invariant involves s2:0. With respect to the local speed of light it needs to specify if the local speed of light is a relativistic speed and then in that case it needs to specify the reference frame.

“…A better statement would be to say that both space and time become flexible in order for the local speed of light to remain c…”

Matter’s spacetime is simply [5]4D Euclidian (even 4D “Cartesian” since 3 spatial and 1 D “coordinate time” dimensions/axes are rectangular) empty container. Emptiness cannot be “rigid”, “flexible”, “curved”, etc. at all. This fact is evident to anybody who understands – what are the space/time/spacetime at all and in Matter’s case particularly.

The SR/GR postulates that Matter’s spacetime can be affected by some mystic ways by “reference frames”, “mass”, and “in order for the local speed of  light to remain c”, etc. occurred in these theories simply because of authors of these theories didn’t understand what are in the reality those fundamental notions/phenomena.

Thus, including, in physics some very mighty magic essences appeared – the light and its speed, which force by some unbelievable way the spacetime to transform – though the light is rather banal particle and has evidently only one relation to the spacetime –  photons move in this emptiness. . Moreover, photons move in the 3D space only, in contrast to “rest mass” particles; the last move with the speed of light in the coordinate time only if are at rest in the absolute Matter’s spacetime, though [when all – “rest mass” and “massless” particles are always moving in the 5-th, i.e. “true time” dimension/axis with the speed of light].

“…atom is placed in a gravitational field, then spectral lines shifts w.r.t. gravity free case, the formula is λf = λg(1+ gh/c2)…”

- this formula again is the consequence of rather strange GR postulate that photons don’t change their energy when moving in the “curved spacetime” – in the reality in gravity fields. When photons are rather “usual” particles and have both – inertial and gravitational masses; and so must interact with the gravity. A box with photons having an energy E is heavier then the empty box on E/c2.

Correspondingly from the formula above follows also that the gravitational mass defect of, say, a two-bodies system, is two times larger then the real value – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity

In the reality the true formula very probably is λf = λg(1+ gh/2c2); and this fact can be rather easyly tested experimentally – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

All for such experiment exists yet now, and it can be made in a week – if instead of lifting a balloon in atmosphere, as  that is suggested in the link above, to make experiment in some skyscraper, spending on the experiment seems no more then a couple of $millions; when that would be indeed the experimental testing of the GR – in contrast to, say, the seeking of  “ripples of the spacetime” with spending $Billions…

Cheers

Article The informational model – gravity

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

Daniele, the spacetime interval is invariant regardless of whether it is 0, greater than zero, or less than zero. And it is independent of frame. This is the foundation of the theory.

David, let us suppose three cases:

1.  s2 equal to zero

2.  s2 equal to 1

3.  s2  equal to -1

I will prove the invariance in the first case. You will prove the invariance in other two cases. Are you agree?

Robert, I have understood. We can apply only definitions, we cannot think. I play no game, I search for giving a contribution to the understanding of the physical reality. For you all is clear: in relativity, in quantum mechanics, in particle physics. There is nothing to do: all is clear. Please,let you think and you will discover much in postmodern physics isn't clear.

``Length contraction'' as well as ``time dilation'' are already unclear enough in Special Relativity. To give correct answers, it is always useful to set up a specific situation and ask what you would measure.

What measurement in a gravitating system do you have in mind? In which way would you compare two lengths and find one contracted?

Once you get to be specific, answers can be obtained and the clarity desired by all, can be reached.

 Daniele, the invariance of the interval (dS'^2 = dS^2) is the starting point of the theory and the mathematical structure that emerges from that starting point will logically be compatible with invariance of spacetime intervals. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for you to question whether I can show intervals to be invariant because to show the invariance I would be using objects that by construction ensure invariance of spacetime intervals.  There are plenty of other constructs in physics that require deeper thinking. This is not one of them.

“I am the first who explained the Gravitational redshift”

                                                                          Adrian Ferent

I discovered the equation for photon – graviton interaction:

                           E = h × f + a × f - a × ν

All physicists were not capable to explain Gravitational time dilation, gravitational redshift.

Time dilation in Special theory of relativity is caused by positive energy.

“Gravitational time dilatation is caused by negative energy”

                                                                                           Adrian Ferent

Only my Gravitation theory explains the gravitational redshift.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310952956_Gravitational_redshift_explained

Article Gravitational redshift explained

Robert, it is manifest that I work with a different set of rules because my research work is based on a critical viewpoint with regard to main theories of modern physics. But it's well to specify that I am building a new set of rules after that I have studied, understood and verified preceding sets and the result has been just a critical viewpoint. Modern physics began in 1881, today we have three typologies of research: postmodern physics that is in continuity with modern physics, neoclassic physics that refers to classic physics and, I call, contemporary physics  that is different from two preceding typologies and has a critical view with respect to both. With regard to Minkowski's spacetime it is known Minkowski affirmed space and time are connected in indissoluble way, but it is also known after more than a century we continue to measure separately space in metres and time in seconds and nobody has understood how to measure indissoluble spacetime.

David, if you prefer, we can neglect particular cases and consider directly general theories. It is true that the mathematical structure of a theory derives from starting points, but it is also true that we are talking about physical theories and not about mathematical theories. In that case then it is manifest that not all starting points are always acceptable. Anyway considering now only Special Relativity, and after to pass in case to other theories of modern physics, I am able to prove a few important logic inconsistencies of that theory. Those outcomes naturally are well described in my papers by circumstantial reasonings and they aren't the result of extempore reasonings.

Regards.

In General Relativity there is a container, the universe, which can be represented by a 4 dimensional manifold, and an additional structure, a metric. These are two different things. A manifold has no shape to speak of, and in RG it does not change. But the metric changes in reaction to the content of the universe. So gravitation, as well as all force fields and matter, impact the metric, and so the lengths, but not the container itself.

Sure, but these constraints (mainly the fact that not any manifold can be endowed with a Lorentz metric) should be global, and they should not change locally.

Let me appreciate much these discussions of advanced mathematics. I am more properly a scholar of those mathematical theories that can be used more directly in the description of the physical reality. It seems to me mathematics starts always from a set of initial points or axioms that don't have to be in conflict. After the mathematical development proceeds according to a mathematical logic in order to reach conclusions that are in concordance with initial axioms, if there aren't errors of path. I think in physics things proceed in a different way. The set of initial points cannot be axiomatic but it has to be in full concordance with the physical reality.

Basics of Special Relativity are two postulates, as they were defined by A. Einstein: the Postulate of Relativity and the Postulate of the Constancy of the Speed of Light. The concept of postulate, like axiom, is a mathematical-philosophical concept that would have to be avoided in physics, at least in order to avoid confusions. In fact for instance the Postulate of Relativity isn't a postulate but it is a Principle of Physics that has secure experimental fundamentals, like it was described by Galileo in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Main World Systems". The Postulate of the Constancy of the Speed of Light is effectively a postulate because there is no sure direct experimental proof, starting from origins of modern physics. Michelson's experiment before and Michelson-Morley's experiment after proved only ether doesn't exist. Any other conclusion relative to that experiment is arbitrary. The Postulate of the Constancy of the Speed of Light isn't in conflict with those experiments, but it is neither the only logical consequence of those experiments. Other admissible conclusions can derive. Theoretical-physical fundamentals of SR are therefore at least doubtful and consequently all logical-mathematical consequences of those fundamentals, like Lorentz's Transformations, are also at least doubtful. The consideration that some experiments would seem to confirm results of SR doesn' t eliminates those doubts because those same conclusions can be obtained by different explanations. I think therefore every researcher would have to have at least a critical position about this epistemological question.

Dear Sadeem,

I search a lot about gravitational time dilation.

Someone treated this problem by arguing a paradox in Einstein's relativity (too long to explain, but at least read) :

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Paradox/The_Paradox_of_the_Clocks_in_the_Canaries.html

You can find more information on my profile.

Sincerely.

In the discussion of whether gravity increases volume, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Shapiro experiment conducted in the 1960’s.  Shapiro and his colleagues used radar to track the planet Venus for about two years as Venus and the Earth orbited the Sun.  During this time, Venus passed behind the Sun as seen from the Earth (superior conjunction). It was possible to measure the additional time delay in the round-trip time from the earth to Venus and back.  The effect of the sun’s gravity on this round-trip time could be calculated from multiple measurements made over the two-year time period. The peak delay at superior conjunction was 190 microseconds on a half hour round trip transit time.

 This experiment has been repeated more accurately tracking spacecraft as they pass behind the sun.  The most accurate measurement to date was with the Cassini spacecraft.  It was equipped with transponders at two different radar frequencies, therefore it was possible to determine and remove the effect of the Sun’s corona on the time delay.  The result was an agreement with the time delay predicted by general relativity accurate to 1 part in 50,000.

The Shapiro experiment has been analyzed in more detail starting on page 2-9 of the book The Universe Is Only Spacetime available on my RG home page.  This analysis shows that the approximately 50 microsecond relativistic delay in the one-way travel time between the earth and the sun is equally split between a spatial and temporal effect.  Suppose that it was possible to stretch a tape measure from the earth to the surface of the sun.  The distance measured by the tape measure (proper distance) would be about 7.5 km greater than a distance obtained from an assumption of flat space and a Euclidian geometry calculation from circumference. The use of a tape measure means that we are using proper length as a standard. To put this non-Euclidian volume increase in perspective, the sun’s gravity has increased the proper volume within a radius of 1 AU by about 3.5 × 1026 m3 which is more than 300,000 times larger than the volume of the earth. However, an interpretation based on proper volume is often ignored since the use of circumferential radius as coordinate length eliminates this volume change caused by gravity.

let me see if I understand your question correctly:

You're asking if an object can get relativisticly shortened instead of lengthened (length contraction) due to gravity. is that correct?

If so, I'd guess you'd have to have negative gravity.

According to Inflationary Theory this is indeed possible under certain conditions and was in fact the case during first moments of the universe - gravity was actually repulsive instead of attractive. i.e - it was negative gravity force.

I would think under such conditions you would have indeed had space dilation.

Dear John,

Shapiro Delay might also be explained by a time delay (in the context of EMISSION THEORY where a new view of ABERRATION OF LIGHT is added: KEEPING C CONSTANT FOR ALL OBSERVERS).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303811369_Relativity_and_aberration_of_light

(See abstract of:)

publication/309448417_Enhanced_emission_theory_with_a_new_explained_aberration_of_light

Article Relativity and aberration of light

An easy to understand explanation is the blue shifting of radio waves approaching a black hole. The wave lengths get smaller.

I guess my answer is yes, All the theories predict space dilation due to gravity.

Dear Jerry,

speed(source)+speed(light)-speed(displacement between frames) = v+c-aberration could also explain red/blue shifting

Only source and light count for sight

Only light and aberration count for frequency

Every 3 count for speed measurements

The Shapiro experiment proves when the alignement between the Earth, the Sun and a planet is superior it is observed a greater delay in the homeward laser signal, sent from the Earth and reflected by planet. The explanation given by Shapiro and others was based on the fact that the gravitational field changed the speed of light. Naturally that interpretation isn't accepted willingly by mainstream postmodern physics because it would be in disagreement with the fact that gravity acts directly on spacetime and not on light. The change of the speed of light inside a gravitational field is a fact fully accepted in the Theory of Reference Frames and in Physics of Gravitational Fields.

Generally in the treatment of astronomical aberration source star is considered still and therefore aberration is due only to the revolution speed of the Earth with respect to the Sun, supposed at rest. Naturally if star source isn't still, it needs to consider the relative speed between source star and Earth.

With regard to changes of spacetime (contraction, dilation) and to frequency shifts (redshifts, blueshifts) in mainstream postmodern physics there is much confusion.

If you consider the evolution of the universe, Sadeem, you can see that gravity does indeed affect space and cause it to dilate.  As you know, gravity is warped space-time and it's this warping that leads to the observed acceleration in the speed of the expansion of the universe.  In other words, universally, the shape of space must be hyperbolic to lead to the acceleration.  If you go one step further, you can see that the gravitational affect that lies behind the acceleration explains the nature of dark energy.  Since space is warped, it has energy and, on a universal scale, it's this spacial energy that results in the accelerated expansion of the universe caused by what's called dark energy.

All massive particles deform the field that embeds them. This field represents their living space. Deformation causes a kind of dilation. You can also call it expansion of the field. The geodesics in a deformed field are longer than the geodesics in a flat field. In the flat field the geodesics are straight lines. It is possible to describe the deformed field with a quaternionic function that uses a quaternionic parameter space, which represents a flat field.

Personally I consider the description of fields by a spacetime structure that has a Minkowski signature an ugly and unnatural approach. Hilbert spaces can directly cope with quaternions and must dismantle spacetime structures into real numbers before it can handle them.

docs.com/hans-van-leunen

But could the real space dilation eventually prevent an event horizon being formed?

The presence of a horizon relates to the curvature of the field that embeds the black hole. The field must deform and thus dilate in order to bend such that light can no longer escape from the enclosed region. A wider radius exist where photons travel in circles that circumvent the black hole. The Schwarzschild radius is two thirds of that radius.

Leonard Susskind gives some nice lectures on General Relativity on YouTube.

Hans, I meant to ask if those smooth linear approximations could not describe the reality accurately enough and we would need perturbative GR solutions.

Do we have Shapiro-like measurements from other stars? Maybe we haven't. Interpolations on observations would give an answer if there was some contradiction with Schwarzschild...

Hi Sadeem!

   You'll have noticed a lot of agreement here in response to your question: if we define a region of spacetime that happens to contain a star or other gravitational source, then that region's interior will contain "less time" than one would otherwise calculate from its exterior dimensions (gravitational time dilation), and will also have "more space" packed into it than we'd calculate from the size of the perimeter if we assumed that the region was flat.

If you recall seeing those illustrative sketches of a body's gravity visualised as a "gravitational well", the well surface can be considered as a 2D slice through the region, with its internal distances normalised - which is why the shape then has to extrude out of the plane (to create a sort of "trumpet" shape) in order to be able to cram in the extra space. Alternatively, we can illustrate the same effect with a "flat" diagram by superimposing a spatial density field to represent the effect of gravity on apparent distances, with the spatial density increasing closer to the gravity-source.

Both approaches should give the same final physical result. 

“… if we define a region of spacetime that happens to contain a star or other gravitational source, then that region's interior will contain "less time" …(gravitational time dilation), and will also have "more space"…”

Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian [even “Cartesian”] empty container that is formed by fundamental Possibilities “Space” and “Time” that are realized in the spacetime as its dimensions – 3D spatial and 1+1 [“coordinate time” + “true time”] temporal.

And the spacetime is absolute, emptiness cannot be “curved”, including so that in some spacetime region can occur a region, where are  "less time" and "more space"; such claims  simply some relativistic fantasy are.

In the reality indeed, if some material object is in some gravity field, then internal processes’ rate in the object becomes be slowed down – since some “ticks”  

[every material object is a “clock”, unique difference of any material object and a clock is that the material object “clock” show how its internal state is interruptedly changing]

become be spent on the gravity interactions. But from that by any means doesn’t connote that, for example, some object crossing a [GR’s] “black hole’s horizon” falls  “infinite long time”, as that GR postulates; even if the gravity interactions totally stop processes in such object [what with a large probability is impossible, there are no singulars/infinities in this case], nothing happens with the spacetime, simply the object  will fall through the horizon and deeper very quickly though being in a fixed internal state…

More see SS post on 2-nd page here and the links in the post

Cheers

Interestingly gravity can be simulated by the ouward pressure of spacetime ( dark energy).

Having said that with orbital deacy with actual energy is being given off in the process of gravtation, presumably in the form of gravitons.

I agree with you, Andrew.  I would go so far as to say that the energy of "dark" energy that's causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is, as you imply, simply the energy of spacetime itself as it is warped under the influence of gravitational interactions.  In other words, the curvature of spacetime right now in the evolution of the universe is hyperbolic, and that shape of spacetime simply leads to accelerated expansion.  That's it!  There's nothing more.  So the answer to your original question is yes, Sadeem, gravity does indeed lead to the dilation of space.

“…That's it!  There's nothing more.  So the answer to your original question is yes, Sadeem, gravity does indeed lead to the dilation of space…”

to claim so surely such things seems evident before is necessary to understand – what are notions/phenomena “Space”, “Time”, “Spacetime”, “dark energy”, etc.;

when all of true SR/GR believers, starting from Minkowski and  Einstein, didn’t/don’t understand – what these notions/phenomena  are. Including just therefore in the SR/GR rather fantastic “relativistic effects” are postulated, including “spacetime curvature” with  “the dilation of space” – anything can happen with non-understudied and so – undefined – notions.

More – see SS post o4-th page and the links in the post.

Pages in this thread are rather short…

Cheers

 Esa Säkkinen,

QED and QCD use perturbative approaches. GR uses tensor equations, because observers can only observe spacetime structured environment that features a Minkowski signature. In the Hilbert space discrete dynamic geometric data are stored in quaternions. Quaternions feature a Euclidean structure Quaternionic function theory supports simple and compart partial differential equations. For observers these are valid in low speed conditions or when they use proper time rather than coordinate time. Proper time ticks at the location of the observed event.

Two views of reality are possible. One is the storage view. It uses the dynamic geometric data as they are stored in the eigenspaces of operators that reside in a quaternionic separable Hilbert space. The separable Hilbert space stores all dynamic geometric data irrespective of the fact that they belong to history, presence, or future. The other view is the observer's view. Observers get only information from the past and it is transferred to them via vibrations and deformations of the field(s) that embed them.

Tensor calculus is capable to describe differential equations in different coordinate systems and can convert between coordinate systems. The observers view implements a Lorentz transform that converts the Euclidean quaternionic coordinate system to a spacetime structure that has a Minkowski signature.

https://doc.co/WmxXCB

Dear all

Hello and thank you for your answers which most of them were really encouraging.

I think the subject deserves deeper studies.

Good luck to everyone

Regards

Direct answer, time dilation in special and general relativity goes along with length contraction - not something that is made easilly understandable - but true

Good luck to you

Andrew,

“…Direct answer, time dilation in special and general relativity goes along with length contraction…”

- this assertion is outside the SR/GR, in these theories the “time dilation” and “space [not lengths of real material bodies] contraction” in whole infinite “Minkowski space” are postulated as some fundamental properties of Matter’s spacetime. At that the “relativistic effects” above appears when/because of some – in the SR “inertial reference frame” – moves in the spacetime, this frame by some mystic way “dilates time” and “contracts space” in whole spacetime; when further the “dilated time” again by some mystic way slows down all clocks’ tic rates when contracted space contracts lengths of all bodies in the spacetime, i.e. in whole Matter.

Thus

"...[real time dilation and space contraction]  - not something that is made easily understandable …” 

-- that isn’t so, the “relativistic effects” above  seem as easily understandable  -  an absurdity of the SR postulates and the effects seems as quite evident…

Cheers

Dear all,

However we still couldn't detect length contraction, How do you justify that?

Are we missing something or our instrument are still not having the sufficient accuracy?

The same mechanism that deforms our living space, also expands our living space. In the universe, all massive objects are recurrently regenerated.

See: Generating Mass from Nothing ; http://vixra.org/abs/1803.0388

Sadeem,

All observers perceive in spacetime format. The Lorentz transform converts from Euclidean coordinates to spacetime coordinates. It is a purely mathematical transformation and it introduces time dilation as well as length contraction. You cannot avoid these phenomena when you start in the Euclidean coordinate system of the observed event and perceive in spacetime coordinates. If you are not located at the location of the observed event and do not travel with that event, then the information of the observed event must be delivered to you by the field that embeds both the observed event and you, the observer. Be aware of the fact that the living space can be deformed and the information path will follow that deformation.

Hans did an interesting consideration: "In the order of Special Relativity the Lorentz Transformations convert from Euclidean coordinates to spacetime coordinates".

The Cartesian-Euclidean coordinates are composed of three space coordinates (x,y,z) and of one time coordinate t. Lorentzian-Einsteinian coordinates regard an entangled spacetime, in the absence of gravitational field in that case. According to Special Relativity a few observers live in a world described by Cartesian-Euclidean coordinates while other observers would live in a world described by Lorentzian-Einsteinian coordinates. Both observers nevertheless continue to measure separately space and time because no one knows to measure an entangled spacetime.

I observe this dichotomy derive exclusively from a postulate: "the speed of light is a limit velocity and it cannot be exceeded". From this postulate Lorentz's Transformations, time dilation, length contraction, variation of longitudinal mass and of transverse mass with the speed derive. Then I imagine to think a world where that postulate, that inter alia has no experimental confirmation, doesn't exist and I ask me what would be that world without that postulate. Certainly time dilation, length contraction, difference between longitudinal mass and transverse mass, etc.. there not would be and the nature would be described by other paradigms and other mathematical models. This dream will be reality.

Dear Sadeem,

“…Dear all,

However we still couldn't detect length contraction, How do you justify that?…”

that isn’t so in the reality.

Nonetheless that is indeed true in the SR, where the word “length” means a distance between arbitrary spatial points. Indeed nobody detected till now, and that could not be done since that is impossible fundamentally, experimentally a “space contraction” which is postulated as the real effect in the SR.

However real material bodies that have concrete lengths, if move in the absolute Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, indeed occupy in the space the lengths along their motion directions shorter, then they occupy that when be at the absolute spatial rest, see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628

And that is detected experimentally, first known case is the Michelson and Morley experiment yet soon 150 years ago.

Cheers

Dear Sergey,

you have described postclassical paradigms and Mathematical models. In my papers I have described contemporary paradigms and Mathematical models based on the Theory of Reference Frames. It is important that everyone gives his contribution to the no-go in which the postmodern present physics is.

Daniele,

The Lorentz transform is not a simple rotation or translation, It is a hyperbolic transform. Indeed it entangles the parameters space and proper time and converts them to space and coordinate time. Coordinate time is a function of proper time, space and speed. Space is our living space. It is a field that can deform. That is why coordinate time also gets affected by deformation of space. In contrast proper time does not deform.

The easiest way is to see a field as the target space of a multidimensional function. The corresponding parameter space is also a kind of field but it is never deformed. It is flat. If the target values of the function differ from zero, then the simulated field gets deformed. The target space has Euclidean coordinates.

Hans,

I agree that all what you write is a consequence of a particular Mathematical model: the Lorentz Transformations. These transformations, like Galilean Tranformations, don't describe the real event with respect to the reference frame where the event happens but they describe the relativistic reality with respect to another reference frame. The indubitable fact is that the observer placed into the reference frame where the event happens is a non-absolute priviliged observer who is able to see and to measure the real event while other observers simply describe a relativistic reality that isn't the true reality. As per the Principle of Relativity the equivalence of reference frames is valid only for physical laws and not for single quantities. This is the meaning of the Principle of Reference that is the heart of the Theory of Reference Frames.

Daniele,

The reference frames obscure what really happens. The problem is located in the fact that our living space is a field and transferring the information from the observed event through this medium is the only way that the data can reach the observer. Without deformation of the living space it is easy to comprehend what happens, but in a deformed living space juggling with reference frames obscures more than it elucidates.

It is good to know that all events occur in an Euclidean coordinate system and that all dynamic geometric data about these events are archived in storage bins inside separable Hilbert spaces. These storage bins are quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. Quaternionic differential calculus works fine is this Euclidean environment. Deformation and Lorentz transformations are only relevant when the results of the calculations must be observed.

Some addition to the last SS post above.

The observed in the MM experiment FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction of the interferometer’s arms [above] is some “kinematical” effect, which, though, appears, of course, as the result of real some dynamic process when a force accelerates a body up to some non-zero [absolute] speed; including of forces that in some times accelerated [eventually] Earth. As well as some contraction of some bodies can occur when the force is a gravitational force, however that will be the kinematical effect again, there is no some peculiar “gravitational length dilation/contraction”.

Nonetheless there is the “gravitational time dilation”. It is not, of course, some property of the GR’s “spacetime curvature”, that is real effect that is caused by real gravitational impact on the bodies that compose some gravitational system, what results in some gravitational mass defect.

This “dilation”, i.e. slowing down of the rates of internal processes in the interacting bodies, obtains the explanation only in the informational model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4332.9925

and with a large probability is two lesser then the GR predicts, however the fact that Einstein predicted such effect in 1916 year seems as rather good manifestation of his intuition.

Cheers

The Hilbert Book Model applies a modeling platform that exists of a vector space on which several Hilbert spaces are defined. One non-separable Hilbert space archives the living space as a continuum eigenspace of a dedicated operator. A quaternionic function defines this continuum and that function applies a quaternionic parameter space, which is eigenspace of a reference operator. The same version of the quaternionic number system spans the eigenspace of a reference operator of an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space that acts as a background platform and as a unique companion of the non-separable Hilbert space. A series of separable Hilbert spaces apply a private version of the quaternion number system as eigenspace of their reference operator, such that the corresponding parameter spaces float over the background parameter space. These floating platforms feature a symmetry that is determined by the selected version of the quaternionic number system. Elementary modules hop around on a private platform and at every subsequent progression instant the elementary module gets a new location that together with the time stamp is archived in an eigenvalue of a dedicated operator. The location is embedded in the continuum that represents the living space. This procedure represents the ongoing embedding of the separable Hilbert spaces into the non-separable Hilbert space. Each platform applies a stochastic process to generate the new position. The stochastic process owns a characteristic function that ensures the coherence of the generated hop landing location swarm. It equals the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the swarm. The characteristic function contains a gauge factor that acts as a displacement generator. This control function ensures that at first approximation the swarm moves as a single unit. The result is that the floating platform, the stochastic process, the hopping path, the hop landing location swarm, and the location density distribution determine the properties and the behavior of the elementary module. The location density distribution equals the squared modulus of the wave function of the elementary module. The selected version of the quaternionic number system determines the symmetry related properties of the platform which are inherited by the elementary module. Together all elementary modules constitute all other modules that appear in the model. Some modules combine into modular systems. Composed modules own a private stochastic process, which also owns a characteristic function. This function is a dynamic superposition of the characteristic functions of the components. The superposition coefficients act as displacement generators. In this way the superposition coefficients determine the dynamic internal positions of the components of the module. An extra gauge factor acts as a displacement generator for the whole module. Thus, also the composed module moves as a single unit. Consequently, the overall stochastic process binds the components of the module.

Due to the dynamic chiral symmetry breaking at the embedding of the hop landing locations the landings act as pulses that may cause a pulse response. Only isotropic breaking will cause a spherical pulse response and only spherical pulse responses pump volume into the embedding field. This causes a temporary local deformation of the field. The expansion of the field is persistent, but the deformation fades away. Only the recurrent regeneration of overlapping deformations by the stochastic process produces a significant and persistent deformation that is due to the presence of the elementary module.

Dear Professors Hans, Daniele and Sergey

Thank you for your interested answers.

Within GR the light is passing through longer paths in the presence of gravitational fields, so why don't we assume space dilation and only time dilation is assumed?

Dear Sadeem,

because theories of SR and GR prove only the existence of a time dilation . and a length contraction.

My personal viewpoint is known. I don't subscribe to SR, GR and theories of absolute in physics that is a scientific matter

My personal viewpoint is explained in the Theory of Reference Frames and in Physics of Gravitationsl Fields.

Regards.

Dear Sadeem,

“…Within GR the light is passing through longer paths in the presence of gravitational fields, so why don't we assume space dilation and only time dilation is assumed?…”

that isn’t so; within GR both, “space” and “time” “dilations” are assumed, the Matter’s spacetime is the pseudo Riemannian 4D space[time], which becomes be “curved/bend” by some “masses”; at that different local regions in the spacetime have different metrics; including in some places some spatial “geodesic” paths are “contracted/spread” relatively to the paths in other places.

That is another thing, that in the reality, again, Matter’s spacetime is absolute, has fundamentally “flat” [5]4D Euclidian metrics, and cannot be deformed by anything in Matter. Light indeed passes “longer path ”in the presence of gravitational field, since, in contrast to the corresponding GR postulate, photons have gravitational masses and their path in the field is longer then the path between the same spatial points without the field; similarly in main traits to any other particle/body .

Cheers