Dear Chian Fan

A force represents motion and the direction of the motion. So there is also the conservation of (the direction of) motion. The universal scalar field in vacuum space is perfectly flat so all the motion and direction of motion originate from the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. In line with the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum (momentum is energy difference + direction). The consequence is that all the dynamics in the universe originate from the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. Einstein’s famous equation E = m c2 tells that matter is just a local concentration of energy of the universal electric field. And Planck’s E = h v shows that the energy of matter is quantized too.

Because the speed of light (c) is a universal constant – a basic property of the universal electric field – and energy is quantized (h), time in relation to local changes within the structure of the universal electric field must be a universal constant too. The consequence is that if Einstein uses the word “time” he has another concept in mind than we have in modern physics. And we know Einstein’s concept because for Einstein time is what the clock hands show. In other words, Einstein’s time is not about (the constant of) quantum time at the smallest scale size of physical reality.

Einstein’s idea that local concentrations of energy (rest mass carrying particles) will curve space around the particles is really awkward. Because around rest mass carrying particles there is vacuum space and vacuum space is all the dynamics of the combined universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field.

If we talk about the volume of the universe in modern physics, we are talking about fields. We don’t talk about “space” because space is a container word. It describes in general the volume of vacuum space. Like Newton used the concepts of absolute space and absolute time to express that the universe is a continuum.

In other words, Einstein’s curved space is the curvature of the universal electric field. Simply because if we concentrate energy, we get a local concentration of energy but at the same moment also a local deficit of energy around the particle in vacuum space.

Now there is a problem because if there is no force in the direction of the rest mass carrying particle the universal electric field doesn’t show any curvature or even a resultant curvature. So we need vectors to force the universal electric field to “curve”. Vectors in relation to gravity are well known because these vectors are described by Isaac Newton, although Newton made the decision that gravity is a pull force. But pull forces can only exist if there exists “nothing” in vacuum space.

The vectors of Newtonian gravity influence vacuum space around the rest mass carrying particle and the result is a forced “curvature” of the universal electric field around the rest mass carrying particle. So Einstein didn’t describe the force of gravity, he described the corresponding result of the force of gravity. Actually a corresponding model. That is why the theory of General relativity is in line with so many experiments and observations.

Unfortunately General relativity is some kind of pseudo religion in physics. It is nearly impossible to discuss the topic and no renowned scientific magazine accepts a paper that doubts the “tangible reality” of the theory. So I admire your courage ;-)

With kind regards, Sydney

In this “the Geometry Interpretation of Gravity”

“…“According to general theory of relativity, gravitation is not a force but a property of spacetime geometry. A test particle and light move in response to the geometry of the spacetime.”[1] Einstein's interpretation of gravity is purely geometrical, where even a free point particle without any properties and any interactions, moves in a curved spacetime along geodesics, but which are generated by the energy tensor Tµν [2]. Why isn't gravity generated directly by Tµν, but must take a circuitous route and be generated by the geometry of spacetime Gµν‡?….”

- really there are no any paradoxes. “Geometry” in the GR is really the same as “ordinary” fundamental Nature forces fields, and the unique difference in this case is in that the energy tensor Tµν – in full contrast to, say, electromagnetic tensor in classical electrodynamics that is “material” characteristics of EM field,

- which [EM tensor] really is nothing else than some completely ad hoc for some transcendent reason existent entity that allow to describe/analyze EM objects/events/processes, at that for some transcendent reason contains energy that by some transcendent ways acts on really transcendent “electric charges”, etc.,

- while in the GR the gravitational field is “quite rationally determined” – that is well observable by humans spacetime, in which some “masses” create “curvature” that has energy, etc.

So, say, the GR equations usually are called “field equations”, despite that in mainstream physics Gravity isn’t a Force, so doesn’t have analogue of “standard” Forces’ mediators, coherent intensive flows of which compose the Forces’ classical “fields”.

This transcendence of, again, both – of the GR and mainstream theories of other Forces, is really since in mainstream philosophy and sciences really all fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational.

So, including, in mainstream physics the Forces “classic” fields, and the Forces’ mediators in QFTs “virtual particles” [virtual photons in QED, π-mesons in Nuclear Force, W-Z bosons in Weak Force, gluons in Strong Force], contain/carry energy that is transmitted at real particles interactions – despite that evidently violates the energy conservation law,

- and all “virtual” mediators for/by mystic reason/way, as that the Standard Model postulates, are also real particles – real photons, π-mesons, W-Z bosons.

Etc., the transcendent points that are the postulated base of mainstream physics, which reveal themselves on really fundamental levels, are numerous.

The post is rather long already, so here

Cheers

Let’s continue [see the SS post above]

The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

and more concretely in physics, i.e. at application to an informational system “Matter”, in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics in this case first of all see section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” [or practically the same in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces ],

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force ,

- where the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical models of Gravity – which fundamentally is only some Force, and by no means is some mystic impacts of some really fundamentally impossible “spacetime curvature”, and of Electric, and Nuclear Forces are presented.

Including in the models it is rigorously scientifically shown that the Forces mediators aren’t particles, and so Forces’ fields don’t contain energy,

- only provided this the energy conservation law acts, while the pointed in the SM as the mediators above real particles, by no means are real mediators, etc.

Returning to the thread question – from the above it follows that this question really has too small sense. Really it is fundamentally necessary to develop, instead of the fundamentally wrong GR, the really scientific Gravity theory that [and theories of other Forces, though] should be based on the initial SS&VT models above.

Cheers

The short answer is, No, there's no paradox. General relativity is uniquely defined by the requirements of invariance under general coordinate transformations, that only the metric determines the spacetime geometry and that the equations for the metric don't contain derivatives of order higher than two. These imply that the only action is the Einstein-Hilbert action, that depends on two parameters, Newton's constant and the cosmological constant-but, in fact, the equations of motion can't depend but on the dimensionless combination of Newton's constant and of the cosmological constant.

The above requirements also imply that matter can only couple to the metric through its energy-momentum tensor, since there is only one combination of the metric and the matter fields that is invariant under general coordinate transformations.

Generalizations of general relativity-scalar-tensor theories and supergravity-admit the contribution of fields besides the metric for defining the spacetime geometry (scalars in the first case and fermions and vectors in the second). The reason these additional fields can't be identified as matter fields is because they don't satisfy the appropriate energy conditions stable matter is known to satisfy in, generically curved, spacetime.

In such generalizations, matter couples to the additional fields through terms that do depend on the fields that define matter and are distinct from the energy-momentum tensor, even though these interaction terms remain invariant under general coordinate transformations. They describe thereby deviations from the equivalence principle.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

“The universal scalar field in vacuum space is perfectly flat so all the motion and direction of motion originate from the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. ” “......time in relation to local changes within the structure of the universal electric field must be a universal constant too. ” “Einstein’s curved space is the curvature of the universal electric field.” pseudo religion in physics” ......Your ideas are very thought provoking and applicable anywhere. Thank you very much!

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Stam Nicolis

Thank you very much for your expert explanation. "......that matter can only couple to the metric through its energy-momentum tensor." yes, indeed it should. If one can think of this coupling as an extension of Tµν, there is no problem with the physical interpretation, as Kathleen Rosser responded (p1) to the question https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO37Doubts_about_General_Relativity_2-Does_the_Energy_Tensor_Tmn_in_the_Field_Equations_Contain_the_Energy-momentum_of_the_Spacetime_Field . I'll keep thinking about this.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

“…These imply that the only action is the Einstein-Hilbert action, that depends on two parameters, Newton's constant and the cosmological constant - but, in fact, the equations of motion can't depend but on the dimensionless combination. The above requirements also imply that matter can only couple to the metric through its energy-momentum tensor.…..”

- it looks as is rather interesting – for/by what, if non-mystic, reason/way, and how, “matter can only couple to the [spacetime] metric through its energy-momentum tensor”?….

More about what completely non-mystically exists and happens at quite non-mystic particles, bodies, etc., interactions in Matter by fundamentally nothing else than some really existent fundamental Nature Gravity force, which [interactions] happen as exchange by Gravity Force real mediators,

- as that happens at interactions by a few other really existent Forces, that is another thing, that because of in mainstream physics particles, bodies, Forces, charges, etc., really are some mystic entities, and so in the mainstream mystic entities exchange by mystic mediators,

- see the couple of SS posts above.

Cheers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_General_Relativity_now_be_considered_an_established_fiction_What_about_Silbersteins_objection3

The concept of reductionism was already known in ancient Greece (e.g. the “atom” as the smallest building block of reality). But Einstein’s famous formula E = m c2 is about reductionism too.

The Panck-Einstein relation (E = h v and c = v λ) shows that the wave length (λ) must be a multiple of a universal constant of length (metric). So λ = n ℓc, where ℓc is the unit of the metric.

Electromagnetic waves arrive from every direction. So the volume of our universe has a fixed metric. A concept that was already known in ancient Greece because the Eleatic school of philosophy reasoned that our universe is build up by “atoms” (the meaning of “atom” is an agglutination of indivisible and changeable in the ancient Greek language). These “atoms” fill the volume of the whole universe and philosophers stated that all the “atoms” together form the underlying reality of our universe. An underlying reality that creates our sensory reality (the universe as we know it).

Einstein’s famous formula E = m c2 shows that to converse mass into free energy (h) the number of concentrated quanta must be multiplied with c2. But the constant speed of light is the duration of the pass on of 1 quantum of energy within the metric (1ℓc). The consequence is that energy represents surface area (2D). This is in line with our experience in daily live that “space” is invariant.

So if we talk about a local concentration of energy (e.g. a rest mass carrying particle) we are talking about a local surplus of surface area, surrounded by a much larger volume with a deficit of surface area (law of conservation of energy).

In other words, the units of the structure of the universe – “quantized space” – are deformable under invariant volume (in 3D a fixed metric is termed “structure”).

It is clear that the geometrical model of curved spacetime is violating the energy transformations under invariant volume (enveloping the equivalence of matter and energy E = m c2).

One can argue that the solution for the geometrical problems is QFT. But everywhere in the universe – at every scale size – there is angular momentum, a type of dynamical geometry (see Wikipedia). So it is obvious to expect that in QFT there is a clarification for the existence of angular momentum in relation to the creation of motion by the distinct properties of the basic quantum fields. But there exist no “tangible” clarification, there is a formalistic approach: the angular momentum operator (see Wikipedia or https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0211153).

In other words, the geometrical description of the universe at every scale size has no clear reductionistic foundation. So General relativity is just part of a much wider problem.

With kind regards, Sydney

Chian Fan >"Is the Geometry Interpretation of Gravity a Paradox?"

It is not a "paradox" but a hoax! There is no objective reality of brain-cooked, abstract and the geometrical construct called "spacetime" and it has nothing to do with gravity! Materialist dialectics abolished the the causality-based metaphysical view of space and time, since G.W.F. Hegel:

"It is the old story. First of all, one makes sensuous things into abstractions and then one wants to know them through, the senses, to see time and smell space. The empiricist becomes so steeped in the habit of empirical experience, that he believes that he is still in the field of sensuous experience when he is operating with abstractions. We know what an hour is, or a metre, but not what time and space are! As if time was anything other than just hours, and space anything but just cubic metres! The two forms of existence of matter are naturally nothing without matter, empty concepts, abstractions which exist only in our minds." Frederick Engels 1883, Dialectics of Nature: Notes and Fragments: Dialectics.

The following publications (any many others), refute ALL the claims of Einstein's theories of relativity!

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

"New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity":

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/9814

"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?" Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

"The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science". Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Really scientific answer/comments to the thread question are in 3 SS posts on page 1.

Cheers

In my previous comment I mentioned the problem of the unknown mechanism behind angular momentum. Although Christiaan Huygens described the centrifugal and centripetal force, his description is an abstraction of what is going on (classic mechanics). But why there is angular momentum is unknown. In QFT we use the term angular momentum operator but that is no clarification, it is just part of the formalism.

Angular momentum is everywhere in the universe. Not only in the microcosm (e.g. particles, rotating molecules, etc.). but also in the macrocosm (planets, stars, accretion disks, galaxies, etc.). It is even thought that the aberration of the light of distant stars in vacuum space is related.

The latter is problematic because curved spacetime has no angular momentum. At least, the theory don’t predict its existence in vacuum space. Because in vacuum space all the dynamics originate from the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field (electromagnetic field).

So the situation is quite awkward. Quantum field theory doesn’t clarifies the existence of planetary disks, accretion disks, jets in line with rotational axis, etc., etc. But curved spacetime doesn’t either.

If we imagine that vacuum space around a celestial body is geometrically curved (General relativity), why there is also angular momentum in vacuum space around the celestial body?

It is directly related with gravity (e.g. accretion disks around neutron stars and black holes). We can speculate that the angular momentum originates from the universal electric field but the consequence of the idea is that the universal electric field is “curved” around phenomena like neutron stars and black holes. So if this is true, why do we need the concept of curved spacetime?

Moreover, the universal electric field (3D topological field) and its corresponding magnetic field (1D vectors) are a duality in vacuum space. Thus if curved spacetime forces the universal electric field to curve around celestial bodies, the magnetic field will generate equal vectors that oppose the curvature of the universal electric field.

The only reasonable solution is that gravity is a vector force (Newtonian gravity as a push force from vacuum space around matter). Because vector fields are the only quantum fields that can be added and subtracted. We cannot add or subtract two 3D fields that share the same volume. So don’t ask me why spacetime and the universal electric field can exist and share the same volume. It is quite mysterious what the text books tell.

With kind regards, Sydney

Chian Fan,

The geometric interpretation of gravity is the correct interpretation and this is beyond any doubt except for the ignorant. If this were not the case,light would move straight as it passes near the Sun. What really happens is that both space and time round the sun are neither Euclidean nor Newtonian but instead curved in a pseudo-Riemmanian way causing light to bend, and thus Einstein is right that gravity is geometry and not a Newtonian force. Additionally, planets elliptically orbit the Sun not because of Newton's basic and a priori gravitational force that was proved observationally and experimentally to be wrong at least through Mercury perihelion's precession but because the Sun's mass warps spacetime.

Does a body fall in a gravitational field without passing time?

Dear Seyed kazem Mousavi

“Does a body fall in a gravitational field without passing time?” It's a good rhetorical question.

At the most fundamental level of the universe, we believe that time is the eternal source of “power”. However, at the level of general relativity, we have not yet reached the point where we can explain everything in terms of time and space. We are not yet able to transcend energy and momentum to explain motion. Because we are discussing how objects of mass m, move in a gravitational field of mass M, they are still interactions between matter, not between matter and vacuum space-time. If one thinks that it is M that changes the surrounding spacetime and thus becomes the interaction between m and spacetime, see the other question “Doubts about General Relativity (2) - Does the Energy Tensor Tµν in the Field Equations Contain the Energy-momentum of the Spacetime Field?":

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO37Doubts_about_General_Relativity_2-Does_the_Energy_Tensor_Tmn_in_the_Field_Equations_Contain_the_Energy-momentum_of_the_Spacetime_Field

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Professor Chian Fan

I appreciate your attention.

Time's arrow...

This is exactly the problem.

The energy-momentum tensor has time dependence. However, it is important to note that the process of parallel transport, which involves transporting vectors along a curve while preserving their direction, does not inherently rely on the passage of time

Without the passage of time, there is no material mass. The direct relationship between density changes and time in special relativity shows this matter.

sincerely

https://www.qeios.com/read/QT9EZE

Seyed kazem Mousavi,

A body falling in a gravitational field either gravity is weak like that of Earth or strong like inside a black hole does experience the passage of time, and these are two exercises in physics given to high school pupils or university students to solve.

Dear Professor Chian Fan

Einstein's space-time originates from the special theory of relativity, which considers the speed of light to be absolute. This is a theory that is plausible in the absence of ether, the medium of light. However, if ether exists and has mass, the concept of space curvature cannot help but be interpreted differently. Here, I don't think it's right to determine the bending of space by specifying light. Why is the geometric curvature caused by the gravitational force of light defined as a warping of space? It would be correct to say that it is a geometric curvature caused by the gravity of light rather than a bending of space. In the universe, light cannot be the only thing that can explain space and time. This is because light is an entity like other things in the universe and cannot be an absolute standard. In the universe, there is ether with mass, which is a medium of light, and the density of ether varies in space where gravity is exerted by the gravitational field. When light propagates through space where the density of ether is different due to the gravitational field, it moves through a curved geometric space caused by ether, the medium of light.

I explored your comments and ideas about Einstein's relativity. Hence, I want to share my scientific opinions with you. The biggest problem of theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered holy and sacred since it venerates the light.

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

Furthermore, Einstein's theories can't stand against Ockham Razor. Here is my Physics letter that disproves all Einstein's principles.

Read it please objectively by following Ockham Razor :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369143082_Physics_letter_Cosmical_observations_and_experiments_against_the_relativistic_explanations_of_the_Doppler_effect_and_the_Gravitational_effect_of_the_light

Preprint Animadversions upon von Laue's and Pauli's demonstrations of...

Really scientific answer/comments to the thread question are in 3 SS posts on page 1.

Cheers