If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**David Levan**: *on* 8/7/13 at 9:43am UTC, wrote Best of Luck for the Magnificent Eight ! I am throught the 180 essays, all...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 8/6/13 at 12:17pm UTC, wrote Ram, I do hope you may get the time to also read my essay and comment....

**Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga**: *on* 8/6/13 at 12:10pm UTC, wrote Posted at my essay comment area: Dear Ram, sorry for the long gap in...

**Ram Vishwakarma**: *on* 8/4/13 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Unnikrishnan, Thanks for your interest in...

**CS Unnikrishnan**: *on* 8/4/13 at 11:12am UTC, wrote Dear Vishwakarma, I have a question about the statement that equates K/r...

**Hugh Matlock**: *on* 8/4/13 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Hi Ram, Thank you for a very intriguing model of gravity. You wrote: >...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 8/3/13 at 21:06pm UTC, wrote Ram, I quite agree your model may be only 'slightly', but mine may be...

**Ram Vishwakarma**: *on* 8/3/13 at 18:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thanks for your kind remarks. I hope you may...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Brian**: "From the Nature abstract cited: "There is no theoretical reason to expect..."
*in* Time to Think

**Georgina Woodward**: "Sorry, what a pigs ear I've made of that attempt to elucidate. Got muddled..."
*in* Answering Mermin’s...

**Stefan Weckbach**: "John, "An electron is like a 2sphere, there is no cowlick, the hairs on..."
*in* Answering Mermin’s...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Jonathan, thanks for developing , I am understanding. I consider like..."
*in* Towards the unification...

**Jonathan Dickau**: "It all fits together Steve... The optimal case for close-packing of..."
*in* Towards the unification...

**Steve Dufourny**: "it is the meaning of my intuitive equation, E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+ Y with X a..."
*in* The Effects of Inertial...

**Steve Dufourny**: "What I tell in resume is that for a good explaination of the..."
*in* The Effects of Inertial...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Time to Think**

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

**Lockdown Lab Life**

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

**Is Causality Fundamental?**

Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

**Building Agency in the Biology Lab**

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

**Think Quantum to Build Better AI**

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

FQXi FORUM

October 29, 2020

CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]

TOPIC: Einstein's Real `Biggest Blunder': Reveals Itself from the `Bits' by Ram Gopal Vishwakarma [refresh]

TOPIC: Einstein's Real `Biggest Blunder': Reveals Itself from the `Bits' by Ram Gopal Vishwakarma [refresh]

Information is fundamental to the physics of the Universe and we can indeed realize John Wheeler's dream. This is exemplified by unearthing a missing link of Einsteinian gravitation from a foundational analysis of some physical information, which appears revolutionary. It is realized that the introduction of the cosmological constant was not the `biggest blunder' Einstein ever made. Rather it was the introduction of the energy-stress tensor in his equations through which the source of gravitation/curvature is represented. This became the source of various problems, inconsistencies and unsolved puzzles in his theory, which are generally overlooked. It is shown that the energy-momenta-angular momenta of the gravitational and the material fields are built-in ingredients of the geometry of the so-called `vacuum' field equations and the energy-stress tensor is a redundant part of Einstein's equations. Baffling as it may seem, nevertheless the new discovery appears as a linchpin for understanding many unresolved problems in a unified manner. Moreover, the new paradigm gets strong support from observations ranging from the solar system to the Universe without requiring the usual epicycles of the standard theory, such as inflaton, non-baryonic dark matter and dark energy.

Ram Gopal Vishwakarma is a professor at the University of Zacatecas, Mexico. His research is focused on gravitation, with a particular interest in the foundational issues in general relativity.

Dear Professor Gopal

I skimmed through your essay soon realizing it was too technical for my full understanding. Having said that I have long been advocating an alternate way to look at GR - one first enunciated by Eddington - namely to regard the gravitational field as a density gradient. In that way the passage of light in it would be as in an optical medium with variable refracting index. I have incorporated this theory in a qualitative way in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . Another objection I would have to GR is this: Einstein expressed his key discovery, that gravitation and acceleration are equivelant, using the flexible spacetime paradigm of Special Relativity, causing enormous unnecessary complications. It was wrong to base GR on SR for three reasons: 1- No observer reference frames are involved when, for example the curvature of the geodesic in a gravitional field is considered. 2- As Einstein himself admitted, in GR light slows down as it curves, contradicting a premise of SR. 3- SR banishes the aether, while later Einstein himself (Leyden lecture) and now modern physics demands it be reinstated, for example in the form of a Higgs field.

Einstein reached the right results through the wrong premises, and this is now causing many problems in physics. Read my last year's "Fix Physics!" essay outlining some of these ideas.

In conclusion I wish you the best of luck in gaining recognition for your objections about GR. Einstein's Relativity seems set in stone - particularly in the ossified brains of generations of physicists too lazy to question fundamentals and seek a way out of the current dilemmas in physics.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I skimmed through your essay soon realizing it was too technical for my full understanding. Having said that I have long been advocating an alternate way to look at GR - one first enunciated by Eddington - namely to regard the gravitational field as a density gradient. In that way the passage of light in it would be as in an optical medium with variable refracting index. I have incorporated this theory in a qualitative way in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . Another objection I would have to GR is this: Einstein expressed his key discovery, that gravitation and acceleration are equivelant, using the flexible spacetime paradigm of Special Relativity, causing enormous unnecessary complications. It was wrong to base GR on SR for three reasons: 1- No observer reference frames are involved when, for example the curvature of the geodesic in a gravitional field is considered. 2- As Einstein himself admitted, in GR light slows down as it curves, contradicting a premise of SR. 3- SR banishes the aether, while later Einstein himself (Leyden lecture) and now modern physics demands it be reinstated, for example in the form of a Higgs field.

Einstein reached the right results through the wrong premises, and this is now causing many problems in physics. Read my last year's "Fix Physics!" essay outlining some of these ideas.

In conclusion I wish you the best of luck in gaining recognition for your objections about GR. Einstein's Relativity seems set in stone - particularly in the ossified brains of generations of physicists too lazy to question fundamentals and seek a way out of the current dilemmas in physics.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Prof Vishwakarma,

The argument that you present is easy to comprehend, and boils down to - mathematics does not lie. Your hint that a paradigm shift may be necessary has been asserted by many others. However I fear, before such a shift takes place major new breakthroughs in both mathematics and theoretical physics are necessary; our present physics paradigm is limited by the mathematical structures available.

I commend you on a courageous essay - full marks from me - and join Vladimir in wishing you success.

report post as inappropriate

The argument that you present is easy to comprehend, and boils down to - mathematics does not lie. Your hint that a paradigm shift may be necessary has been asserted by many others. However I fear, before such a shift takes place major new breakthroughs in both mathematics and theoretical physics are necessary; our present physics paradigm is limited by the mathematical structures available.

I commend you on a courageous essay - full marks from me - and join Vladimir in wishing you success.

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is of the few that apport new facts

Especialy interesting the treatamemt of curvature

In my essay is obtained the curvature inflatonary in terms

Of infinity of oscillators who obey a infinite sum:

1/n^2 = (Pi)^2/6

In my essay are the value of dark density energy= In(2)

The baryon density: Omega(b) = 240- EXP( 5+ (In2)^2)

The value of vaccum higss and mass higgs boson as a direct function

Of all spins and a term due to curvature of space-time to level

Of quantum scales

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1619

report post as inappropriate

Especialy interesting the treatamemt of curvature

In my essay is obtained the curvature inflatonary in terms

Of infinity of oscillators who obey a infinite sum:

1/n^2 = (Pi)^2/6

In my essay are the value of dark density energy= In(2)

The baryon density: Omega(b) = 240- EXP( 5+ (In2)^2)

The value of vaccum higss and mass higgs boson as a direct function

Of all spins and a term due to curvature of space-time to level

Of quantum scales

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1619

report post as inappropriate

Ram,

I have had the honor of rating my fellow contest participants by comparing my empirical findings (not opinions) with statements made in the essay. Typically I find up to a half dozen key points that express the strength of the positions expressed. Your essay is truly an exception in this case with at least a dozen key points found, as such, I am pleased to rate highly.

It appears we have a common perception based on the use of curvature. Although my approach goes one step deeper, I believe you will find it of interest and I hope you will take the time to review and rate my essay accordingly. I believe you will find it provocative and relevant to your efforts:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

I have had the honor of rating my fellow contest participants by comparing my empirical findings (not opinions) with statements made in the essay. Typically I find up to a half dozen key points that express the strength of the positions expressed. Your essay is truly an exception in this case with at least a dozen key points found, as such, I am pleased to rate highly.

It appears we have a common perception based on the use of curvature. Although my approach goes one step deeper, I believe you will find it of interest and I hope you will take the time to review and rate my essay accordingly. I believe you will find it provocative and relevant to your efforts:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Prof. R.G. Vishwakarma,

Your essay is interesting and clear, showing that even the Ricci flat solutions in General Relativity are rich. I think that this is mainly due to the presence of the Weyl tensor, which, even when Ricci is 0, in general is not 0. I think it worth seeing how far can we go with Ricci flat metrics. Wheeler in fact considered as a version of his geons, those made of self-gravitating gravitational waves (hence of the Weyl tensor), in the hope to describe particles. Other approaches based on Ricci flat metric are studied in some versions of Kaluza-Klein theories, where the degrees of freedom are enriched by adding extra dimensions.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is interesting and clear, showing that even the Ricci flat solutions in General Relativity are rich. I think that this is mainly due to the presence of the Weyl tensor, which, even when Ricci is 0, in general is not 0. I think it worth seeing how far can we go with Ricci flat metrics. Wheeler in fact considered as a version of his geons, those made of self-gravitating gravitational waves (hence of the Weyl tensor), in the hope to describe particles. Other approaches based on Ricci flat metric are studied in some versions of Kaluza-Klein theories, where the degrees of freedom are enriched by adding extra dimensions.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristinel,

Thanks for your kind remarks. Riemann tensor can also be non-zero when Ricci tensor is vanishing. That will signify the net energy-momentum-angular momentum of the material and the gravitational fields at a point.

___Ram

Thanks for your kind remarks. Riemann tensor can also be non-zero when Ricci tensor is vanishing. That will signify the net energy-momentum-angular momentum of the material and the gravitational fields at a point.

___Ram

Prof. R.G. Vishwakarma,

Thank you for your reply. You said "Riemann tensor can also be non-zero when Ricci tensor is vanishing.". When Ricci=0, Riemann=Weyl, so we are in complete agreement.

You mentioned the Kasner solution, and that the matter source (the singularity) exists only at the time t=-1/n, and yet it has effects at other times too. This in fact happens in the Schwarzschild solution as well. The singularity r=0 is not necessarily in the present of an observer affected by the black hole's gravity. This is obfuscated when using the Schwarzschild coordinates, but it is visible for example in the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. Another remark: I think something like this happens with the electromagnetic field. Imagine a pair electron/positron attract each other and annihilate. Yet, the electromagnetic field sourced by their charges exists an indefinite time after they were annihilated.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your reply. You said "Riemann tensor can also be non-zero when Ricci tensor is vanishing.". When Ricci=0, Riemann=Weyl, so we are in complete agreement.

You mentioned the Kasner solution, and that the matter source (the singularity) exists only at the time t=-1/n, and yet it has effects at other times too. This in fact happens in the Schwarzschild solution as well. The singularity r=0 is not necessarily in the present of an observer affected by the black hole's gravity. This is obfuscated when using the Schwarzschild coordinates, but it is visible for example in the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. Another remark: I think something like this happens with the electromagnetic field. Imagine a pair electron/positron attract each other and annihilate. Yet, the electromagnetic field sourced by their charges exists an indefinite time after they were annihilated.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristinel,

Thanks for reminding me that the Weyl tensor (with 10 independent components) can be thought of as containing the information of the Riemann tensor (20 independent components) minus that of the Ricci tensor (10 independent components). So in the case of the vanishing Ricci, Riemann=Weyl.

I have tried to establish that space and `what fills space’...

view entire post

Thanks for reminding me that the Weyl tensor (with 10 independent components) can be thought of as containing the information of the Riemann tensor (20 independent components) minus that of the Ricci tensor (10 independent components). So in the case of the vanishing Ricci, Riemann=Weyl.

I have tried to establish that space and `what fills space’...

view entire post

Respectfully Professor Vishwakarma,

Einstein’s biggest mistake was his not realizing that one real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring, once. He knew nothing of real unique, once. He only speculated about common abstract repeatability. Although abstract energy can equal mass times the constant speed of light squared once. As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, one real Universe only uses real absolutes. The absolute of real energy must be the real Universe, always once.

report post as inappropriate

Einstein’s biggest mistake was his not realizing that one real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring, once. He knew nothing of real unique, once. He only speculated about common abstract repeatability. Although abstract energy can equal mass times the constant speed of light squared once. As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, one real Universe only uses real absolutes. The absolute of real energy must be the real Universe, always once.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof Ram ji

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

I feel information gives a description only. Shall I ask you a direct question. . So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on...

view entire post

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

I feel information gives a description only. Shall I ask you a direct question. . So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Satyavarapu,

In my essay, there is no problem of the violation of the conservation of energy or matter coming out from nowhere. If you read the article and the references therein, you will note that there are two time scales in the resulting cosmological theory. In terms of one of them, the universe becomes infinitely old without any singularity at any finite time in the past. So, the question of the origin of matter/universe becomes meaningless in this model.

___Ram

In my essay, there is no problem of the violation of the conservation of energy or matter coming out from nowhere. If you read the article and the references therein, you will note that there are two time scales in the resulting cosmological theory. In terms of one of them, the universe becomes infinitely old without any singularity at any finite time in the past. So, the question of the origin of matter/universe becomes meaningless in this model.

___Ram

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Vishwakarma,

Congratulations on your deep analysis. If there was anything I found lacking in this paper, it was the "link" to information at the qualitative, macrolevels of experience. If you look at my paper, perhaps you may see how to use it to establish a bridge in a rigorous manner.

Best regards,

Joseph E. Brenner, Ph.D.

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations on your deep analysis. If there was anything I found lacking in this paper, it was the "link" to information at the qualitative, macrolevels of experience. If you look at my paper, perhaps you may see how to use it to establish a bridge in a rigorous manner.

Best regards,

Joseph E. Brenner, Ph.D.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ram,

Well argued, using the very tools used to construct the GR theory itself.

"on the basis of the general theory of relativity, space as opposed to 'what fills space' has no separate existence".

My view: space is both the content and the container, so I agree what fills space and space itself are the same. You can criticize and fault my essay so I can improve it. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Well argued, using the very tools used to construct the GR theory itself.

"on the basis of the general theory of relativity, space as opposed to 'what fills space' has no separate existence".

My view: space is both the content and the container, so I agree what fills space and space itself are the same. You can criticize and fault my essay so I can improve it. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Vishwakarma,

Your does illustrate one of the weaknesses with general relativity as a complete theory. In source free regions we can be reasonably sure that solutions with certain symmetries are physically correct, and the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions are upheld. The Einstein field equations though permit all sorts of quirky solutions, including those that are time machines.

The Kasner solution is a simple case of Mixmaster or Bianchi type cosmologies with anisotropies. The anisotropies are interpreted as due to gravitational waves that behave as if there is a T^{00}, which is a sort of internal energy in a source free region. These models have not been prominent of late, but data involved with CMB anisotropies seem to suggest the early universe may have had properties of this sort. These anisotropies may have been a part of the physics with particle production.

I think that geometrical or topological decompositions of four manifolds constructs topological quantum field theory, or formalism equivalent to that. The matter which fills spacetime is then equivalent I think to this underlying structure to spacetime. Einstein was dismayed by the apparent asymmetry in physical meaning between G_{ab} and T_{ab}. I think the underlying problem might be addressed by thinking of spacetime has having all the substructure of particle physics. The production of particles in a Mixmaster type cosmology from anisotropy does suggest something of this nature.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Your does illustrate one of the weaknesses with general relativity as a complete theory. In source free regions we can be reasonably sure that solutions with certain symmetries are physically correct, and the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions are upheld. The Einstein field equations though permit all sorts of quirky solutions, including those that are time machines.

The Kasner solution is a simple case of Mixmaster or Bianchi type cosmologies with anisotropies. The anisotropies are interpreted as due to gravitational waves that behave as if there is a T^{00}, which is a sort of internal energy in a source free region. These models have not been prominent of late, but data involved with CMB anisotropies seem to suggest the early universe may have had properties of this sort. These anisotropies may have been a part of the physics with particle production.

I think that geometrical or topological decompositions of four manifolds constructs topological quantum field theory, or formalism equivalent to that. The matter which fills spacetime is then equivalent I think to this underlying structure to spacetime. Einstein was dismayed by the apparent asymmetry in physical meaning between G_{ab} and T_{ab}. I think the underlying problem might be addressed by thinking of spacetime has having all the substructure of particle physics. The production of particles in a Mixmaster type cosmology from anisotropy does suggest something of this nature.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

Thanks for your kind and knowledgeable comments. It would not be correct to say that all the solutions of Einstein equations are not meaningful. This will create doubt over the general validity of the theory. Then how can we be so sure that Schwazschild solution (for example) represents a meaningful solution. Just because, it seems consistent with experiments? May be, we have been unable to interpret other solutions correctly, which we claim unphysical. As an example, the Kasner solution (which is considered unphysical) in the new paradigm discovered, in the paper, represents a real big bang universe!

___Ram

Thanks for your kind and knowledgeable comments. It would not be correct to say that all the solutions of Einstein equations are not meaningful. This will create doubt over the general validity of the theory. Then how can we be so sure that Schwazschild solution (for example) represents a meaningful solution. Just because, it seems consistent with experiments? May be, we have been unable to interpret other solutions correctly, which we claim unphysical. As an example, the Kasner solution (which is considered unphysical) in the new paradigm discovered, in the paper, represents a real big bang universe!

___Ram

Dear Sir,

Your essay is a brilliant analysis of the current problems facing physics and suggested some solutions. We generally agree with your views. We have analyzed some similar issues in our essay: “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published on May 31. Here we are analyzing your essay from a different...

view entire post

Your essay is a brilliant analysis of the current problems facing physics and suggested some solutions. We generally agree with your views. We have analyzed some similar issues in our essay: “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published on May 31. Here we are analyzing your essay from a different...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Vishwakarma,

I read your essay with interest. I liked the term "geometrization of matter" - something I can relate to from my previous work with simplexes. Also the possibility of omitting singularities in the Ozsvath-Schuckling solution agree with my analysis that information might avoid being lost forever in Black Holes.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay with interest. I liked the term "geometrization of matter" - something I can relate to from my previous work with simplexes. Also the possibility of omitting singularities in the Ozsvath-Schuckling solution agree with my analysis that information might avoid being lost forever in Black Holes.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Gopal

I have read your essay with a great pleasure. The reason is not only your style but first of all the geometrization of matter.

I have tried to apply Einstein’s geometrization concept (but not his equations) not only to the matter but also to all “force fields” i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear. The gravity would then be emergent as a superposition. The job is not easy so I have proposed an experiment to be sure this is not a huge waste of time. As you know Einstein GR failed outside the Solar System distance scale ( so some physicists try to save GR by means of dark things) and Wheeler-deWitt geometrodynamics has the well-known flaws: the problem of time, the problem of Hilbert space and others. QM’s Standard Model in turn does not offer any metric. The other theories using canonical approaches (connection dynamics, loop dynamics etc.) or covariant approaches (perturbation theory, path integrals etc.) and string theories also have not acceptable flaws or generate no predictions.

I am looking for that one, universal, distance scale invariant metric (eventually reducing to Einstein GR metric within Solar System distance scale) and having ability to generate predictions. The first prediction of that geometrization concept is my spin experiment outcome. Depending on the outcome we shall look for a proper metric or give up.

GR has no action at a distance and QM has. If we assumed that any spacetime deformation is unlimited (to some extent it deforms the entire spacetime in Gaussian distribution mode, due to its elastic and homeomorphism properties) we have got non-local action! The Gaussian distribution guarantees no singularities for free.

In the contest is more than 100 essays so I would like to draw your attention to Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga’s essay and his publications on the geometrization of matter.

Your essay deserves the highest rating. Good luck!

Best regards

report post as inappropriate

I have read your essay with a great pleasure. The reason is not only your style but first of all the geometrization of matter.

I have tried to apply Einstein’s geometrization concept (but not his equations) not only to the matter but also to all “force fields” i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear. The gravity would then be emergent as a superposition. The job is not easy so I have proposed an experiment to be sure this is not a huge waste of time. As you know Einstein GR failed outside the Solar System distance scale ( so some physicists try to save GR by means of dark things) and Wheeler-deWitt geometrodynamics has the well-known flaws: the problem of time, the problem of Hilbert space and others. QM’s Standard Model in turn does not offer any metric. The other theories using canonical approaches (connection dynamics, loop dynamics etc.) or covariant approaches (perturbation theory, path integrals etc.) and string theories also have not acceptable flaws or generate no predictions.

I am looking for that one, universal, distance scale invariant metric (eventually reducing to Einstein GR metric within Solar System distance scale) and having ability to generate predictions. The first prediction of that geometrization concept is my spin experiment outcome. Depending on the outcome we shall look for a proper metric or give up.

GR has no action at a distance and QM has. If we assumed that any spacetime deformation is unlimited (to some extent it deforms the entire spacetime in Gaussian distribution mode, due to its elastic and homeomorphism properties) we have got non-local action! The Gaussian distribution guarantees no singularities for free.

In the contest is more than 100 essays so I would like to draw your attention to Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga’s essay and his publications on the geometrization of matter.

Your essay deserves the highest rating. Good luck!

Best regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jacek,

Thanks for your kind remarks and for your interest in my essay. I also thank you for mentioning Maluga's work on the geometrization of matter. I shall read them in time.

Best of luck on your ambitious endeavor. The theory based on R^{ik} = 0 might fit in it. It is scale invariant, describes not only the gravitational phenomena in the solar system, but the whole universe, as I have showed.

Best of luck on your essay.

___Ram

Thanks for your kind remarks and for your interest in my essay. I also thank you for mentioning Maluga's work on the geometrization of matter. I shall read them in time.

Best of luck on your ambitious endeavor. The theory based on R^{ik} = 0 might fit in it. It is scale invariant, describes not only the gravitational phenomena in the solar system, but the whole universe, as I have showed.

Best of luck on your essay.

___Ram

Dear Ram

That true, "the revolution that Einstein began a century ago, is not yet over!"

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

That true, "the revolution that Einstein began a century ago, is not yet over!"

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Greetings Ram Gopal,

It is good to see your essay here, which I have just begun to read. I had the pleasure to share lunch with you and hear your excellent lecture in Port Angeles, a few years back. I look forward to reading your paper, which I see has already been well regarded, and I will comment once I am done. Good luck!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

It is good to see your essay here, which I have just begun to read. I had the pleasure to share lunch with you and hear your excellent lecture in Port Angeles, a few years back. I look forward to reading your paper, which I see has already been well regarded, and I will comment once I am done. Good luck!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

A very interesting paper Professor Vishwakarma,

The ideas presented in this essay are indeed worthy of note. People have been so focused on finding a correct formulation for the stress-energy tensor, that they never bothered to examine solutions that make it unnecessary. Very fine work, and a paper well-written and well-enjoyed. I shall be happy to rate this one highly, once my own essay has posted.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

The ideas presented in this essay are indeed worthy of note. People have been so focused on finding a correct formulation for the stress-energy tensor, that they never bothered to examine solutions that make it unnecessary. Very fine work, and a paper well-written and well-enjoyed. I shall be happy to rate this one highly, once my own essay has posted.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof. Vishwakarma,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Vishwakarma,

In your highly interesting article, you have argued why the elimination of the term Tik from the basic equation of GR is essential if we are to make sense out of it to explain its recent consequences. Here I consider only the Kasner solution. For me, it appears that the Kasner solution must be applied to the QG field which exists inside black holes and only then it is possible for us to make sense out of it. So Tik points to the existence of QG field but cannot explain it as the metric of GR gik breaks down in the QG field. It is thus possible for us to understand and solve the mystery surrounding the Kasner solution and I think there is no need to eliminate the term Tik from the basic GR equation as it would spoil the formal beauty of the theory. So the effort to retain Tik, lies in finding the basic equation of QG field and from which deriving the basic equation of GR.

Regards,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

In your highly interesting article, you have argued why the elimination of the term Tik from the basic equation of GR is essential if we are to make sense out of it to explain its recent consequences. Here I consider only the Kasner solution. For me, it appears that the Kasner solution must be applied to the QG field which exists inside black holes and only then it is possible for us to make sense out of it. So Tik points to the existence of QG field but cannot explain it as the metric of GR gik breaks down in the QG field. It is thus possible for us to understand and solve the mystery surrounding the Kasner solution and I think there is no need to eliminate the term Tik from the basic GR equation as it would spoil the formal beauty of the theory. So the effort to retain Tik, lies in finding the basic equation of QG field and from which deriving the basic equation of GR.

Regards,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your kind remarks. I don’t understand how you can apply the evolving (time-dependent) Kasner solution inside a black hole represented by the static Schwarzschild (exterior) solution. The interior of a static spacetime is expected to be static. Anyway, the existing Schwarzschild interior solution, providing the standard representation of the interior of a static spherically symmetric non-rotating star, turns out to be unphysical, since the speed of sound (dp/d\rho) becomes infinite in the fluid with a constant density \rho.

While beauty should not be considered as a decisive factor for a physical theory, you seem to be unaware of the very Einstein’s remarks of "low-grade wood" for the energy-stress tensor and the "fine marble" for the geometry (as he put it in a 1936 article in the Journal of the Franklin Institute). Thus shunning the “wood”, ENHANCES THE BEAUTY of the “marble” in the extreme simplicity of the field equations R^{ik} = 0!

Thanks for your kind remarks. I don’t understand how you can apply the evolving (time-dependent) Kasner solution inside a black hole represented by the static Schwarzschild (exterior) solution. The interior of a static spacetime is expected to be static. Anyway, the existing Schwarzschild interior solution, providing the standard representation of the interior of a static spherically symmetric non-rotating star, turns out to be unphysical, since the speed of sound (dp/d\rho) becomes infinite in the fluid with a constant density \rho.

While beauty should not be considered as a decisive factor for a physical theory, you seem to be unaware of the very Einstein’s remarks of "low-grade wood" for the energy-stress tensor and the "fine marble" for the geometry (as he put it in a 1936 article in the Journal of the Franklin Institute). Thus shunning the “wood”, ENHANCES THE BEAUTY of the “marble” in the extreme simplicity of the field equations R^{ik} = 0!

Ram,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Prof. Ram,

Your essay is near and dear to my heart (as I am interested in how field theories are mathematically represented and the Cosmological Constant problems). I have some questions concerning your essay:

1. You state "in the absence of which the solution must have a singularity, serving as the source". What singularity are you referring to? I know of the singularity that arises in linearized gravity but that is based on

. (I am not yet familiar with Osvath and Schucking so will have to review their material).

2. Your equation 4 uses an M which seems to be based on the Poisson equation definition of energy density within a volume. I see your disclaimers on LambdaCDM not conforming with the Poisson concept of energy density anyway but you seem to be equating the energy density of a gravitational field with the same energy density that mainstream physics is using for "vacuum" energy density. True or no?

3. How can a constant of integration represent the energy density of a gravitational field since the constant wouldn't change but the gravitational field would need to in order to do work on regular mass?

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is near and dear to my heart (as I am interested in how field theories are mathematically represented and the Cosmological Constant problems). I have some questions concerning your essay:

1. You state "in the absence of which the solution must have a singularity, serving as the source". What singularity are you referring to? I know of the singularity that arises in linearized gravity but that is based on

. (I am not yet familiar with Osvath and Schucking so will have to review their material).

2. Your equation 4 uses an M which seems to be based on the Poisson equation definition of energy density within a volume. I see your disclaimers on LambdaCDM not conforming with the Poisson concept of energy density anyway but you seem to be equating the energy density of a gravitational field with the same energy density that mainstream physics is using for "vacuum" energy density. True or no?

3. How can a constant of integration represent the energy density of a gravitational field since the constant wouldn't change but the gravitational field would need to in order to do work on regular mass?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your wonderful remarks and interesting questions. My explanations to your queries are the following.

1. I’m talking about the full GR and not any of its approximations, such as the linearized gravity. It is the conventional belief that the curved solutions of R^{ik}=0 (i.e., the solutions of Einstein’s eq (1) in the absence of T^{ik}) must have a singularity. For example, the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions have singularity at r=0, the Kasner solution (5) has singularity at t=-1/n. But this conventional wisdom does not seem correct as the Osvath-Schucking solution (a solution of R^{ik}=0) is curved but it is singularity-free.

2. The value M in eq (4) comes by comparing geodesic equation in GR (considered in the case of a weak gravitational field) with the Newton’s equation of motion. This gives the metric potential g_{00} in terms of the Newtonian gravitational potential. Remember that in the case of a weak field, eqs R^{ik}=0 reduce to the Laplace eq and not the Poisson eq. Though both these eqs (Laplace and Poisson) use the scalar gravitational potential, but in Poisson eq, it comes from a matter distribution, while in the other case, it results from a point mass [as in eq (4)].

3. If you read carefully, you will find that the gravitational energy is represented IN TERMS OF the constant K, and NOT “by the constant” K. It is in fact K/r [(see the lines preceding eq (4 )].

___Ram

Thanks for your wonderful remarks and interesting questions. My explanations to your queries are the following.

1. I’m talking about the full GR and not any of its approximations, such as the linearized gravity. It is the conventional belief that the curved solutions of R^{ik}=0 (i.e., the solutions of Einstein’s eq (1) in the absence of T^{ik}) must have a singularity. For example, the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions have singularity at r=0, the Kasner solution (5) has singularity at t=-1/n. But this conventional wisdom does not seem correct as the Osvath-Schucking solution (a solution of R^{ik}=0) is curved but it is singularity-free.

2. The value M in eq (4) comes by comparing geodesic equation in GR (considered in the case of a weak gravitational field) with the Newton’s equation of motion. This gives the metric potential g_{00} in terms of the Newtonian gravitational potential. Remember that in the case of a weak field, eqs R^{ik}=0 reduce to the Laplace eq and not the Poisson eq. Though both these eqs (Laplace and Poisson) use the scalar gravitational potential, but in Poisson eq, it comes from a matter distribution, while in the other case, it results from a point mass [as in eq (4)].

3. If you read carefully, you will find that the gravitational energy is represented IN TERMS OF the constant K, and NOT “by the constant” K. It is in fact K/r [(see the lines preceding eq (4 )].

___Ram

Dear Ram,

Once again, I am fascinated by your ideas on the equation

Such ideas should deserve a better consideration from the Scientific Community. Although, as you know, I have read your previous papers on this issue, also accepting one of them in The Open Astronomy Journal, I had lots of fun in reading this new Essay. Thus, I am going to give you an high score. Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Once again, I am fascinated by your ideas on the equation

Such ideas should deserve a better consideration from the Scientific Community. Although, as you know, I have read your previous papers on this issue, also accepting one of them in The Open Astronomy Journal, I had lots of fun in reading this new Essay. Thus, I am going to give you an high score. Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Hello again Ram Gopal,

I shall also be pleased to give you a high score, now that my own essay has posted, and I can do so. I will give it a quick review first, to avoid confusion, because of so much reading since I first looked at your paper. But like Christian, I am impressed with the quality of your work and think you expressed your ideas well.

I hope you will look at my essay, when you get a chance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I shall also be pleased to give you a high score, now that my own essay has posted, and I can do so. I will give it a quick review first, to avoid confusion, because of so much reading since I first looked at your paper. But like Christian, I am impressed with the quality of your work and think you expressed your ideas well.

I hope you will look at my essay, when you get a chance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ram,

The irreconcilable difference between Classical and Quantum Mechanics seems to me that in CM particles are thought to be only the cause of interactions, whereas QM can be understood only if we realize that in a self-creating universe where particles have to create themselves, each other, particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as the product, the effect of their...

view entire post

The irreconcilable difference between Classical and Quantum Mechanics seems to me that in CM particles are thought to be only the cause of interactions, whereas QM can be understood only if we realize that in a self-creating universe where particles have to create themselves, each other, particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as the product, the effect of their...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

In my study I propose a mass definition based on the uncertainty principle in the expectation that using this in GR might reconcile GR with QM: the less indefinite the position of a particle or mass center of an object is, the greater its rest energy is. If (see study) the distance between two particles is less definite as it is greater, so the indefiniteness in the position of an object also...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ram Gopal Vishwakarma,

If I understood your idea, information theory can shape a physical theory of gravitation, where new kind of the geometrization of information is assumed..?

report post as inappropriate

If I understood your idea, information theory can shape a physical theory of gravitation, where new kind of the geometrization of information is assumed..?

report post as inappropriate

DearProfessor Gopal. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Vishwakarma,

I have expressed my comments on your enthralling essay in your thread and now it is your turn to read my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your invaluable comments on my essay in my thread. I, hope, you will kindly take that much of risk.

Best regards,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

I have expressed my comments on your enthralling essay in your thread and now it is your turn to read my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your invaluable comments on my essay in my thread. I, hope, you will kindly take that much of risk.

Best regards,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Gopal.

Thank you for a very nice essay. Key highlights for me were:

1. The total energy of the universe must always remain zero.

2. Einstein quote {for GR} "space as opposed to 'what fills space' has no separate existence". I assumed Einstein believed the opposite, I was pleased to hear I was wrong.

3. The observations actually reveal a simpler and more elegant Universe than anyone could have imagined!

Congratulations on an original set of ideas, cogent explication and those wonderful snippets of education.

My only criticism - this was much more about General Relativity than the subject of the contest (It from Bit).

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for a very nice essay. Key highlights for me were:

1. The total energy of the universe must always remain zero.

2. Einstein quote {for GR} "space as opposed to 'what fills space' has no separate existence". I assumed Einstein believed the opposite, I was pleased to hear I was wrong.

3. The observations actually reveal a simpler and more elegant Universe than anyone could have imagined!

Congratulations on an original set of ideas, cogent explication and those wonderful snippets of education.

My only criticism - this was much more about General Relativity than the subject of the contest (It from Bit).

report post as inappropriate

Dear prof. Vishwakarma,

I have rated your wonderful essay with maximum rating. I expect your comments on my essay in my thread. I want to have discussion on Kasner solution a little bit later.

All the best,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

I have rated your wonderful essay with maximum rating. I expect your comments on my essay in my thread. I want to have discussion on Kasner solution a little bit later.

All the best,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ram Gopal and All,

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and...

view entire post

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and...

view entire post

attachments: 8_iDNASeries.bmp

report post as inappropriate

Dear RamGopal,

I welcome you to read my other essays in the earlier contesnts and this one.

Conscience is the cosmological constant. Universe is an iSphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as a 3Sphere manifold.

I to the bit to the it to the bit to the I Everything originates from the I with in all of us and ends in the I.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

I welcome you to read my other essays in the earlier contesnts and this one.

Conscience is the cosmological constant. Universe is an iSphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as a 3Sphere manifold.

I to the bit to the it to the bit to the I Everything originates from the I with in all of us and ends in the I.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Professor Vishwakarma:

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19

65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show...

view entire post

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19

65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ram,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. As noted on my page, I believe our theories are compatible and I am working to show this.

You have re-analyzed Einstein's full field equations and concluded that R_{ab} = 0 does not represent 'empty' space-time, as it produces 'curvature', and therefore must represent at least the gravitational fields which, in my opinion [and Einstein's], 'define' or 'make real' space-time. You suggest the fields are represented in the equations through their non-linearity. Of course! What else could represent the self-interacting field?

My approach has been to assume initially one field, with no 'matter' sourced, and attempt to solve the evolution of this field. Except for the initial state of perfect symmetry, I have not focused on cosmological solutions but on particle creation. In particular I have worked with the 'linear' weak field equations which, however, represent a field that is inherently nonlinear. So I have attempted to 'add back' the non-linearity, but in a form that offers new solution possibilities. The jury is still out.

I find your analysis and your arguments compelling, most particularly:

"The fact that the sources of curvature are implicitly present in R_{ij} = 0 and must not be added again (through the stress-energy tensor), is vindicated by the failure to obtain a proper energy stress tensor of a gravitational field."

I'm very excited about your new theory, and believe it offers great promise in a time of great confusion. A stress energy tensor that does not incorporate the stress of the field's non-linearities cannot be the answer. Your approach looks like the answer to me.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your interest in my essay. As noted on my page, I believe our theories are compatible and I am working to show this.

You have re-analyzed Einstein's full field equations and concluded that R_{ab} = 0 does not represent 'empty' space-time, as it produces 'curvature', and therefore must represent at least the gravitational fields which, in my opinion [and Einstein's], 'define' or 'make real' space-time. You suggest the fields are represented in the equations through their non-linearity. Of course! What else could represent the self-interacting field?

My approach has been to assume initially one field, with no 'matter' sourced, and attempt to solve the evolution of this field. Except for the initial state of perfect symmetry, I have not focused on cosmological solutions but on particle creation. In particular I have worked with the 'linear' weak field equations which, however, represent a field that is inherently nonlinear. So I have attempted to 'add back' the non-linearity, but in a form that offers new solution possibilities. The jury is still out.

I find your analysis and your arguments compelling, most particularly:

"The fact that the sources of curvature are implicitly present in R_{ij} = 0 and must not be added again (through the stress-energy tensor), is vindicated by the failure to obtain a proper energy stress tensor of a gravitational field."

I'm very excited about your new theory, and believe it offers great promise in a time of great confusion. A stress energy tensor that does not incorporate the stress of the field's non-linearities cannot be the answer. Your approach looks like the answer to me.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your wonderful remarks! By the way, mine is not a new theory. It is just the resurrected version of GR. Einstein barely missed it. He did this twice: first, when he discovered that the energy-stress tensor was the `wood’ portion of his grand edifice of `marble’. Second, when he couldn’t find a proper energy-stress tensor of the gravitational energy. Had he not gone astray, he would have discovered that the concept of the energy-stress tensor is not compatible with a geometric theory of gravitation [Astrophys.Space Sci. 340 (2012) 373-379].

One should also note that not only the gravitational energy, but the matter field (which is the ultimate cause of the gravitational field) also appears in equations R^{ik}=0 without including the energy-stress tensor. The source mass M appears in Schwarzschild solution, through a constant of integration, without including the energy-stress tensor. (Though GR is not sufficient for this identificaton and we have to invoke extra assumptions. For example, in the present case, we assume that GR should reduce to the Newtonian gravitation in the case of the weak field.)

Best Regards.

___Ram

Thanks for your wonderful remarks! By the way, mine is not a new theory. It is just the resurrected version of GR. Einstein barely missed it. He did this twice: first, when he discovered that the energy-stress tensor was the `wood’ portion of his grand edifice of `marble’. Second, when he couldn’t find a proper energy-stress tensor of the gravitational energy. Had he not gone astray, he would have discovered that the concept of the energy-stress tensor is not compatible with a geometric theory of gravitation [Astrophys.Space Sci. 340 (2012) 373-379].

One should also note that not only the gravitational energy, but the matter field (which is the ultimate cause of the gravitational field) also appears in equations R^{ik}=0 without including the energy-stress tensor. The source mass M appears in Schwarzschild solution, through a constant of integration, without including the energy-stress tensor. (Though GR is not sufficient for this identificaton and we have to invoke extra assumptions. For example, in the present case, we assume that GR should reduce to the Newtonian gravitation in the case of the weak field.)

Best Regards.

___Ram

Dear Ram,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Vishwakarma,

An out of the box look at GR is long overdue, especially with the continuing mystery of gravity, black holes and the BB. Your essay was challenging but remarkably clear for an unschooled, yet newborn physics zealot such as myself.

Empty space is not bereft of energy and does seem to engender gravity, perhaps perturbed by virtual particles. That is my image in portraying the BB in my essay and its occurrence, absent of conscious observation.

I would welcome your skilled look at my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

An out of the box look at GR is long overdue, especially with the continuing mystery of gravity, black holes and the BB. Your essay was challenging but remarkably clear for an unschooled, yet newborn physics zealot such as myself.

Empty space is not bereft of energy and does seem to engender gravity, perhaps perturbed by virtual particles. That is my image in portraying the BB in my essay and its occurrence, absent of conscious observation.

I would welcome your skilled look at my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ram,

Congratulations on an important and undervalued work. The very well written essay pales to insignificance against the content.

However I hope you may bear with me if I suggest it is incomplete and slightly flawed. I suggest we require a quantum gravity also unifying SR and QM.

Have you ever wandered, lost, then come across a familiar place from an entirely...

view entire post

Congratulations on an important and undervalued work. The very well written essay pales to insignificance against the content.

However I hope you may bear with me if I suggest it is incomplete and slightly flawed. I suggest we require a quantum gravity also unifying SR and QM.

Have you ever wandered, lost, then come across a familiar place from an entirely...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your kind remarks. I hope you may also bear with me if I suggest that we require a theory which can answer why the world is there and why we are here! Then your proposal, or any theory of quantum gravity, would become “incomplete and flawed” in your terms!

I have kept limited myself, in the present essay, to only the most successful theory of gravitation, i.e., GR. However, there are hopes, in the proposed framework, for further developments, on which I’m working. You know that one of the most common ways for a particular theory to be renormalizable is to be scale invariant. And equation R^{ik}=0 (on which the proposed paradigm is based) presents an scale-invariant theory!

Best Regards.

___Ram

Thanks for your kind remarks. I hope you may also bear with me if I suggest that we require a theory which can answer why the world is there and why we are here! Then your proposal, or any theory of quantum gravity, would become “incomplete and flawed” in your terms!

I have kept limited myself, in the present essay, to only the most successful theory of gravitation, i.e., GR. However, there are hopes, in the proposed framework, for further developments, on which I’m working. You know that one of the most common ways for a particular theory to be renormalizable is to be scale invariant. And equation R^{ik}=0 (on which the proposed paradigm is based) presents an scale-invariant theory!

Best Regards.

___Ram

Ram,

I quite agree your model may be only 'slightly', but mine may be entirely 'flawed', and almost certainly is: "All we know will ultimately be revealed as false." The best answer I found to why we may be here is Richard Nixeys, we are an organic experiment, which may be called a 'computer' to find out why the scale-invariant greater universe exists! Yes, I agree scale invariance is essential. But I think there are questions we CAN answer which we yet have not.

I think that is the reason we postulate theories, to be falsified, and that is the reason I would like you to read my essay; so you can judge for yourself. I confirm I was very impressed by your work and believe I will greatly respect your views.

Very best wishes and thank you.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I quite agree your model may be only 'slightly', but mine may be entirely 'flawed', and almost certainly is: "All we know will ultimately be revealed as false." The best answer I found to why we may be here is Richard Nixeys, we are an organic experiment, which may be called a 'computer' to find out why the scale-invariant greater universe exists! Yes, I agree scale invariance is essential. But I think there are questions we CAN answer which we yet have not.

I think that is the reason we postulate theories, to be falsified, and that is the reason I would like you to read my essay; so you can judge for yourself. I confirm I was very impressed by your work and believe I will greatly respect your views.

Very best wishes and thank you.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ram,

I do hope you may get the time to also read my essay and comment. Both having read each others seems an essential requisite for useful communication.

You also may be able to guide me on the areas I see commonality with my more geometric, epistemic and and heuristic ontology.

I think your work is valuable and hope my score may help it make the final cut.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I do hope you may get the time to also read my essay and comment. Both having read each others seems an essential requisite for useful communication.

You also may be able to guide me on the areas I see commonality with my more geometric, epistemic and and heuristic ontology.

I think your work is valuable and hope my score may help it make the final cut.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ram,

Thank you for a very intriguing model of gravity. You wrote:

> It would be interesting to note that a homogeneous, isotropic cosmological solution of equations (2) becomes Minkowskian.

In my essay Sofware Cosmos, I describe a computational model for the cosmos that answers many cosmological puzzles. One important distinction in my model is between the "explicate" order (which is Minkowskian) and the "implicate" order which is conformally compactified Minkowski space.

My hypothesis is that it is the curvature of the implicate (rather than total energy) that is responsible for the observed departures of gravitational force from the Newtonian. This can be calculated (via Gauge Theory Gravity) in a flat background and does not require the presence of matter. My picture also includes scale-invariance in the form of fractal structure.

I hope you get a chance to take a look and tell me what you think.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for a very intriguing model of gravity. You wrote:

> It would be interesting to note that a homogeneous, isotropic cosmological solution of equations (2) becomes Minkowskian.

In my essay Sofware Cosmos, I describe a computational model for the cosmos that answers many cosmological puzzles. One important distinction in my model is between the "explicate" order (which is Minkowskian) and the "implicate" order which is conformally compactified Minkowski space.

My hypothesis is that it is the curvature of the implicate (rather than total energy) that is responsible for the observed departures of gravitational force from the Newtonian. This can be calculated (via Gauge Theory Gravity) in a flat background and does not require the presence of matter. My picture also includes scale-invariance in the form of fractal structure.

I hope you get a chance to take a look and tell me what you think.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vishwakarma,

I have a question about the statement that equates K/r with gravitational energy of the field - In Newtonian physics it is not the energy of the field but the energy of a unit mass particle interacting with another particle of mass M, or the potential energy of the unit mass particle. Why and how are you equating it to the energy of the gravitational field?

Also, apart from the beginning sentence in the abstract I did not find much connection with the topic of the FQXi discussion - can you please say how you address that issue?

Thanks and regards,

Unnikrishnan

report post as inappropriate

I have a question about the statement that equates K/r with gravitational energy of the field - In Newtonian physics it is not the energy of the field but the energy of a unit mass particle interacting with another particle of mass M, or the potential energy of the unit mass particle. Why and how are you equating it to the energy of the gravitational field?

Also, apart from the beginning sentence in the abstract I did not find much connection with the topic of the FQXi discussion - can you please say how you address that issue?

Thanks and regards,

Unnikrishnan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Unnikrishnan,

Thanks for your interest in my essay. I am a bit puzzled by your first question, that why you ask such a trivial one. Is it not the potential energy of the unit mass (situated at a certain point in the gravitational field of mass M) by which we measure the gravitational (potential) energy of the field produced by mass M in the Newtonian mechanics? Is this energy not calculated in terms of the work done in bringing this (unit) mass from infinity to that point? And does this work not equal to –GM/r, where r is the radial distance between the source mass M and the unit test mass?

The aim of the present FQXi contest is to provide foundational, innovative and influential thinking on Wheeler’s dictum “it from bit”. Here `bit' stands for the information and `it' for physics of the Universe. In the introduction of the essay, I have framed a goal to show that a correct physical theory of the Universe (`it’) can emerge from the `bit' if perceived correctly. The rest of the essay is devoted to this goal only, in the spirit of the philosophy of the FQXi, and I did not find it necessary to mention the words `it’, `bit’, `information’ several times unnecessarily.

Regards.

___Ram

Thanks for your interest in my essay. I am a bit puzzled by your first question, that why you ask such a trivial one. Is it not the potential energy of the unit mass (situated at a certain point in the gravitational field of mass M) by which we measure the gravitational (potential) energy of the field produced by mass M in the Newtonian mechanics? Is this energy not calculated in terms of the work done in bringing this (unit) mass from infinity to that point? And does this work not equal to –GM/r, where r is the radial distance between the source mass M and the unit test mass?

The aim of the present FQXi contest is to provide foundational, innovative and influential thinking on Wheeler’s dictum “it from bit”. Here `bit' stands for the information and `it' for physics of the Universe. In the introduction of the essay, I have framed a goal to show that a correct physical theory of the Universe (`it’) can emerge from the `bit' if perceived correctly. The rest of the essay is devoted to this goal only, in the spirit of the philosophy of the FQXi, and I did not find it necessary to mention the words `it’, `bit’, `information’ several times unnecessarily.

Regards.

___Ram

Posted at my essay comment area:

Dear Ram,

sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

According to my ideas, matter is also part of the spacetime (a part of the 3-space). So verything is unified: spacetime and matter, Bit and It.

Best

Torsten

Now more:

I like your essay. You also went along the usual way not modifying the spacetime (to be discrete etc.) I rated it a longer time ago very high.

So Good luck and Best wishes

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ram,

sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

According to my ideas, matter is also part of the spacetime (a part of the 3-space). So verything is unified: spacetime and matter, Bit and It.

Best

Torsten

Now more:

I like your essay. You also went along the usual way not modifying the spacetime (to be discrete etc.) I rated it a longer time ago very high.

So Good luck and Best wishes

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Best of Luck for the Magnificent Eight !

I am throught the 180 essays, all rated. For me 2/3 of them were poor and other 1/6 curious. The rest (1/6) have I rated over 4/10.

You are among the authors of the top essays from my sight - alphabetically :

Corda, D'Ariano, Maguire, Rogozhin, Singleton, Sreenath, Vaid, Vishwakarma,

and I hope one of you will be the winner. (Please, don't rate my essay.)

David

report post as inappropriate

I am throught the 180 essays, all rated. For me 2/3 of them were poor and other 1/6 curious. The rest (1/6) have I rated over 4/10.

You are among the authors of the top essays from my sight - alphabetically :

Corda, D'Ariano, Maguire, Rogozhin, Singleton, Sreenath, Vaid, Vishwakarma,

and I hope one of you will be the winner. (Please, don't rate my essay.)

David

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.