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

Media Partner: 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

Media Partner: Scientific American

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

**Christian Corda**: *on* 4/23/15 at 8:19am UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan, Thanks for your kind comments and for rating my Essay. I...

**Christian Corda**: *on* 4/23/15 at 8:15am UTC, wrote Dear Neil, Thanks for your kind message. Concerning the issues you raise,...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 4/23/15 at 3:29am UTC, wrote I have finished reading and rated your essay Christian.. I shall have some...

**Neil Bates**: *on* 4/23/15 at 2:14am UTC, wrote Christian, Thanks again for your kind comments on my essay. I haven't had...

**Christian Corda**: *on* 4/20/15 at 12:18pm UTC, wrote Hi Alma, It was my pleasure. I am going to read your replies. Cheers, Ch.

**Alma Ionescu**: *on* 4/20/15 at 11:42am UTC, wrote Dear Christian, Thank you very much for your words as they bring me joy! I...

**Christian Corda**: *on* 4/20/15 at 6:13am UTC, wrote Dear Alma, Thanks for your kind words and very nice comments which honour...

**Alma Ionescu**: *on* 4/19/15 at 15:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian, I realize this is a funny thing to start with, but I am...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Dufourny**: "The energetical problem is just a part , the fusion I hope will be soon..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Kuyukov V. abakan**: "Holography and time"
*in* Tensor networks as a data...

**Lungani **: "I Everyone I'm New here it an honour to be here and join you to share our..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Lungani **: "I Everyone I'm New here it an honour to be here and join you to share our..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Mr Schindler , I d like to explain you something, sorry to be off topic,..."
*in* Tensor networks as a data...

**Steve Dufourny**: "It is very important this general idea and I need help of mathematicians to..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "My intuitive equation considering the cold dark matter encoded in nuclei..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Jack James**: "I noticed this was a 4 dimensional approach also. ..."
*in* Unification of the four...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

**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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

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.

FQXi FORUM

April 21, 2021

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: When physics is geometry: a new proof for general relativity through geometric interpretation of Mössbauer rotor experiment. Celebration of the 100th anniversary of general relativity by Christian Corda [refresh]

TOPIC: When physics is geometry: a new proof for general relativity through geometric interpretation of Mössbauer rotor experiment. Celebration of the 100th anniversary of general relativity by Christian Corda [refresh]

General relativity is not only one of the greatest and most elegant scientific theories of all (perhaps the greatest and the most elegant), but also the best example showing that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick. It is indeed well known that Einstein's vision of gravity is pure geometry. In this Essay, we celebrate the centennial of this intriguing pre-established harmony between geometry and physics, marked by the year 2015, giving a correct interpretation of a historical experiment by Kündig on the transverse Doppler shift in a rotating system measured with the Mössbauer effect (Mössbauer rotor experiment). By using Einstein Equivalence Principle, which states the equivalence between the gravitational "force" and the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference (included a rotating frame of reference), here we reanalyze the theoretical framework of Mössbauer rotor experiments directly in the rotating frame of reference by using a completely geometrical general relativistic treatment. It will be shown that previous analyses missed an important effect of clock synchronization and that the correct, purely geometric, general relativistic prevision in the rotating frame gives a result which is in perfect agreement with new experimental results of a research group. Such an effect of clock synchronization has been missed in various papers in the literature with some subsequent claim of invalidity of relativity theory and/or some attempts to explain the experimental results through “exotic” effects. Our geometric general relativistic interpretation shows, instead, that the new experimental results of the Mössbauer rotor experiment are a new, strong and independent, proof of Einstein's elegant, purely geometric, vision of gravity.

Theoretical physicist, Ph.D in Physics at the Pisa University. I am Professor of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics at the Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e Ricerca "Santa Rita", Italy. I started to work on gravitational waves. In the last years my research was focused on black hole thermodynamics. I am also Editor and/or Editor in Chief of various international journals in the fields of Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Mathematics

Christian,

I just gave your paper a quick reading. I think it is interesting how the 1/5 correction emerges. I will want to read this again, for I would like to think one gets the k_1 and k_2 in one single derivation. Your essay is intersting and worthy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I just gave your paper a quick reading. I think it is interesting how the 1/5 correction emerges. I will want to read this again, for I would like to think one gets the k_1 and k_2 in one single derivation. Your essay is intersting and worthy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Hi LC,

Thanks for appreciating my Essay. Getting the k_1 and k_2 in one single derivation should be intriguing. Let me know if you will find the way. I will think about it too.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for appreciating my Essay. Getting the k_1 and k_2 in one single derivation should be intriguing. Let me know if you will find the way. I will think about it too.

Cheers, Ch.

That would be interesting to work on. I have sort of an idea about quantum computers with regards to this. I will relay that to you this coming weekend when I am home and have a bit more time.

LC

report post as inappropriate

LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Corda,

Thank you for your interesting essay, I have already brought up this question at this forum before. The plasma or dust around stellar objects is distributed accordingly with the intensity of the plasma or dust and gets diluted as the distance from the stellar object is increased. This has also means refraction of the electromagnetic wave, this is not even touched in GR and no corrections are considered either...

Furthermore I believe math and physics intersect as far there are some quantities that can be measured, and part of math is unphysical and part of physics is unmathematical. These are reelected in my essay.

I have also written an essay back in 2013 before about another paradox with regards to SR.

Lorentz Symmetry brocken

Good luck

Kind regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your interesting essay, I have already brought up this question at this forum before. The plasma or dust around stellar objects is distributed accordingly with the intensity of the plasma or dust and gets diluted as the distance from the stellar object is increased. This has also means refraction of the electromagnetic wave, this is not even touched in GR and no corrections are considered either...

Furthermore I believe math and physics intersect as far there are some quantities that can be measured, and part of math is unphysical and part of physics is unmathematical. These are reelected in my essay.

I have also written an essay back in 2013 before about another paradox with regards to SR.

Lorentz Symmetry brocken

Good luck

Kind regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Koorosh Shahdaei,

Thanks for finding my Essay interesting.

Concerning your question, the issue of the intensity of the plasma or dust which gets diluted as the distance from the stellar object is increased depends on the variation of the gravitational field of the stellar object and, in turn, is a direct consequence of GR.

Your statement that "part of math is unphysical and part of physics is unmathematical" arouses my curiosity. I will read comment and score your Essay soon.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for finding my Essay interesting.

Concerning your question, the issue of the intensity of the plasma or dust which gets diluted as the distance from the stellar object is increased depends on the variation of the gravitational field of the stellar object and, in turn, is a direct consequence of GR.

Your statement that "part of math is unphysical and part of physics is unmathematical" arouses my curiosity. I will read comment and score your Essay soon.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Professor Corda,

Thank you for your comment, actually I was considering gravitational lensing and light bending with regards to plasma or dust refraction of EMW.

I wish you good luck in your essay.

Warm regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your comment, actually I was considering gravitational lensing and light bending with regards to plasma or dust refraction of EMW.

I wish you good luck in your essay.

Warm regards

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Koorosh,

You can merely call me Christian without any suffix.

Thanks for clarifying. When we consider gravitational lensing and light bending with regards to plasma, the key point is that we must consider all the mass-energy of the stellar object. Let us assume spherical symmetry and that the plasma is distributed as far as a radius r1 while further distribution of plasma can be neglected for r>r1. Then, if we want to consider gravitational lensing and light bending for r=r1 we must add the mass-energy of the plasma to the mass-energy of the stellar object. In that case, we can use the general relativistic equations as assuming that all the mass-energy is concentrated in a singularity in r=0 (the theory in vacuum). Concerning dust refraction of EMW, in general, general relativistic effects can be neglected because dust around stellar objects is usually very far from the massive core of the object.

Cheers, Ch.

You can merely call me Christian without any suffix.

Thanks for clarifying. When we consider gravitational lensing and light bending with regards to plasma, the key point is that we must consider all the mass-energy of the stellar object. Let us assume spherical symmetry and that the plasma is distributed as far as a radius r1 while further distribution of plasma can be neglected for r>r1. Then, if we want to consider gravitational lensing and light bending for r=r1 we must add the mass-energy of the plasma to the mass-energy of the stellar object. In that case, we can use the general relativistic equations as assuming that all the mass-energy is concentrated in a singularity in r=0 (the theory in vacuum). Concerning dust refraction of EMW, in general, general relativistic effects can be neglected because dust around stellar objects is usually very far from the massive core of the object.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi Christian,

Thank you for very interesting essay. I agree that Mathematic is Truth and pure geometry is the key. This view is highly underestimated. Einstein’s theory was also my starting point to derive the correspondence rule which links a mathematical structure with an empirical domain. The best example of a correspondence rule is really General Relativity, where gravitational force that can be measured is only a manifestation of spacetime geometry that can be calculated.

In my essay I extend this idea and I argue that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry. These geometric structures I find in the set of Thurston geometries with metrics and the wave transfer that make this still picture alive and evolving.

I would appreciate your comments http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452

Thank you.

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for very interesting essay. I agree that Mathematic is Truth and pure geometry is the key. This view is highly underestimated. Einstein’s theory was also my starting point to derive the correspondence rule which links a mathematical structure with an empirical domain. The best example of a correspondence rule is really General Relativity, where gravitational force that can be measured is only a manifestation of spacetime geometry that can be calculated.

In my essay I extend this idea and I argue that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry. These geometric structures I find in the set of Thurston geometries with metrics and the wave transfer that make this still picture alive and evolving.

I would appreciate your comments http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452

Thank you.

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jacek,

Thanks for finding my Essay interesting.

I am going to carefully read, comment and score your Essay soon. The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry is indeed my dream of researcher and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist.

Thanks again and best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Thanks for finding my Essay interesting.

I am going to carefully read, comment and score your Essay soon. The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry is indeed my dream of researcher and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist.

Thanks again and best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Prof. Corda:

Thank you for your review of my essay. Brownian motion may be influenced by interaction activities. There is a clear hierarchy of size influences in dynamic steady-state thermodynamics.

In inspecting yours, I find Einstein's geometrical "bending of space time" as the source of gravity difficult to follow. Should Nature be so complex?

Somehow "activity" interactions of space and time seem appropriate to me, but obviously that gets complex too.. Ah, such is the human lot.

You rate high in my book, altho you"stretched" the submission rules a bit.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your review of my essay. Brownian motion may be influenced by interaction activities. There is a clear hierarchy of size influences in dynamic steady-state thermodynamics.

In inspecting yours, I find Einstein's geometrical "bending of space time" as the source of gravity difficult to follow. Should Nature be so complex?

Somehow "activity" interactions of space and time seem appropriate to me, but obviously that gets complex too.. Ah, such is the human lot.

You rate high in my book, altho you"stretched" the submission rules a bit.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ted,

As I wrote in your Essay page, you can merely call me Christian without any suffix.

Thanks for your reply on Brownian motion.

Concerning Einstein's geometrical "bending of space time" as the source of gravity, I think it is the most elegant intuition in the whole history of Science. I think that in, principle, it is not so much complex. What is really complex is its mathematical formulation through differential geometry and tensors.

Concerning the other point you raised, what do you mean telling that I "stretched" the submission rules a bit?

Cheers, Ch.

As I wrote in your Essay page, you can merely call me Christian without any suffix.

Thanks for your reply on Brownian motion.

Concerning Einstein's geometrical "bending of space time" as the source of gravity, I think it is the most elegant intuition in the whole history of Science. I think that in, principle, it is not so much complex. What is really complex is its mathematical formulation through differential geometry and tensors.

Concerning the other point you raised, what do you mean telling that I "stretched" the submission rules a bit?

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Professor Corda,

I think Einstein was wrong.

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I think Einstein was wrong.

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe,

Thanks for your comment.

I think that there are too much proofs on Einstein's vision of gravity which forbid to claim that Einstein was wrong, see for example this paper of Will.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for your comment.

I think that there are too much proofs on Einstein's vision of gravity which forbid to claim that Einstein was wrong, see for example this paper of Will.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Professor Corda,

Only abstract proofs of abstract mathematics exist for Einstein and Newton. An abstract proof can only be wrong. Reality can only be reality.

Please either try to refute my contention that real light is inert and there is no physical space or accept it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Only abstract proofs of abstract mathematics exist for Einstein and Newton. An abstract proof can only be wrong. Reality can only be reality.

Please either try to refute my contention that real light is inert and there is no physical space or accept it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

I am unaware of any way to apply the Equivalence Principle to rotating frames, as your analysis seems to suggest. One of your citations for this idea is Misner Thorne and Wheeler, but their formulation of the Equivalence Principle refers only to local Lorentz frames, not rotating frames. The Equivalence Einstein had in mind is between linearly accelerated frames in flat space-time and inertial (free-faliing) frames in a "uniform gravitational field". So the principle does not apply to rotating frames at all.

On p. 5, you mention "light propagating in the radial direction" in the rotating frame. But light (in a vacuum) just won't propagate in the radial direction in the way you suggest, i.e. such that the angular coordinates are constant. The trajectory of what would be radially propagating light in the original frame will be a spiral in the rotating frame.

Perhaps you could clearly state what you take the content of the Equivalence Principle to be, since you have in mind something different from the usual understanding, which can be found (for example) in Misner Thorne and Wheeler. There are also standard distinctions between a Weak and Strong Equivalence Principle, but neither of those corresponds to what you seem to have in mind.

Regards,

Tim Maudlin

report post as inappropriate

I am unaware of any way to apply the Equivalence Principle to rotating frames, as your analysis seems to suggest. One of your citations for this idea is Misner Thorne and Wheeler, but their formulation of the Equivalence Principle refers only to local Lorentz frames, not rotating frames. The Equivalence Einstein had in mind is between linearly accelerated frames in flat space-time and inertial (free-faliing) frames in a "uniform gravitational field". So the principle does not apply to rotating frames at all.

On p. 5, you mention "light propagating in the radial direction" in the rotating frame. But light (in a vacuum) just won't propagate in the radial direction in the way you suggest, i.e. such that the angular coordinates are constant. The trajectory of what would be radially propagating light in the original frame will be a spiral in the rotating frame.

Perhaps you could clearly state what you take the content of the Equivalence Principle to be, since you have in mind something different from the usual understanding, which can be found (for example) in Misner Thorne and Wheeler. There are also standard distinctions between a Weak and Strong Equivalence Principle, but neither of those corresponds to what you seem to have in mind.

Regards,

Tim Maudlin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tim,

Thanks for raising these important criticisms. Some clarifications could be indeed needed. For rotating frame here I mean the frame in which the observer sees the detector at rest (the absorber orbits around the source). Clearly, in that frame photons propagate in the radial direction. You are of course correct in highlighting that Equivalence Principle has local behavior. On the other hand, rotating frames generate the centrifuge acceleration in the radial direction cited above, which, in turn, defines a locally accelerated frame. Thus, it seems to me that the application of Equivalence Principle is completely legitimate.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for raising these important criticisms. Some clarifications could be indeed needed. For rotating frame here I mean the frame in which the observer sees the detector at rest (the absorber orbits around the source). Clearly, in that frame photons propagate in the radial direction. You are of course correct in highlighting that Equivalence Principle has local behavior. On the other hand, rotating frames generate the centrifuge acceleration in the radial direction cited above, which, in turn, defines a locally accelerated frame. Thus, it seems to me that the application of Equivalence Principle is completely legitimate.

Cheers, Ch.

It is my understanding that the equivalence principle works both ways. A frame in flat spacetime, say far out in interstellar space, and another frame falling in a radial gravity field or being frame dragged by any sort of gravity field have equivalent physics. Similarly a body on the hard surface of a body that is the source of a gravity field is equivalent to some accelerated frame in distant flat spacetime. By sitting in my chair the local physics is equivalent to being in an accelerated frame with g = 9.8m/s^2. If there exists a deviation this would be the same as saying the gravitational mass of a body is different from the inertial mass.

If there is a difference in the application of the EP to inertial and accelerated frames it would be news to me. It would be profoundly disappointing as well. I think a more general form of the EP is to say that the quantum vacuum is equivalent in different frames. Further I think that ultimately inertial and accelerated frames are themselves equivalent in quantum gravity.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

If there is a difference in the application of the EP to inertial and accelerated frames it would be news to me. It would be profoundly disappointing as well. I think a more general form of the EP is to say that the quantum vacuum is equivalent in different frames. Further I think that ultimately inertial and accelerated frames are themselves equivalent in quantum gravity.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Thanks LC.

On the other hand, the use of the Equivalence Principle in rotating frames in general and in the Mössbauer rotor experiment in particular has a long, more than fifty-year-old, history. In the paper of Kündig, i.e. ref. [3] in my Essay, which is dated 1963, one reads verbatim: "when the experiment is analyzed in a reference frame K attached to the accelerate observer, the problem could be treated [7] by the principle of equivalence of the general theory of relativity". Reference [7] in the paper of Kündig is the historical book of Pauli on the theory of relativity dated 1958. Thus, it seems that Tim Maudlin was wrong in his above comments. Here the key point is not the viability of the Equivalence Principle in treating this problem, but the issue that previous literature did not take into due account clock synchronization.

Cheers, Ch.

On the other hand, the use of the Equivalence Principle in rotating frames in general and in the Mössbauer rotor experiment in particular has a long, more than fifty-year-old, history. In the paper of Kündig, i.e. ref. [3] in my Essay, which is dated 1963, one reads verbatim: "when the experiment is analyzed in a reference frame K attached to the accelerate observer, the problem could be treated [7] by the principle of equivalence of the general theory of relativity". Reference [7] in the paper of Kündig is the historical book of Pauli on the theory of relativity dated 1958. Thus, it seems that Tim Maudlin was wrong in his above comments. Here the key point is not the viability of the Equivalence Principle in treating this problem, but the issue that previous literature did not take into due account clock synchronization.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Professor Corda,

Quoting from your essay, “Thus, our results are a celebration of the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s presentation of the complete theory of general relativity to the Prussian Academy as intriguing pre-established harmony between geometry and physics” I agree with the first part; but disagrees with the rest: “ and a strong endorsement to the statement that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick”.

My argument is that 'gravity is reaction to motion', and so gravity of a body bends its own path. The mathematical results valid for a 'curved space' is valid for a 'curved path' also. Mathematics simply cannot say which model is the right one, and thus can be tricky. Refer my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics

I propose the hypotheses: Fundamental particle of matter moves at the speed of light;. energy is motion and force reaction motion; hence both are finite and are equal. Starting from fundamental particles, the step by step integration of matter into a pulsating system can be explained. Force being finite, the distance between bodies cannot be arbitrary, and so the present Earth- Moon distance can be theoretically predicted, and this provides the proof for the hypotheses. Please visit: finitenesstheory.com.

report post as inappropriate

Quoting from your essay, “Thus, our results are a celebration of the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s presentation of the complete theory of general relativity to the Prussian Academy as intriguing pre-established harmony between geometry and physics” I agree with the first part; but disagrees with the rest: “ and a strong endorsement to the statement that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick”.

My argument is that 'gravity is reaction to motion', and so gravity of a body bends its own path. The mathematical results valid for a 'curved space' is valid for a 'curved path' also. Mathematics simply cannot say which model is the right one, and thus can be tricky. Refer my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics

I propose the hypotheses: Fundamental particle of matter moves at the speed of light;. energy is motion and force reaction motion; hence both are finite and are equal. Starting from fundamental particles, the step by step integration of matter into a pulsating system can be explained. Force being finite, the distance between bodies cannot be arbitrary, and so the present Earth- Moon distance can be theoretically predicted, and this provides the proof for the hypotheses. Please visit: finitenesstheory.com.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

Your essay is very interesting even though I am not sure I perfectly understood everything.

I agree with you that geometry is the key.

In my essay, I propose an intriguing list of equations for fundamental constants that show the recurrence of Phi (the golden ratio) and 8Pi-1 (a ratio I have discovered).

If you have the time, please take a look and let me know if you think these are just coincidences.

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is very interesting even though I am not sure I perfectly understood everything.

I agree with you that geometry is the key.

In my essay, I propose an intriguing list of equations for fundamental constants that show the recurrence of Phi (the golden ratio) and 8Pi-1 (a ratio I have discovered).

If you have the time, please take a look and let me know if you think these are just coincidences.

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian Corda,

I very much enjoyed your essay. Your treatment of the Mossbauer experiment was one I had not seen previously. However, in your essay I did not find as clearly stated your reply to Jacek above, specifically:

"*The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of space-time geometry is indeed my dream of research and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist*."

I too share essentially this vision and I'm optimistic that we are not that far from seeing results of this approach. I wonder how you reconcile 'instantaneous' entanglement with this view? I do not. I have, in my current essay, discussed a*novel* approach to Bell that I hope you will read and find interesting. I would appreciate any questions or comments you might have on this topic, as I believe entanglement to be completely incompatible with the fundamental approach you outline above.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I very much enjoyed your essay. Your treatment of the Mossbauer experiment was one I had not seen previously. However, in your essay I did not find as clearly stated your reply to Jacek above, specifically:

"

I too share essentially this vision and I'm optimistic that we are not that far from seeing results of this approach. I wonder how you reconcile 'instantaneous' entanglement with this view? I do not. I have, in my current essay, discussed a

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin Eugene,

I am happy to know that you very much enjoyed my essay. Thank you very much.

Yes, you are correct, I could have inserted my reply to Jacek directly in my essay. On the other hand, that is really a dream and I am optimist like you in thinking that we are not that far from seeing results of this approach.

Concerning the point that you raise on how one could reconcile 'instantaneous' entanglement with this view, I do not too. Entanglement is a quantum, non local effect, while general relativity is a classical, local theory. In any case, I will be pleasured to read, comment and score your essay soon.

Cheers, Ch.

I am happy to know that you very much enjoyed my essay. Thank you very much.

Yes, you are correct, I could have inserted my reply to Jacek directly in my essay. On the other hand, that is really a dream and I am optimist like you in thinking that we are not that far from seeing results of this approach.

Concerning the point that you raise on how one could reconcile 'instantaneous' entanglement with this view, I do not too. Entanglement is a quantum, non local effect, while general relativity is a classical, local theory. In any case, I will be pleasured to read, comment and score your essay soon.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi Christian,

"The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of space-time geometry is indeed my dream of research and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist."

I agree with this idea because I have the proof of it. In my system space, time, matter, energy and interaction laws are all arise naturally from basically random numbers. That leads to reality manifesting in Geometric Probability.

You can run the programs and see the results and the code is visible. Please do not be discouraged by the grand claims, they are natural outcome of the simulation. I just did what I was allowed to do with all the possible relations between these random numbers.

Essay

Thanks and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

"The idea that not only gravitation but all fundamental interactions and matter are manifestations of space-time geometry is indeed my dream of research and the first motivation bringing me to my job of scientist."

I agree with this idea because I have the proof of it. In my system space, time, matter, energy and interaction laws are all arise naturally from basically random numbers. That leads to reality manifesting in Geometric Probability.

You can run the programs and see the results and the code is visible. Please do not be discouraged by the grand claims, they are natural outcome of the simulation. I just did what I was allowed to do with all the possible relations between these random numbers.

Essay

Thanks and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

As usual you wrote an interesting essay. I also believe with your conclusion remark that "Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick". However, I do subscribe that Geometry is also a "Force" like Newton's gravitational Force. In my essay, KQID prescribes that Existence is geometrical and it is a mere Einstein complex coordinate points(numbers as in Pythagoras') or in this mathematical expression Ψ(iτLx,y,z, Lm). I am surely derived my theory from a very different paradigm however the outcomes must be about the same especially in our experiences and scientific experiments. KQID must also be able to explain and predict more than the dominant paradigm of today.

As usual, well deserved high score and best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

As usual you wrote an interesting essay. I also believe with your conclusion remark that "Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick". However, I do subscribe that Geometry is also a "Force" like Newton's gravitational Force. In my essay, KQID prescribes that Existence is geometrical and it is a mere Einstein complex coordinate points(numbers as in Pythagoras') or in this mathematical expression Ψ(iτLx,y,z, Lm). I am surely derived my theory from a very different paradigm however the outcomes must be about the same especially in our experiences and scientific experiments. KQID must also be able to explain and predict more than the dominant paradigm of today.

As usual, well deserved high score and best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ch,

I think I know how to do this k_1 + k_2 within a single treatment of the metric. We go back to the metric

ds^2 = Adt^2 - 2ωr^2dφdt – dr^2 – r^2dφ^2

for A = 1 – (ωr)^2. Now divide this entire equation by dt so that

(ds/dt)^2 = A - 2ωr^2(dφ/dt) – (dr/dt)^2 – r^2(dφ/dt)^2

This is the gamma factor for the system with ds/dt = 1/γ. The Lorentz gamma factor is then approximately after binomial theorem etc

γ =~ 1 + ½[(ωr)^2 + v_r^2 + 2ωr^2Ω + r^2Ω^2],

where v_r is the radial velocity and Ω is the angular velocity of the particle.

The particle is a photon and in the experimental set up it is set in a radial direction. The standard gamma factor for a particle does not pertain to a photon, but we are using that here with the idea that v_r is the speed of light or very close to that. We might consider the beam of photons to be just a highly relativistic beam of electrons, where these behave approximate to massless particles. We now consider that the photons are constrained to remain in a type of photon guide or fiber optic. This means the photons have an angular velocity component to them with

c^2 = v_r^2 + (ωr)^2.

The radial part we just write as c or unity as an approximation and we substitute this into the gamma factor, here modified to account for a photon that makes this different from the standard definition, to get

γ =~ ½ + 2(ωr)^2

This is then used to compute the time dilation dτ = γdt. We let dt -- > dr and the time dilation integrate along the radial direction

τ = ∫^R(½ + 2(ωr)^2)dr = R/2 + (2/3)ω^2R^3 = R(1/2 + (2/3)v^2R).

The R/2 can be eliminated if we just consider the difference in gamma factors as the relevant factor so that δγ = 2(ωr)^2 is the relevant factor to compute redshift factors.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I think I know how to do this k_1 + k_2 within a single treatment of the metric. We go back to the metric

ds^2 = Adt^2 - 2ωr^2dφdt – dr^2 – r^2dφ^2

for A = 1 – (ωr)^2. Now divide this entire equation by dt so that

(ds/dt)^2 = A - 2ωr^2(dφ/dt) – (dr/dt)^2 – r^2(dφ/dt)^2

This is the gamma factor for the system with ds/dt = 1/γ. The Lorentz gamma factor is then approximately after binomial theorem etc

γ =~ 1 + ½[(ωr)^2 + v_r^2 + 2ωr^2Ω + r^2Ω^2],

where v_r is the radial velocity and Ω is the angular velocity of the particle.

The particle is a photon and in the experimental set up it is set in a radial direction. The standard gamma factor for a particle does not pertain to a photon, but we are using that here with the idea that v_r is the speed of light or very close to that. We might consider the beam of photons to be just a highly relativistic beam of electrons, where these behave approximate to massless particles. We now consider that the photons are constrained to remain in a type of photon guide or fiber optic. This means the photons have an angular velocity component to them with

c^2 = v_r^2 + (ωr)^2.

The radial part we just write as c or unity as an approximation and we substitute this into the gamma factor, here modified to account for a photon that makes this different from the standard definition, to get

γ =~ ½ + 2(ωr)^2

This is then used to compute the time dilation dτ = γdt. We let dt -- > dr and the time dilation integrate along the radial direction

τ = ∫^R(½ + 2(ωr)^2)dr = R/2 + (2/3)ω^2R^3 = R(1/2 + (2/3)v^2R).

The R/2 can be eliminated if we just consider the difference in gamma factors as the relevant factor so that δγ = 2(ωr)^2 is the relevant factor to compute redshift factors.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Hi LC,

This is great! I suggest you to write a letter on your derivation and to submit it to Annals of Physics where I published my research paper on which my FQXi Essay is founded, i.e. Ann. Phys. 355, 360 (2015). In fact, your work is complementary to mine. You can also ask me as potential reviewer as I am in the board of reviewers of Annals of Physics.

Cheers, Ch.

This is great! I suggest you to write a letter on your derivation and to submit it to Annals of Physics where I published my research paper on which my FQXi Essay is founded, i.e. Ann. Phys. 355, 360 (2015). In fact, your work is complementary to mine. You can also ask me as potential reviewer as I am in the board of reviewers of Annals of Physics.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

Thank you for reading my essay and glad that you liked it. I went through that link that you posted and it was very interesting, I also need to go through your essay very thoroughly because I have not gotten the right results for the gravity as I have for the others.

Indeed the exotic results that I am getting is even surprising to me and I am not too sure what to make of them, but I do have a general idea. I did rate your essay and I may have some questions for you later.

Thanks

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for reading my essay and glad that you liked it. I went through that link that you posted and it was very interesting, I also need to go through your essay very thoroughly because I have not gotten the right results for the gravity as I have for the others.

Indeed the exotic results that I am getting is even surprising to me and I am not too sure what to make of them, but I do have a general idea. I did rate your essay and I may have some questions for you later.

Thanks

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel,

Thanks for your kind message. It was my pleasure to read your nice Essay. Thanks also for finding very interesting my work on black holes. I think that the issue that you have not gotten the right results for the gravity as you have for the others is due to the point that gravity is the most evasive interaction among the 4 we know.

I look forward to see your comments to my Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for your kind message. It was my pleasure to read your nice Essay. Thanks also for finding very interesting my work on black holes. I think that the issue that you have not gotten the right results for the gravity as you have for the others is due to the point that gravity is the most evasive interaction among the 4 we know.

I look forward to see your comments to my Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

An interesting essay, offering a simple and elegant resolution to a puzzling experimental problem. Very nice work.

Do you know this paper by Bini et al.? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0106013

Best wishes and good luck in the contest!

Christine

report post as inappropriate

An interesting essay, offering a simple and elegant resolution to a puzzling experimental problem. Very nice work.

Do you know this paper by Bini et al.? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0106013

Best wishes and good luck in the contest!

Christine

report post as inappropriate

Hi Christian,

I always look forward to your essays, because I know I can expect a maximum of theoretical prediction and numerical result, with a minimum of blah,blah, blah ...

It is evidenced that relativists do not often get due respect in this forum -- I hope you are an exception. The time synchronization issue does indeed cross boundaries of classical and quantum gravity, and rotation is key to the geometry of time synchronized systems.

I hope you get a chance to visit my essay where, in part, I examine rotation in the complex plane (Euler's geometric interpretation of C) that may have the potential to join Hilbert space quantum dynamics to the continuous functions of classical spacetime.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I always look forward to your essays, because I know I can expect a maximum of theoretical prediction and numerical result, with a minimum of blah,blah, blah ...

It is evidenced that relativists do not often get due respect in this forum -- I hope you are an exception. The time synchronization issue does indeed cross boundaries of classical and quantum gravity, and rotation is key to the geometry of time synchronized systems.

I hope you get a chance to visit my essay where, in part, I examine rotation in the complex plane (Euler's geometric interpretation of C) that may have the potential to join Hilbert space quantum dynamics to the continuous functions of classical spacetime.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tom,

It is a pleasure to meet you again in FQXi Essay Contest. I am very honoured by your statement that "always look forward to your essays, because I know I can expect a maximum of theoretical prediction and numerical result, with a minimum of blah,blah, blah ..." It is really a great compliment, thank you very much.

It will be my pleasure to read, comment and score your Essay asap.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

It is a pleasure to meet you again in FQXi Essay Contest. I am very honoured by your statement that "always look forward to your essays, because I know I can expect a maximum of theoretical prediction and numerical result, with a minimum of blah,blah, blah ..." It is really a great compliment, thank you very much.

It will be my pleasure to read, comment and score your Essay asap.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

I enjoyed your essay, and I agree with you that "General relativity is [...] the best example showing that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick." And what is the best way to show once more this, than to confirm its validity by explaining the deviation in the Mössbauer rotor experiment, deviation which was even considered an evidence against general relativity's adequacy. That's a good way to answer the contest's question, and in the same time to celebrate 100 years of general relativity. Congratulations!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay, and I agree with you that "General relativity is [...] the best example showing that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick." And what is the best way to show once more this, than to confirm its validity by explaining the deviation in the Mössbauer rotor experiment, deviation which was even considered an evidence against general relativity's adequacy. That's a good way to answer the contest's question, and in the same time to celebrate 100 years of general relativity. Congratulations!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Hi Cristi,

I am very happy to meet you again in FQXi Essay Contest. You indeed know that I am an estimator of your research work. Thus, I am extremely honoured by your good judgement on my Essay and by your congrats, thank you very much.

I will be pleasured to read, comment and score your Essay asap.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

I am very happy to meet you again in FQXi Essay Contest. You indeed know that I am an estimator of your research work. Thus, I am extremely honoured by your good judgement on my Essay and by your congrats, thank you very much.

I will be pleasured to read, comment and score your Essay asap.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

Your essay as always is a rich educational resource, and it's a perfect sentiment for the 100th celebration of General Relativity - a strong and independent proof which reveals the full geometric interpretation of gravity. You provide an excellent analysis of the Mossbauer effect - one I haven't seen before, and your geometric interpretation of time dilation and clock synchronization are absolutely enlightening! You spell out specific pivotal ideas and back them up with technical rigor and lucid experimental evidence; I thoroughly thank you for this solid approach. I also appreciated the application to GPS systems at the end of your essay, a field I briefly consulted in many years ago. A class act contribution to this topic and the forum, I give it the highest rating.

My essay also brings out how changing the mathematical representation can educe quite amazing revelations in physical explanation, and discusses General Relativity's geometric interpretation as a key feature. Furthermore, it mentions the geometric effect on the Turing machine, and uses relativity theory in understanding the multiverse explanation of self referentially induced superposition. Please take a moment to read my essay and rate it as well,

Thanks, Steve

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Your essay as always is a rich educational resource, and it's a perfect sentiment for the 100th celebration of General Relativity - a strong and independent proof which reveals the full geometric interpretation of gravity. You provide an excellent analysis of the Mossbauer effect - one I haven't seen before, and your geometric interpretation of time dilation and clock synchronization are absolutely enlightening! You spell out specific pivotal ideas and back them up with technical rigor and lucid experimental evidence; I thoroughly thank you for this solid approach. I also appreciated the application to GPS systems at the end of your essay, a field I briefly consulted in many years ago. A class act contribution to this topic and the forum, I give it the highest rating.

My essay also brings out how changing the mathematical representation can educe quite amazing revelations in physical explanation, and discusses General Relativity's geometric interpretation as a key feature. Furthermore, it mentions the geometric effect on the Turing machine, and uses relativity theory in understanding the multiverse explanation of self referentially induced superposition. Please take a moment to read my essay and rate it as well,

Thanks, Steve

report post as inappropriate

Hi Steve,

Nice to meet you again here in FQXi Essay Contest.

Thanks for your kind words and for the highest rating which honour me.

I must confess that the application to GPS systems at the end of my essay was suggested by a referee of reference [16] in my Essay, which is my research paper published in Ann. Phys. 355, 360 (2015). In fact, I formally thanked that very expert referee in both that research paper and this Essay, which is founded on such a research paper.

I will be very pleasured to read, comment and rate your Essay asap.

Thanks again, I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Nice to meet you again here in FQXi Essay Contest.

Thanks for your kind words and for the highest rating which honour me.

I must confess that the application to GPS systems at the end of my essay was suggested by a referee of reference [16] in my Essay, which is my research paper published in Ann. Phys. 355, 360 (2015). In fact, I formally thanked that very expert referee in both that research paper and this Essay, which is founded on such a research paper.

I will be very pleasured to read, comment and rate your Essay asap.

Thanks again, I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dr. Corda,

I also was pleased to see someone celebrate the centennial of General Relativity and had read your abstract immediately. I was not surprised to recognize that I'm not equipped to venture in without a guide and browsing for information confirmed that. The salient feature appears to be the disjunct between SR and GR, and the lack of a unified field resolution that would make GR...

view entire post

I also was pleased to see someone celebrate the centennial of General Relativity and had read your abstract immediately. I was not surprised to recognize that I'm not equipped to venture in without a guide and browsing for information confirmed that. The salient feature appears to be the disjunct between SR and GR, and the lack of a unified field resolution that would make GR...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

OOPS! drat...

at end of paragraph 4 should read ' 1 sec/sec @ c || 0 sec/sec @ 0 '

jrc

report post as inappropriate

at end of paragraph 4 should read ' 1 sec/sec @ c || 0 sec/sec @ 0 '

jrc

report post as inappropriate

Christian,

Great essay. You maintain an exceptional standard. I also agree the wisdom of your approach, which I also use, not attacking Einstein for incompleteness or flaws but helping complete it and improve the understanding. I also found your writing very clear and concise. I think it should be another top essay (in the community scoring at least - certainly for me) but I hope may also now seem more palatable to those more theoretically entrenched.

You should be aware of the other commonalities, but this year I also identify and analyze the consequences of the great mathematical self-deception underlying QM and hampering unification. i.e. I show we CAN trick ourselves by carelessly 'abusing' mathematics in application. I do hope you'll read and comment as I'm sure you'll like and agree it and also maybe find it helpful

Very well done and thank you for a different vista on the reality we agree on.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Great essay. You maintain an exceptional standard. I also agree the wisdom of your approach, which I also use, not attacking Einstein for incompleteness or flaws but helping complete it and improve the understanding. I also found your writing very clear and concise. I think it should be another top essay (in the community scoring at least - certainly for me) but I hope may also now seem more palatable to those more theoretically entrenched.

You should be aware of the other commonalities, but this year I also identify and analyze the consequences of the great mathematical self-deception underlying QM and hampering unification. i.e. I show we CAN trick ourselves by carelessly 'abusing' mathematics in application. I do hope you'll read and comment as I'm sure you'll like and agree it and also maybe find it helpful

Very well done and thank you for a different vista on the reality we agree on.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Christian,

Great opportunity to celebrate GR and Einstein's 100th anniversary. You provide a cogent explanation of a strong and independent proof which reveals the full geometric interpretation of gravity.

Indeed, Math is truth rather than trick. I have done modelling and simulation and always valued the power of math to lend understanding to operation of weapon systems in aerospace and solve practical problems. I also see its need in bringing us forward in quantum biology, a better understanding of the universe's beginnings (LHC) and the origins of life (DNA). These are sort of my proofs.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Great opportunity to celebrate GR and Einstein's 100th anniversary. You provide a cogent explanation of a strong and independent proof which reveals the full geometric interpretation of gravity.

Indeed, Math is truth rather than trick. I have done modelling and simulation and always valued the power of math to lend understanding to operation of weapon systems in aerospace and solve practical problems. I also see its need in bringing us forward in quantum biology, a better understanding of the universe's beginnings (LHC) and the origins of life (DNA). These are sort of my proofs.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jim,

I am happy to meet you again here in FQXi Essay Contest. I am honoured by your good judgement on my Essay, thank you very much.

I will read, comment and rate your Essay asap.

Thanks again.

Cheers, Ch.

I am happy to meet you again here in FQXi Essay Contest. I am honoured by your good judgement on my Essay, thank you very much.

I will read, comment and rate your Essay asap.

Thanks again.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Christian,

Thanks for taking the time to read my essay. Regarding your comment on Santilli, have you seen this latest report? I don't know all the nuances. What is your reaction?

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12448979.htm

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for taking the time to read my essay. Regarding your comment on Santilli, have you seen this latest report? I don't know all the nuances. What is your reaction?

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12448979.htm

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jim,

Thanks for raised this point. It permits indeed to clarify my position with Santilli also here in FQXi. Santilli is indeed considered a crackpot and a crank by the Scientific Community, see here. Differently from this general judgement, I think that there are parts of Santilli's research which should deserve a better attention, in particular Santilli's research on new clean...

view entire post

Thanks for raised this point. It permits indeed to clarify my position with Santilli also here in FQXi. Santilli is indeed considered a crackpot and a crank by the Scientific Community, see here. Differently from this general judgement, I think that there are parts of Santilli's research which should deserve a better attention, in particular Santilli's research on new clean...

view entire post

Christian,

Not being part of the upper echelons of physics, I appreciate being informed on such anti-matter studies and about reputations in scientific studies. The discovery of antigalaxies seemed questionable, even with my limited knowledge. It is sad that such studies can be elevated in importance in the popular media. It speaks to all the deceptions we see in politics and government. Perhaps they can't be separated because the media is no longer a responsible "Fourth Estate."

Thanks for the scoop.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Not being part of the upper echelons of physics, I appreciate being informed on such anti-matter studies and about reputations in scientific studies. The discovery of antigalaxies seemed questionable, even with my limited knowledge. It is sad that such studies can be elevated in importance in the popular media. It speaks to all the deceptions we see in politics and government. Perhaps they can't be separated because the media is no longer a responsible "Fourth Estate."

Thanks for the scoop.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jim,

I think that the Santilli Foundation paid a lot of money to see that stuff on antimatter publicized in the popular media. On the other hand, I also think that Santilli made this in good faith, as he thinks to be correct and it is his proper right to publicize his studies. He is not a bad guy, but the key point is that those studies, as well as other studies by him in gravitation, astrophysics and cosmology, are completely wrong at a basic level. I still think that Santilli's research work should deserve a better attention by the scientific community, particularly what concerns the research of new clean energies, but his knowledge and understanding of general relativity, modern astrophysics and modern cosmology are extremely low, and his wrong claims on these issues have the only result to generate a strong lack of credibility on the rest of his research work. This is his biggest problem, and he is the worst enemy of himself.

Cheers, Ch.

I think that the Santilli Foundation paid a lot of money to see that stuff on antimatter publicized in the popular media. On the other hand, I also think that Santilli made this in good faith, as he thinks to be correct and it is his proper right to publicize his studies. He is not a bad guy, but the key point is that those studies, as well as other studies by him in gravitation, astrophysics and cosmology, are completely wrong at a basic level. I still think that Santilli's research work should deserve a better attention by the scientific community, particularly what concerns the research of new clean energies, but his knowledge and understanding of general relativity, modern astrophysics and modern cosmology are extremely low, and his wrong claims on these issues have the only result to generate a strong lack of credibility on the rest of his research work. This is his biggest problem, and he is the worst enemy of himself.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

Very interesting, important and actual essay in 100 year anniversary of the General Theory of Relativity. I have one question: when the Great Ontologic revolution begun by Planck and Einstein comes to the end?

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting, important and actual essay in 100 year anniversary of the General Theory of Relativity. I have one question: when the Great Ontologic revolution begun by Planck and Einstein comes to the end?

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

I realize this is a funny thing to start with, but I am impressed by your care to add technical endnotes that make your essay accessible to a large public, as required by the contest rules. I didn't read all essays but I feel it's safe to say that you are the only physicist of this caliber to display such care.

Between all physical theories, relativity is the closest to my heart so I was delighted to read your analysis of the experimental measurement of curvature through means of a rotational system. Your insightful idea to account for clock synchronization does justice to this theory, being a very appropriate way to reclaim and celebrate its meaning. This is very good work and I would like to express my heart-felt congratulations for it. I wish you best of luck in the contest and I am accompanying my regards with a well-deserved rating. Should you have the time to give my essay a read, your comments would be very appreciated.

Warm regards,

Alma

report post as inappropriate

I realize this is a funny thing to start with, but I am impressed by your care to add technical endnotes that make your essay accessible to a large public, as required by the contest rules. I didn't read all essays but I feel it's safe to say that you are the only physicist of this caliber to display such care.

Between all physical theories, relativity is the closest to my heart so I was delighted to read your analysis of the experimental measurement of curvature through means of a rotational system. Your insightful idea to account for clock synchronization does justice to this theory, being a very appropriate way to reclaim and celebrate its meaning. This is very good work and I would like to express my heart-felt congratulations for it. I wish you best of luck in the contest and I am accompanying my regards with a well-deserved rating. Should you have the time to give my essay a read, your comments would be very appreciated.

Warm regards,

Alma

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alma,

Thanks for your kind words and very nice comments which honour me.

Relativity is the the theory closest to my heart too. It is pure beauty.

I will be pleasured to read, comment and rate your Essay asap.

Thanks again, I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for your kind words and very nice comments which honour me.

Relativity is the the theory closest to my heart too. It is pure beauty.

I will be pleasured to read, comment and rate your Essay asap.

Thanks again, I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

Thank you very much for your words as they bring me joy! I just wanted to let you know I answered you.

Wish you a lovely start of the week!

Alma

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much for your words as they bring me joy! I just wanted to let you know I answered you.

Wish you a lovely start of the week!

Alma

report post as inappropriate

Christian,

Thanks again for your kind comments on my essay. I haven't had time to read yours in detail yet (and I'm neurotic about saying much unless I do), but already appreciate that you address specific experimental results and predictions in light of particular theoretical expectations and critiques. That adds more than generalizations and philosophizing can do on their own. Note this...

view entire post

Thanks again for your kind comments on my essay. I haven't had time to read yours in detail yet (and I'm neurotic about saying much unless I do), but already appreciate that you address specific experimental results and predictions in light of particular theoretical expectations and critiques. That adds more than generalizations and philosophizing can do on their own. Note this...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Neil,

Thanks for your kind message. Concerning the issues you raise, in my opinion the key point is that there are still a lot of misunderstandings on how both Einstein Equivalence Principle and the General Theory of Relativity really work, see for example the above misunderstandings by the FQXi Member Tim Maudlin that I attempted to clarify. Here my approach to solve the problem of clocks' synchronization by using the power of Einstein Equivalence Principle and the geometrical approach of General Relativity works very well because the strong consistence with experimental results cannot be a coincidence.

Reading your pretty Essay was my pleasure, I wish you best luck in the contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for your kind message. Concerning the issues you raise, in my opinion the key point is that there are still a lot of misunderstandings on how both Einstein Equivalence Principle and the General Theory of Relativity really work, see for example the above misunderstandings by the FQXi Member Tim Maudlin that I attempted to clarify. Here my approach to solve the problem of clocks' synchronization by using the power of Einstein Equivalence Principle and the geometrical approach of General Relativity works very well because the strong consistence with experimental results cannot be a coincidence.

Reading your pretty Essay was my pleasure, I wish you best luck in the contest.

Cheers, Ch.

I have finished reading and rated your essay Christian..

I shall have some comments to share when there is more time. I hope still to read one more before midnight. It makes sense that the predictions of Relativity should work out precisely, given the range of scale. There are known issues below 10^-12 cm and beyond the Hubble limit, but it all boils down to pure geometry within that range.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I shall have some comments to share when there is more time. I hope still to read one more before midnight. It makes sense that the predictions of Relativity should work out precisely, given the range of scale. There are known issues below 10^-12 cm and beyond the Hubble limit, but it all boils down to pure geometry within that range.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.