CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
A Tale of Two Relativities by Colin Walker
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Colin Walker wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 17:22 GMT
Essay AbstractSome fundamental aspects of gravitation, quantum mechanics and cosmology are identified, as well as departures from modern premises. A synthesis of modern ideas yields a radically different picture of the universe. In gravitation, a relativistic accounting of redshift associated with potential energy is required, leading to a novel gravitational relativity. In quantum mechanics, Planck's hypothesis about quantization of energy levels is essential, while the notion that quantum mechanics belongs in the domain of the small is questionable. In cosmology, recognizing the galactic redshift of light in the context of Planck's hypothesis dispenses with the big bang, inflation and dark energy.
Author BioMost of my professional life involved academic research into various aspects of digital signal processing. I received a BMath from the University of Waterloo in 1970.
Download Essay PDF File
Author Colin Walker wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 01:44 GMT
This very short
clip from the Simpsons seems relevant somehow.
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 17:01 GMT
Dear Colin Walker,
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Author Colin Walker wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 22:21 GMT
Typo at the end of the section on the product integral in the Appendix. The Schwarzschild scale factor is inverted. It should not have a negative sign in the exponent.
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Colin Walker,
I very much enjoyed your essay "
A Tale of Two Relativities". You begin with Galilean versus special relativity. My essay discusses Galilean and Lorentzian in a way you may not have seen. I attempted, while reading your essay to see how my results would affect your results, but it is late at night and you cover many complex instances. I also need to review the Gullstrand-Painleve' formulation.
I will re-read your essay and possibly comment further. I hope you will read my essay and would appreciate any comments you might make.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 10:52 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman
Ref.1, "The River Model of Black Holes" by Hamilton and Lisle", is a great introduction to Gullstrand-Painleve' coordinates, and shows the power of the concept by deriving all sorts of metrics. Their 16 page paper is quite dense. Mathematically, all that is needed to understand G-P in my paper is the first ten lines of their introduction!
I am intrigued by Hertz's distinction about space having an intrinsic velocity, compared to Einstein's concept. That sounds like the river model to me. I will comment after finishing your essay.
Best to you,
Colin
Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT
Dear Mr. Walker,
I like your focus on the big picture of fundamental physics: relativity, quantum waves, and cosmology. The orthodox view is that these are completely incompatible, but it is more likely that the incompatible aspects are incorrect. Simplicity and unity are missing from the orthodox theories, and need to be restored.
You might be interested in my essay,
“Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I argue that both GR and QM have been largely misunderstood. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.
This picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will people start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Alan Kadin
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 17:34 GMT
Dear Alan,
If I am not over-simplifying, your point that QM ought to be about making solitons out of waves is well taken. In Quantum Theory (1951), Bohm mentions an interesting wave packet that "does not change its shape in time" "because of a peculiarity of the harmonic oscillator wave functions that is not duplicated in any other system." The wave packet does change in time, but it does so periodically,
Bohm goes on to say that "The particular wave packet that we have chosen is unusual, in that it has the same wave function as does the lowest state of the oscillator, except that its center has been displaced ..." These quotes are from Chapt.13 on The Harmonic Oscillator, Sec.15 Wave Packets, p.306-308 in the Dover paperback edition.
So it is possible to have something like a soliton wave packet, but only for the lowest state of a quantum harmonic oscillator. For the cosmological case that I consider, this implies that matter (or at least light) in the form of a wave packet of these solitons would be made from a superposition of waves with energy at the zero-point.
Cheers,
Colin
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 13:43 GMT
Colin,
I'm glad to see that you have continued your quest regarding the Red-Shift.
I am not familiar with product integrals.
I share your questioning of the equivalence principal. In one case, a rocket ship experiences acceleration and moves through space. In the other case, an object on Earth experiences gravity but is stationary. So, for them to be truly equivalent in my mind, something must be moving with respect to the stationary object on Earth.
I have a similar objection regarding centripetal force and acceleration. If an object is swung on a string, that object keeps the same face pointed towards the center-point of its orbit. If a satellite is orbiting the Earth, centripetal force and gravity offset each other. BUT ... the object's face will appear to rotate because the object's axis will remain fixed.
Occam's Razor should favor your argument since you only need one factor but expansion requires two factors. Simpler is better PROVIDED both hypotheses make the same predictions.
All in all, this is a very good essay. Well done.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 21:53 GMT
Hi Gary,
You are not alone in being unfamiliar with product integrals. I had not even heard of the term a year ago, but the idea had occurred to me in 1970, in the summer after graduation, having some idle time. I used the musical symbol for bass clef to represent the product integral, and treble clef for its inverse, the logarithmic derivative (sometimes called the "product derivative"). These can be used in modeling reflectivity, in geophysics or optics for instance, where the effect of each layer is multiplicative.
Your essay gave me an idea when it came out, but I'll give it another before commenting.
Best to you,
Colin
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 20:23 GMT
Colin,
Nicely written, organised and founded essay and hypothesis. A pleasure to read, interesting and insightful. Well done, I have you well up there. Also well done resisting scattering it with mathematics, though I'm also unfamiliar with integrals! Are you at all familiar with quaternions?
If you're interested in seeing & maybe helping helping falsify an apparent classical reproduction of QM's predictions I hope you'll read and comment on mine. The compatible computer code and plot is in Declan Trail's.
I look forward to any observations.
Best of luck in the contest
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 00:57 GMT
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your kind comments. It seems that many others, myself included, have exploited the detection loophole to violate Bell's inequality, but I have seen only one that converges to the sinusoidal correlation expected from QM. Richard Gill's analysis of Philip Pearle's work on quaternions resulted in this procedure, which converges nicely. I also posted the procedure with Declan's essay.
The method requires three(!) random numbers R1,R2,R3 generated uniformly over the interval 0-1 for each trial. Gill stores a large set of transformed random numbers, z,x,s, to be reused in trials for any combination of settings by Alice and Bob.
The first two random numbers are transformed to cover a spherical shell, and then projected onto a plane running through the center, forming a disc. Points on the plane are taken as 2d vectors (z,x), so the distribution of their magnitude is biased towards the edge of the disc, where it is most dense.
The third random number sets the threshold, s, for detection, with another carefully crafted distribution.
z = 2 R1 - 1
x = sqrt(1 - z^2) cos(2 pi R2)
s = [ 2 / sqrt(3 R3 + 1) ] - 1
A unit vector (az,ax) in the z-x plane sets Alice's angle, with (bz,bx) for Bob. Projections are calculated as follows
pa = (z,x) . (az,ax) = z az + x ax
pb = (z,x) . (bz,bx) = z bz + x bx
A detection occurs when the absolute value of both pa and pb is greater than s. The correlation for a detected event is given by the product of the signs of their projections
C = sign(pa) sign(pb)
The average correlation for this Gill-Pearle method converges to the cosine expectation as the number of trials is increased.
I tried implementing Declan Traill's algorithm in C without success so far. The procedures are similar, and the javascript code for noise generation and decision-making is easy to follow, but I have made some error in calculation, and will have to spend more time looking for it, or start over.
Cheers,
Colin
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 20:06 GMT
Colin,
Re; above; The easy way to start is to follow through the actual mechanism using the brains visualisation skills computing power and logic. As Wheeler said, get the answer before doing the maths! I see you haven't read/commented on my essay yet (I always try to assess & score they who do!) The Process;
1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.
2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)
3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.
4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.
5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.
6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.
7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.
8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!
If the numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 you've got them right.
Let me know how you get on.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Richard J Benish wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 06:52 GMT
Hi Colin,
Your essay is well written, with a clear, fluid style.
I get that one of the "relativities" is Galilean, but I cannot say that the second or third ones ever clearly registered. Perhaps this is due to my resistance to "relativity" theories in general. The absoluteness of rotational motion and the rest frame corresponding to an isotropic cosmic background radiation suggest to me that all motion is ultimately absolute, however difficult it may be to ascertain the state of motion of a particular reference frame.
You appeal to the "river" model of black holes and write of "the speed of space moving inward to a gravitating object." As with others who have contemplated flowing space models, you've implicitly stopped the exploration at the outer surface of the source. I'd guess that the most interesting part of a gravitational field (whatever that is) is from the surface inward. This regime is nearly always left sadly unexplored.
In the present case, if "gravitational potential" is somehow correlated with flowing space, the flow should have no net direction at the center. If the flow is somehow responsible for the slowing of clocks due to gravity, the effect should go to zero at the center. A clock there would have a maximum rate. But if that's true, then not only the general relativistic, but also the Newtonian prediction for an object falling into a hole through the center would seem to be wrong: A test object would not oscillate along the length of an antipodal hole.
This highlights the importance of empirical evidence. It invites performing an experiment to find out what happens at the center (not of a planet like Earth, of course, but in a laboratory or satellite-sized massive sphere). What does your model predict for such an experiment? Does it make any other predictions that would facilitate deciding whether Nature is more accurately conceived according to your model, or that of the status quo?
Cheers,
Richard Benish
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:49 GMT
Edwin Eugene Klingman expressed a similar uneasiness about the river model, and I responded with the following two paragraphs.
The name 'river model' is rather fanciful. I also have great difficulty visualizing space moving into matter - it flows in but not out? A better explanation might be that it is some sort of wave motion that propagates through space. I am thinking of something like the moving pattern on a cuttlefish that sweeps over it in waves. The surface of the cuttlefish is not moving, but the pattern gives an illusion of motion. For waves of force, instead of lines of force, there would have to be some coupling between matter and waves, but also between waves to promote coherence.
My visualization of standing waves comes from experiencing them too close for comfort. I was fishing in a canoe with a friend at the [northwest] corner of the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver. The tide was strong, a line got caught in the electric motor, and we were swept through rapids to the east side of the bridge. Having survived the rapids, we were being carried toward a field of standing waves being reflected off the shoreline looking like rows of jaws. I was surprised and terrified by the sight, and have wondered ever since whether the waves might act as trap. It is a long way to gravity from there, but the physical analogy of waves seems better than a river.
I share Galileo's intuition about oscillation of a cannonball in a hole through the Earth, but intuition is a resource of last resort used in the absence of knowledge. Your point about empirical evidence is well taken. A space-borne test called LATOR was proposed which could measure deflection of a laser beam to second order, or about 1 part in 10^12 accuracy. I think LATOR and LISA (space based version of LIGO) would use similar technology. LISA is still another 15 years away, and LATOR seems dormant.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 13:58 GMT
Prof Colin Walker
Your wonderful thinking about the fundamental aspects of gravitation, quantum mechanics and cosmology are identified, as well as departures from modern premises..... are very nice.... I hope you will have a look at this essay also....
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate...
view entire post
Prof Colin Walker
Your wonderful thinking about the fundamental aspects of gravitation, quantum mechanics and cosmology are identified, as well as departures from modern premises..... are very nice.... I hope you will have a look at this essay also....
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 07:20 GMT
Dear Colin,
Here we are again all together.
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.
I agree with you
«recognizing the galactic redshift of light in the context of Planck's hypothesis dispenses with the big bang, inflation and dark energy». Great!
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear Colin
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...
view entire post
Dear Colin
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 01:55 GMT
Hi Colin,
I just looked at your essay.
To quote you: "In quantum mechanics, Planck's hypothesis about quantization of energy levels is essential, while the notion that quantum mechanics belongs in the domain of the small is questionable."
I agree, and believe my work will "rocket" quantum mechanics into the furthest reaches of the universe.....really:)
1. Big bang ....Maybe.
2. Inflation... probably not.
3. Dark Energy....I believe it is the stuff of space-time.
Take a look at my essay, and let me know if it meshes with yours in some ways.
Thanks for your essay,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 11:40 GMT
Dear Colin,
I'm sure your explanation of the red shift is the best. Your work is very serious and deserves a good score. Two relativities are also one of the possible good approaches to explain the movements in the reality. Note that my essay describes the current state (without the analysis of the movement).
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:31 GMT
Hi Colin,
Before this contest closes, I wanted to thank you again for the positive remarks you made on my blog. Of all the entrants you understand me the fullest. We do not agree on everything...so what. However, we both see QM as a phenomena that has been forced into the microscopic. When it explodes onto the dimensions of the universe physics will be changed.
This essay contest will be noted by historians as having two entrants having a foresight into the future.
Being understood is such a pleasure.
Thank you,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:59 GMT
Thanks Don. It is good to feel appreciated, and back at you. For sure, our ideas resonate nicely.
Colin
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear Colin,
You wrote an interesting essay in which you compared and contrasted alternatives to the current paradigm on gravity. I will offer some comments which are meant to help you consider possible ways to present them in a way that your ideas will be more likely considered by the relativity community.
1. On page 2 you write:"It turns out that the radial escape velocity required...
view entire post
Dear Colin,
You wrote an interesting essay in which you compared and contrasted alternatives to the current paradigm on gravity. I will offer some comments which are meant to help you consider possible ways to present them in a way that your ideas will be more likely considered by the relativity community.
1. On page 2 you write:"It turns out that the radial escape velocity required for general relativity is the same as Newtonian escape speed. This coincidence indicates that the foundation of general relativity is entrenched in the classical realm."
I suspect orthodox relativists will dock you for this because, as I understand, the coincidence comes about because of a cancellation of two factors. Now, you might have meant that the fact that the cancellation which results in the same escape velocity is exact indicates that the foundation of GR is entrenched in the classical realm, but that requires an application of the principle of charity of which you may or may not be the beneficiary.
2. I know that you have pursued the idea of multiplicative potential for some time now, and unfortunately I do not recall the answer to the following questions, so I ask now: Can you derive it from the Einstein Field Equations (EFE)? If not, is this because they require a modification? You gave an alternate potential formulation for the Schwarzschild solution. If the latter is not correct, do you mean that its derivation from the EFE is faulty or that you need modified EFE? Although I have only tangential contact with the relativity community, I think that they might be more receptive to an approach formulated in terms of field equations. Of course, that also means that any of the observed predictions of GR, most recently gravitational waves, also have be accounted by it.
3. The cosmological implications seem intriguing but unfortunately my background is too little to be able to seriously evaluate them. Questioning Hubble recession seems like it might be a radical step for many cosmologists.
I do hope that your ideas are seriously considered and compared to experimental data. It might be that GR still has some surprises in store for us.
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 03:21 GMT
Hi Armin. Thanks for your helpful comments.
1.
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 11:57 GMT
Dear Colin,
It appears that your response was cut short by the cyberpoltergeists lurking around here, ha.
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 17:22 GMT
Hi Armin. Here is my response which was cut short. I recall copying the text into the window, but then editing it. This is an updated version.
1.
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 17:27 GMT
Hi Armin. Here is my response which was cut short. I recall copying the text into the window, but then editing it. This is an updated version. OK. It does not like angle brackets, which are used in HTML tags.
1. - I am ignorant of many of the details of general relativity, including the one you point out. I think my statement ought to be evident after the succeeding argument about redshifts...
view entire post
Hi Armin. Here is my response which was cut short. I recall copying the text into the window, but then editing it. This is an updated version. OK. It does not like angle brackets, which are used in HTML tags.
1. - I am ignorant of many of the details of general relativity, including the one you point out. I think my statement ought to be evident after the succeeding argument about redshifts (and hence potential energy) requiring relativistic treatment which leads to the Machian escape velocity, regardless of those details. After all, that escape velocity leads to a different metric.
2.1 Can you derive it from the Einstein Field Equations (EFE)? - No.
2.2 ... is this because they require a modification? - Yes.
2.3 ... do you mean that its derivation from the EFE is faulty? - I do not contest the Schwarzschild solution of the EFE.
2.4 ... or that you need modified EFE? - Yes.
Either the EFE or the underlying differential geometry for gravity (or both) will need modification. For this latter consideration see the document tangent.pdf at the revisingnewton website in the References, which modifies the equation of the tangent to have the properties of a logarithmic differential instead of a linear differential. It seems to me that these are clues which might chip away at the problem of how to procede.
So, I have a relativistic gravitational potential energy function, yielding a Machian escape velocity, which has an associated Machian metric. It is almost like a textbook problem, where you are given a premise (Machian potential energy), and the answer (Machian metric), and are expected to provide the theory (something like general relativity, which I bypassed using G-P coordinates to get the metric).
3. Questioning Hubble recession seems like it might be a radical step for many cosmologists. - I have been working on tired light for quite a while. On posing a question to JV Narlikar about the possibility of publishing a paper on Hh, he responded, "Infinite patience is required". At this point I am just hoping that someone with sufficient background might see the logic in my arguments. I finished reading Bohm's Quantum Theory just before New Year, having Started last April. I read it like a novel - over 600 pages - mostly just scanning the math. What struck me was that, over and over again, he would take a classical formula, treat it using Planck's hypothesis, and get a quantum result. Radical as the viewpoint might be to a cosmologist, Planck's hypothesis is fundamental to quantum theory.
There are challenges with experimental accuracy. Eddington measured the deflection of starlight by the Sun to first order (1 part in 10^6). Today, measuring to second order (1 part in 10^12) is difficult, but seems achievable. This level of accuracy is required to discriminate between GR and other possible contenders, given that GR already passes first order tests.
Cheers,
Colin
view post as summary
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take...
view entire post
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.
I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.
Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:
For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. If this difference is already ruled by observations (which I don't know) you could also consider e^(e^x), in which case the differences occur at second and higher order. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least woth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
post approved
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 05:02 GMT
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take...
view entire post
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.
I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.
Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:
For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. If this difference is already ruled by observations (which I don't know) you could also consider e^(e^x), in which case the differences occur at second and higher order. Alternatively, you could look into expansions of log(x), which would seem trickier but more in line with what you said about logarithmic differentials. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least worth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
post approved
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 05:20 GMT
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take...
view entire post
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should look more into the field equations. Unfortunately, because there are so many relativity deniers out there, many relativists have been conditioned to look at proposals that seem far out and come from someone without the right credentials not just with skepticism, but active hostility, or at least an unwillingness to take time to consider it.
I experienced this myself when I attended the midwest relativity conference here at the University of Michigan a short while ago. I asked a couple of very people very well known in that community a question about something in quantum gravity that does not make sense to me. Mind you, I wasn't even proposing any new idea, simply asking a question, albeit an unusual one. The first one literally ran away from me, the second almost immediately tried to put me in the crackpot box. Not only did he never even attempt to answer my question, but he kept on pretending that I was asking other questions that relativity deniers or people who even lack a basic understanding of relativity would ask. My efforts to clarify what I was actually asking went nowhere, as in his mind I was already in that box. I felt so disgusted with my treatment by him that I left the conference early, and I have lost respect for him. But I do realize that as a well-known relativist, he has in the past probably been bombarded by such people that it is only too easy to put me in that same category.
Anyway, this is just to say that I think for such a radical proposal as you are making, it is incumbent to understand the relationship between the field equations and the potential. I thought about it, and I think there might be a way to connect them fairly straightforwardly:
For some time in the 60's and 70's, Brans-Dicke theory was the main competitor to General Relativity, but more recent tests have essentially ruled it out. BD theory is basically a more flexible version of GR, in that the only difference is that it contains a dimensionless parameter, the Brans-Dicke coupling constant, which can be adjusted based on observation to effectively change the value of the gravitational constant. The parameter is symbolized by small omega and when omega=1, BD theory reduces to GR. It occurred to me that perhaps to obtain a multiplicative potential, you may want to look into having the BD coupling constant actually be the Taylor expansion of an exponential. For e^x, the zeroth-order term would be the same as in GR, but differences would occur in first and higher orders between your theory and GR. Alternatively, you could look into expansions of log(x), which would seem trickier but more in line with what you said about logarithmic differentials. I don't know whether this idea would work out, but it seems to me at least worth looking into. In any event, I urge you to explore the relationship between the field equations and the potentials.
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 08:39 GMT
A couple of quick updates:
1. I misremembered, it is in the limit of omega towards infinity that BDT reduces to GR.
2. I came across a useful scholarpedia article by Brans himself:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Jordan-Brans-Dic
ke_Theory
He explicitly mentions Mach's principle, and he also has an alternative solution to the spherically symmetric static situation to which you can compare.
All the best,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Armin,
Thank you very much for your idea about Brans-Dicke. That really looks promising, but more complicated than what I am prepared for, from a quick look at the Wiki. I will need to work up to that with a better foundation.
Just read your post, and heading off to read the article by Brans, which really looks like an ideal reference.
Thanks as well for suggesting the relationship between the field equations and the potentials as a direction for research. This ought to be my next step. I probably would have muddled around with details without seeing a way forward, so these suggestions are of great interest and highly appreciated.
There is a saying "You should never meet your heroes," which is a pessimistic view of the human condition. However technical, science is social enterprise. It is hard not to take the reactions you experienced personally, but it is a good sign that you can acknowledge the pressures which might lead to dismissive behavior, that stone wall of indifference. I am fairly convinced that no argument can be put forward to change the paradigms of gravitation or cosmology, and only recognition of some physical observation will bring about renewal of these theories, as it has in the past.
One thing that has surpassed my expectations is the advance of observational and experimental technology. Until 1998, I never expected to see a Hubble diagram as anything other than a hypothetical straight line on a graph. So I am ultimately hopeful that my concerns about gravitation in particular will be resolved objectively by experiment.
On that note of optimism, Cheers,
Colin
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 01:59 GMT
I like this essay a lot!
You certainly got me thinking Colin. I especially like the idea of applying the product integral to relativistic motion. Truly inspired! Your approach is not quite fully refined, but it has much to recommend it over the standard formulations. Well done! I have a lot to say, but I'll rate a few more essays first - while there is still time.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 04:48 GMT
I hope you got to see..
My essay too.
Warm regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 18:43 GMT
Hi Jonathan
I read your essay when it first came out. I wanted to work out an idea about a kind of circular symmetry before commenting, but then a bit of exhaustion set in which was quite debilitating, and made it easy to put things off . I did manage to rate your essay and several other nice ones the day before the deadline, and have recovered some energy after a good sleep and some exercise.
Will post to your essay blog later today, hopefully before the old brain gets tired and fuzzy.
Al the best to you,
Colin
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 02:38 GMT
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your asking about CMB.... My Paper on CMB is available at
http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0226
CMB is nothing BUT star light, Galaxy-light and Light from Other inter stellar & Inter Galaxieal Objects in the Microwave region. CMB anisotropies and variations were were calculated and and discussed in the in the above paper given by the above link
I request you please have a look at this paper and calculations..........
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 03:28 GMT
Thanks snp. CMB is starlight. That is what I have been thinking. Just downloaded your paper.
Cheers
Colin
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 18:56 GMT
Thank you Colin Walker,
You please ask me any questions if you need. I will try to clear your confusions....
Best regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker wrote on Mar. 27, 2018 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear Armin,
I followed up your excellent tip about Brans-Dicke and found that Yilmaz's exponential metric is what I call the Machian metric.
Dicke has said that Yilmaz's field equation is the local field equation needed for the exponential metric in isotropic coordinates. It has been shown to violate the equivalence principle. Although I expect the violation is beyond our current means of detection, this possibility can be set aside as less than ideal.
I think that the problem with this sort of modification is that it does not address the basic issue, which is that a multiplicative process duplicating relativistic composition needs to be incorporated, instead of trying to add something as compensation. It looks like the field equations would need to be modified in a way that has not been proposed. And that is information gained!
Regarding your dimensional theory and special relativity, if you look at the transverse variation due to gravity in my table of dimensional variability, you will notice that it exhibits the same sort of variation as the Lorentz factor, on substituting that for the gravitational scale factor. Perhaps it is less of a conceptual stretch to see GR as having two branches of dimensionality (radial and transverse), if SR is considered to be associated with the transverse branch by virtue of their matching dimensional variability.
Many thanks, and best wishes,
Colin
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.