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

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

Previous Contests

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

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

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

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

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

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

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

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

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

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

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

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Colin Walker**: *on* 3/27/18 at 18:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Armin, I followed up your excellent tip about Brans-Dicke and found...

**Colin Walker**: *on* 3/3/18 at 1:41am UTC, wrote Dear Armin, Thank you very much for your idea about Brans-Dicke. That...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 3/2/18 at 8:39am UTC, wrote A couple of quick updates: 1. I misremembered, it is in the limit of omega...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 3/2/18 at 5:20am UTC, wrote Dear Colin, Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 3/2/18 at 5:02am UTC, wrote Dear Colin, Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 3/2/18 at 4:47am UTC, wrote Dear Colin, Thank you for your response. I think you definitely should...

**Colin Walker**: *on* 3/1/18 at 17:27pm UTC, wrote Hi Armin. Here is my response which was cut short. I recall copying the...

**Colin Walker**: *on* 3/1/18 at 17:22pm UTC, wrote Hi Armin. Here is my response which was cut short. I recall copying the...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "Lorraine, trying to dodge accountability by pretending you were just..."
*in* Tensor networks as a data...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Georgina, I am not apologising for pointing out well-known facts: people..."
*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...

**Anonymous**: "good to read this post"
*in* The Noise of Gravitons

**Steve Dufourny**: "You know Mr Gilbert, if we find these bridges beyond this GR and the..."
*in* Is Causality Fundamental?

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Mr Gilbert, like I told we have more difficulties to reach the unknowns..."
*in* Is Causality Fundamental?

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 14, 2021

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: A Tale of Two Relativities by Colin Walker [refresh]

TOPIC: A Tale of Two Relativities by Colin Walker [refresh]

Some 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.

Most 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.

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

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

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.

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

I very much enjoyed your essay "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Colin,

It appears that your response was cut short by the cyberpoltergeists lurking around here, ha.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

It appears that your response was cut short by the cyberpoltergeists lurking around here, ha.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

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.

1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks snp. CMB is starlight. That is what I have been thinking. Just downloaded your paper.

Cheers

Colin

Cheers

Colin

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

You please ask me any questions if you need. I will try to clear your confusions....

Best regards

=snp

report post as inappropriate

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

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.