**Professor Clifford V. Johnson and Assistant Professor Lubos Motl**

Dr Johnson has very kindly given some useful advice and hosted some comments I've made recently, as has Dr Motl. This is encouraging. I've now given up hope that Dr Peter Woit of Not Even Wrong is going to do anything further in directions I'd find interesting, so I've just bought my first ever domain, http://www.quantumfieldtheory.org/ (nothing is there yet, I've bought it with 2.5 GB, but I haven't uploaded anything so far, so you won't find anything for a day or two!).

That site will contain my complete evaluation of the subject, including objective assessments of the useful ideas in string theory and loop quantum gravity. For the meantime, you can browse recent posts and their comments on the alternative blog https://nige.wordpress.com/.

*http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/10/31/161746/39*

*:*

*String Theory and the Crackpot Index*

*By*

*glor*

*in*

*Science*

*Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 10:08:39 PM EST*

*Tags:*

*string theory*

*,*

*crackpot index*

*,*

*popular physics*

*(*

*all tags*

*)*

*Recently two books,*

*by Peter Woit*

*and*

*by Lee Smolin*

*, have been published questioning whether the enormous theoretical effort applied to the problems of string theory has been fruitful. Both books have been reviewed in*

*several*

*popular*

*publications*

*, and generated substantial discussion both inside and outside of the physics community.*

*One response was published several days ago*

*by Briane Greene*

*on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times (*

*also here*

*). A*

*famously grouchy observer*

*called the editorial a long, wistful plea for patience. But what struck me most as I read it was its similarity to the*

*crackpot index*

*maintained by John Baez. So, for fun, I scored it.*

I feel a little dirty having done this. Part of me feels compelled to point out that I know this is a newspaper editorial for general consumption, rather than a "scientific" document. But I think the fact that a comparison with a crackpot index has any traction at all says something important and unpleasant about string theory's role in physics.

I feel a little dirty having done this. Part of me feels compelled to point out that I know this is a newspaper editorial for general consumption, rather than a "scientific" document. But I think the fact that a comparison with a crackpot index has any traction at all says something important and unpleasant about string theory's role in physics.

*Points awarded (or considered) are listed below.*

*A -5 point starting credit.*

*5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).*

The initial all-caps is a newspaper tradition. No points awarded.

The initial all-caps is a newspaper tradition. No points awarded.

*10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.*

Only Professor Greene's present academic affiliation is mentioned. No points awarded.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

Only Professor Greene's present academic affiliation is mentioned. No points awarded.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

*It's at the end, not the beginning: "I have worked on string theory for more than 20 years because I believe it provides the most powerful framework for constructing the long-sought unified theory."*

*10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".*

*"Even so, researchers worldwide are still working toward an exact and tractable formulation of the theory's equations."*

*10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, ... and*

*20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton ...*

*I'm not sure whether the standard quantum gravity discussion of unification as the grand theme of the history of physics qualifies here. Certainly there are not statements of the type Baez generally filters for, where the crackpot writes, "I'm smarter than Einstein." But the implication is that, were Newton or Einstein alive today, they would be working on string theory too.*

*10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".*

*"Such was the case until the mid-1980's, when a new approach, string theory, burst onto the stage. ... As word of the breakthrough spread ..."*

*20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.*

Another item of questionable relevance in an op-ed.

Another item of questionable relevance in an op-ed.

*30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.*

*"Even on his deathbed [Einstein] scribbled equations in the desperate but fading hope that the theory would finally materialize. It didn't."*

*40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.*

*"Finally, some have argued that if, after decades of research involving thousands of scientists, the theory is still a work in progress, it's time to give up." (One might ask whether this question gets a pass, too, since such opinions have in fact been expressed by reputable people.)*

*50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.*

*"To be sure, no one successful experiment would establish that string theory is right, but neither would the failure of all such experiments prove the theory wrong." Certainly, Dr. Greene has been been working for a long time (10) on a paradigm shift (10), towards which Einstein struggled on his deathbed (30). For his effort, his theory has no equations (10) and no tests (50). With the starting credit, that much makes 105 points.*

*Is Dr. Greene a crackpot? No. But is this how physics should be presented to the public?*

I agree with the assessment above: Dr Greene is no traditional crackpot, he isn't an (early, obscure) Einstein figure trying to get facts published for the sake of science but for fame and money. Dr Brian Greene's book

*The Elegant Universe*contains no physics whatsoever (see further down this post for a detailed review of the book), but a serious ignorance of the fact that the first postulate of special relativity (that light velocity is constant to all observers) is discredited by the variation in the direction (hence its velocity, a vector) of light by gravitational fields. It is an insult. Page 56 of the 2005 Vintage edition (London) of

*The Elegant Universe*falsely states:

**'... Einstein realized that the tremendously successful Newtonian theory of gravity was in conflict with his special theory of relativity. Confident in the veracity of special relativity ... Einstein sought a new theory of gravity compatible with special relativity.'**

**False**! Contrary to stringy theorists, when you study general relativity you find:

‘... the [special relativity first] law of the constancy of the velocity of light ... the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law.

**On the contrary, we arrived at the result according to this latter theory, the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present**.’ - Albert Einstein,

*Relativity, The Special and General Theory,*Henry Holt and Co., 1920, p111.

‘...

**the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified, since we easily recognise that the path of a ray of light ... must in general be curvilinear [hence velocity of light changes in a gravitational field and special relativity is bunk]**...’ - Albert Einstein, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1923, p114.

‘

**The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. … The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).**…’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’,

*Annalen der Physik,*v49, 1916.

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein,

*Sidelights on Relativity,*Dover, New York, 1952, p23.

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus [hence there is a spacetime continuum aether or fabric, as Einstein claimed - note that he only debunked Maxwell's gear cog and idler wheel mechanical aether in 1905!]. The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919),

*Space Time and Gravitation,*Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

When I kindly emailed the facts including the mechanism of gravity to Brian, he didn't respond and his books go on selling confusion and error. After errors have not been corrected, may we assume they are deliberate errors, ie, lies? Or is he just too paranoid to admit being wrong over the principle general covariance being different in substance (applicable to absolute motions such as accelerations!) to special relativity junk? Why does he seem to hate me so much? Hard to imagine!

But then we read in wikipedia:

*'Brian Greene (born*

*February 9*

*,*

*1963*

*), is a*

*physicist*

*and one of the best-known*

*string theorists*

*. Since 1996 he has been a*

*professor*

*at*

*Columbia University*

*. Born in*

*New York City*

*, Greene was a*

*prodigy*

*in mathematics. His skill in mathematics was such that by the time he was twelve years old, he was being privately tutored in mathematics by a Columbia University professor because he had surpassed the high-school math level. ... In 1980, Brian Greene entered*

*Harvard*

*to major in physics, and with his bachelor's degree, Greene went to*

*Oxford University*

*in*

*England*

*, as a*

*Rhodes Scholar*

*.*

'His book

'His book

*The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory*

*(*

*1999*

*) is a popularization of*

*superstring theory*

*and*

*M-theory*

*. It was a finalist for the*

*Pulitzer Prize*

*in nonfiction, and winner of*

*The Aventis Prizes for Science Books*

*in*

*2000*

*. The book talks about and opens an argument on how*

*Calabi-Yau*

*manifolds*

*, as the multi-dimensional (11D, 16D, 26D) points, may comprise our*

*space-time*

*. The Elegant Universe was later made into a*

*PBS*

*television special with Dr. Greene as the narrator. His second book,*

*The Fabric of the Cosmos*

*(2004), is about*

*space*

*,*

*time*

*, and the nature of the universe. Aspects covered in this book include non-local particle entanglement as it relates to*

*special relativity*

*and basic explanations of string theory. It is an examination of the very nature of matter and reality, covering such topics as*

*spacetime*

*and*

*cosmology*

*, origins and unification, and including an exploration into reality and the imagination.*

'Brian Greene also dabbles in acting; he helped

'Brian Greene also dabbles in acting; he helped

*John Lithgow*

*with scientific dialogue for the*

*television*

*series*

*3rd Rock from the Sun*

*, and he had a cameo role in the film*

*Frequency*

*. ... Brian Greene graduated in*

*1980*

*from*

*Stuyvesant High School*

*in*

*New York City*

*, where he was a classmate of*

*Lisa Randall*

*.'*

Very good. Really, there is nothing I can do - as mere discoverer of a predictive Yang-Mills dynamical mechanism for gravity, etc. - to gain attention from physics dons who have cameo roles in Hollywood films (he has since starred in or advised technically on others, which take up some of his time), who have top Harvard and Oxford degrees, and who were child geniuses. I'm not of that calibre. I can only claim efficiency in the sense that a tortoise can through long efforts over a lifetime, outrun a hare that can hop higher and faster for briefer periods. The more I complain about suppression of my work by stringy-biased editors of

*Physical Review Letters,*

*Nature, Classical and Quantum Gravity*(not the editor but the stringy 'peer reviewers' who refuse to answer scientific arguments and recommended suppression on the true but irrelevant basis it was 'inconsistent with [false] string theory') and by string theorists like Jacques Distler in charge of arXiv which suppressed me in 2002, and others including probably people like Woit and Smolin who are at least in the mathematical sense elitists, the more excuse I give them for continuing. They are all really decent people. Recommend them for loads of Nobel Prizes, people. Especially Greene. Now that ego-massaging is over, will I get the mechanism for quantum field theory discussed?

In particular, string theory in some sense (without extra dimensions) is not entirely wrong: leptons and quarks are, at their core, energy currents like closed strings.

Update: I asked Dr Woit about the crackpot index score of his fellow Columbia University teacher (Woit is in the maths faculty, Greene is in the physics faculty):

*anonymous Says:*

*December 3rd, 2006 at 4:35 pm*

*http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/10/31/161746/39*

*“String Theory and the Crackpot Index*

*“…Certainly, Dr. Greene has been been working for a long time (10) on a paradigm shift (10), towards which Einstein struggled on his deathbed (30). For his effort, his theory has no equations (10) and no tests (50). With the starting credit, that much makes 105 points.*

“Is Dr. Greene a crackpot? No. But is this how physics should be presented to the public?”

“Is Dr. Greene a crackpot? No. But is this how physics should be presented to the public?”

*Wonder why Woit doesn’t discuss this stuff?*

*Peter Woit*

*Says:*

*December 3rd, 2006 at 5:43 pm*

*anonymous,*

*I saw the story you mention, but the main answer to why I didn’t think it was worth discussing is embedded in what you quoted. I think there’s a lot wrong with string theory and how it is pursued, but Brian Greene is not a crackpot, and neither are most string theorists.*

*I disagree with Brian about a scientific issue, the prospects for string-based unification, and, as a result, also don’t think the kind of public promotion of this idea he has engaged in is wise. But he’s a perfectly reasonable person, willing to admit that string theory may be wrong, just trying to promote and pursue ideas he believes in. I’ve known him for a long time, work in the same department, and talk to him regularly. I think both of us see our disagreements as scientific ones and want to avoid personalizing them. If you want to engage in Brian-bashing, do it elsewhere.*

*...*

anonymous Says:

anonymous Says:

*December 4th, 2006 at 5:53 am*

No, I don’t want to bash anyone, I’m not the one deleting other people’s papers from arxiv …

No, I don’t want to bash anyone, I’m not the one deleting other people’s papers from arxiv …

Dr Woit is a crackpot defender where it suits him. Presumably Greene is too close (on the same campus in New York) to be an enemy, so he tells me that any objective analysis of Greene's 'physics' is 'Brian-bashing'. There is no way out folks! They'll delete all your work, sneer at you, attack you as a crackpot without first checking your work, they'll make money selling crackpot stringy claims with no evidence/checkable facts behind them, and if you politely point out where they are wrong, they'll ignore you, and if you loudly hold up a mirror to show them they're thugs, they'll complain that you're being unfriendly or worse. Nothing I can write will make any difference to the dictatorial thugs in command of arxiv and 'peer'-review. It is counterproductive to shoot ammunition at them as they're careful to keep out of range. So it's best for me to concentrate on journal editors like Jeremy Webb, editor of New Scientist, an insultingly abusive scammer and con-man: 'A

*Daily Telegraph*article [4] reports:

*'Prof Heinz Wolff complained that cosmology is "religion, not science." Jeremy Webb of New Scientist responded that it is not religion but magic. ... "If I want to sell more copies of New Scientist, I put cosmology on the cover," said Jeremy.'*

Maybe he isn't deliberately destroying physics, and it's just an accident! (I have to be kind!)

*The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory*(Vintage, London, 2005). This book has 15 chapters arranged into 5 parts, 'The Edge of Knowledge', 'The Dilemma of Space, Time, and the Quanta', 'The Cosmic Symphony', String Theory and Fabric of Spacetime', and 'Unification in the Twenty-First Century'.

*uncuttable*and so have are not what we call atoms, which are of course transmutable by nuclear reactions. The Greek atom did not come to fruition with Hiroshima, it is just a misnomer. People like Dalton tried to credit the Greeks with something they didn't predict (it is easier to defend someone else's idea than your own because you are less easily 'debunked' by being called an egotist). Sometimes the long-term failure of string theory is defended by saying atomic theory was invented by the Greeks and proved by Hiroshima over two thousand years later, which is totally false.

**This is crucially important because science doesn't necessarily emerge from collaboration, it isn't a cosy tea-party.**J.J. Thomson's measured the mass to charge ratio for the electron (predicted by Maxwell in the 3rd edition of his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, which J.J. Thomson edited for publication), but his plum pudding atom theory opposed Rutherford's solar system model.

*easy!*Similarly, neutrinos (or with beta decay, anti-neutrinos) are relatively easy to detect if you simply have an

*intense source.*

*Consider a gamma ray. A 1 Mev typical gamma ray (those from Cs-137 have mean energy 0.66 Mev while those from Co-60 have a mean energy of 1.25 Mev) have a mean-free-path of 14.2 centimetres of water. Does that mean your hands or your skin (slimmer than 14.2 cm thick!) are totally safe from gamma rays, because they are not thick enough to stop them?*

*It is not sensible to try to identify isolated masses for non-isolatable quarks! To make predictions of real phenomena, you have to predict real phenomena such as measurable masses, not non-measurable 'mass' for isolated quarks!*

*e*times the Z_o boson mass) means that people like Brian still write of electromagnetism and weak forces are separate entities.

*loop.*Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament...' Fair enough and possibly correct fo far, although the mainstream string theory is not even wrong in extra-dimensional speculations and in assumptions that the Planck scale (based on dimensional analysis and not physical dynamics) is relevant to predicting the size of these particles, when the actual size scale is black hole radius, 2GM/c^2. (Planck could possibly have accidentally got the right answer to within a factor of two by dimensionally coming up with GM/c^2 where M is say electron mass, instead of the combination he used, which is a much bigger distance scale with no physical basis.)

**which is not material,**operate upon and affect other material without mutual contact. ... Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but

**whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers**.' (Emphasis added.)

*not material,*and the final sentence states that he (Newton) is unsure and leaves to the reader whether gravity is caused by something

*material*or

*non material!*So even Newton made pathetic errors, possibly because life is short and he was in a hurry to get a lot of writing down, like all of us. Brian doesn't mention Newton's contradiction, however! (The mediator for long-range [outside the IR cutoff] electromagnetism etc., is a continuum composed entirely of Yang-Mills gauge boson radiation.)

*two balls rolling together on a bed spread are driven by gaining gravitational potential energy*. So it is a

*circular argument*which obfuscates understanding!

*not*ad hoc tests, such as the prediction of the correct cosmology of the universe in Electronics World October 1996, two years before Perlmutter found the first evidence to confirm it (see link at banner of this blog!).

*is*gravity. The mere presence of an object with mass causes space to respond by warping.' No, not space but what is

*in space in the form of exchange bosons that cause forces (remember the Feynman diagrams for force-causing interactions?).*Yang-Mills exchange radiation in a quantum gravity (be that arcane electromagnetic mediating radiation as proved here, or separate 'gravitons' in stringy theory):

**A capacitor QFT model in detail: The gauge bosons must travel between all charges, they cannot tell that an atom is "neutral" as a whole, instead they just travel between the charges. Therefore even though the electric dipole created by the separation of the electron from the proton in a hydrogen atom at any instant is randomly orientated, the gauge bosons can also be considered to be doing a random walk between all the charges in the universe.**

**The random-walk vector sum for the charges of all the hydrogen atoms is the voltage for a single hydrogen atom (the real charges mass in the universe is something like 90% composed of hydrogen), multiplied by the square root of the number of atoms in the universe.**

**This allows for the angles of each atom being random. If you have a large row of charged capacitors randomly aligned in a series circuit, the average voltage resulting is obviously zero, because you have the same number of positive terminals facing one way as the other.**

**So there is a lot of inefficiency, but in a two or three dimensional set up, a drunk taking an equal number of steps in each direction does make progress. The taking 1 step per second, he goes an average net distance from the starting point of t^0.5 steps after t seconds.**

**For air molecules, the same occurs so instead of staying in the same average position after a lot of impacts, they do diffuse gradually away from their starting points.**

**Anyway, for the electric charges comprising the hydrogen and other atoms of the universe, each atom is a randomly aligned charged capacitor at any instant of time.**

**This means that the gauge boson radiation being exchanged between charges to give electromagnetic forces in Yang-Mills theory will have the drunkard’s walk effect, and you get a net electromagnetic field of the charge of a single atom multiplied by the square root of the total number in the universe.**

**Now, if gravity is to be unified with electromagnetism (also basically a long range, inverse square law force, unlike the short ranged nuclear forces), and if gravity due to a geometric shadowing effect (see my home page for the Yang-Mills LeSage quantum gravity mechanism with predictions), it will depend on only a straight line charge summation.**

**In an imaginary straight line across the universe (forget about gravity curving geodesics, since I’m talking about a non-physical line for the purpose of working out gravity mechanism, not a result from gravity), there will be on average almost as many capacitors (hydrogen atoms) with the electron-proton dipole facing one way as the other, but not quite the same numbers.**

**You find that statistically, a straight line across the universe is 50% likely to have an odd number of atoms falling along it, and 50% likely to have an even number of atoms falling along it. Clearly, if the number is even, then on average there is zero net voltage. But in all the 50% of cases where there is an odd number of atoms falling along the line, you do have a net voltage. The situation in this case is that the average net voltage is 0.5 times the net voltage of a single atom. This causes gravity. The exact weakness of gravity as compared to electromagnetism is now predicted. Gravity is due to 0.5 x the voltage of 1 hydrogen atom (a "charged capacitor"). Electromagnetism is due to the random walk vector sum between all charges in the universe, which comes to the voltage of 1 hydrogen atom (a "charged capacitor"), multiplied by the square root of the number of atoms in the universe. Thus, ratio of gravity strength to electromagnetism strength between an electron and a proton is equal to: 0.5V/(V.N^0.5) = 0.5/N^0.5. V is the voltage of a hydrogen atom (charged capacitor in effect) and N is the number of atoms in the universe. This ratio is equal to 10^-40 or so, which is the correct figure within the experimental errors involved.***interference*mechanism for path integrals being chaotic on

*small*distance scales:

‘... the ‘inexorable laws of physics’ ... were never really there ... Newton could not predict the behaviour of three balls ... In retrospect we can see that the determinism of pre-quantum physics kept itself from ideological bankruptcy only by keeping the three balls of the pawnbroker apart.’

– Dr Tim Poston and Dr Ian Stewart, ‘Rubber Sheet Physics’ (science article, not science fiction!) in Analog: Science Fiction/Science Fact, Vol. C1, No. 129, Davis Publications, New York, November 1981.

## 10 Comments:

Copy of a comment:

http://asymptotia.com/2006/11/20/the-paper/#comment-6958

nc

Dec 3rd, 2006 at 2:45 pm

http://asymptotia.com/2006/11/20/the-paper/

anon,

GR has a landscape of solutions for cosmology, all of which assume that the basic form of the Einstein-Hilbert field equation is correct for any quantum gravity that might emerge as the final theory of quantum gravity.

In particular, any exchange of Yang-Mills gauge bosons to produce a Feynman type coupling for quantum gravity interactions suffers from the problem that recession of all masses from one another will produce a long-range weakening of gravity (caused by redshift of gauge bosons).

So if you're a physicist, what you want is correct physics. The vital thing about GR is not the maths so much as the physical contraction predicted for energy conservation. Drop a test object above a mass and it gains kinetic energy (accelerates). How is the mass supplying that gravitational potential energy? If you move the mass very fast, does the field surrounding the mass move with it? Clearly it suffers contraction effects.

In his essay on general relativity in the book ‘It Must Be Beautiful’, Penrose writes: ‘... when there is matter present in the vicinity of the deviating geodesics, the volume reduction is proportional to the total mass that is surrounded by the geodesics. This volume reduction is an average of the geodesic deviation in all directions … Thus, we need an appropriate entity that measures such curvature averages. Indeed, there is such an entity, referred to as the Ricci tensor ...’

Feynman explained that the contraction around a static mass M is simply a reduction in radius by (1/3)MG/c^2 or 1.5 mm for the Earth. You don't need the tensor machinery of GR to get such simple results. You can do it just using the equivalence principle of GR plus some physical insight:

The velocity needed to escape from the gravitational field of a mass M (ignoring atmospheric drag), beginning at distance x from the centre of mass M, by Newton’s law will be v = (2GM/x)^{1/2}, so v^2 = 2GM/x. The situation is symmetrical; ignoring atmospheric drag, the speed that a ball falls back and hits you is equal to the speed with which you threw it upwards (the conservation of energy). Therefore, the energy of mass in a gravitational field at radius x from the centre of mass is equivalent to the energy of an object falling there from an infinite distance, which by symmetry is equal to the energy of a mass travelling with escape velocity v.

By Einstein’s principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, this gravitational acceleration field produces an identical effect to ordinary motion. Therefore, we can place the square of escape velocity (v2 = 2GM/x) into the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, giving g = (1 – v^2/c^2)1/2 = [1 – 2GM/(xc^2)]^{1/2}.

However, there is an important difference between this gravitational transformation and the usual Fitzgerald-Lorentz transformation, since length is only contracted in one dimension with velocity, whereas length is contracted equally in 3 dimensions (in other words, radially outward in 3 dimensions, not sideways between radial lines!), with spherically symmetric gravity. Using the binomial expansion to the first two terms of each:

Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect: g = x/x_0 = t/t_0 = m_0/m = (1 – v^2/c^2)1/2 = 1 – ½v^2/c^2 + ...

Gravitational contraction effect: g = x/x_0 = t/t_0 = m_0/m = [1 – 2GM/(xc^2)]^{1/2} = 1 – GM/(xc^2) + ...,

where for spherical symmetry ( x = y = z = r), we have the contraction spread over three perpendicular dimensions not just one as is the case for the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction: x/x_0 + y/y_0 + z/z_0 = 3r/r_0. Hence the radial contraction of space around a mass is r/r_0 = 1 – GM/(xc^2) = 1 – GM/[(3rc^2]

Therefore, clocks slow down not only when moving at high velocity, but also in gravitational fields, and distance contracts in all directions toward the centre of a static mass. The variation in mass with location within a gravitational field shown in the equation above is due to variations in gravitational potential energy. The contraction of space is by (1/3)GM/c^2.

There is more than one way to do most things in physics. Just because someone cleverer than me can use tensors analysis to do the above, doesn't itself discredit intuitive physics. GR is not a religion unless you make it one by insisting on a particular approach. The stuff above is not "pre-GR" because Newton didn't do it. It's still GR alright. You can have different roads to the same thing even in GR. Baez and Bunn have a derivation of Newton's law from GR which doesn't use tensor analysis: see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node6a.html

(following above comment)

45 - Kea

Dec 3rd, 2006 at 6:26 pm

rgb

nc did not actually say he was unfamiliar with GR. You should read what people say more carefully.

46 46 - Louise

Dec 4th, 2006 at 12:01 am

Anon, you comments are worth investigating. As soon as I get to a place with physics books I will look all this up again.

47 47 - nc

Dec 4th, 2006 at 2:07 am

rgb,

No I know tensor analysis (a little rusty as I did it a decade ago and have been shut out of academia) - my point to anon and also to Jacques is that the physics of the contraction which is introduced by general relativity needs to be more widely understood.

“Just because someone cleverer than me can use tensors analysis to do the above, doesn’t itself discredit intuitive physics.”

No I didn’t say that, so you need to go to school and learn to read things or properly quote. Read what I wrote, and learn, please. And grow up a lot.

48 48 - nc

Dec 4th, 2006 at 2:12 am

“…why don’t you follow the advice of Baez above and try to learn it. People who can do the tensor analysis of GR can do so because they decided to put in the time and effort to learn it (and the prerequisites). And they decided to learn it because (probably) they felt that they wanted to work with it, something that you probably like as well.”

I have learned it! Liar

49 49 - nc

Dec 4th, 2006 at 2:14 am

See http://nige.wordpress.com/about/ for links to predictions.

50 50 - nc

Dec 4th, 2006 at 2:16 am

The point is, nobody has ever predicted the strength of gravity from within the tensor formulation. But you can do it by mechanical modelling of Yang-Mills exchange:

http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h

‘It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of spacetime is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.’

- R. P. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, November 1964 Cornell Lectures, broadcast and published in 1965 by BBC, pp. 57-8.

51 51 - nc

Dec 4th, 2006 at 2:19 am

See comment 9 above by me in response to patronising abuse from an arxiv “expert”:

“… but I do know the basics of general relativity and its solutions from a course on cosmology and also I’ve studied quite a bit more about it independently…” - NIGEL COOK.

See also feynman:

‘Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation … Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’

- R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, 1999, pp186-7.

Copy of an email to Ivor Catt and others:

What Catt could do is to admit that the clocks experiment of 1974 proves special relativity is fake:

In 1995, physicist Professor Paul Davies - who won the Templeton Prize for religion (I think it was $1,000,000), wrote on pp54-57 of his book About Time:

‘Whenever I read dissenting views of time, I cannot help thinking of Herbert Dingle... who wrote ... Relativity for All, published in 1922. He became Professor ... at University College London... In his later years, Dingle began seriously to doubt Einstein's concept ... Dingle ... wrote papers for journals pointing out Einstein’s errors and had them rejected ... In October 1971, J.C. Hafele [used atomic clocks to defend Einstein] ... You can't get much closer to Dingle's ‘everyday’ language than that.’

Now, let's check out J.C. Hafele [1]:

J. C. Hafele is against crackpot science: Hafele writes in Science vol. 177 (1972) pp 166-8 that he uses ‘G. Builder (1958)’ for analysis of the atomic clocks. We then need to follow the paper trail to source by finding the Builder article. It is astonishing:

G. Builder (1958) is an article called 'Ether and Relativity' in the Australian Journal of Physics, v11, 1958, p279, which states:

‘... we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks... does indeed compel us to recognise the causal significance of absolute velocities.’ (Emphasis added.)

So, the clock experiment actually discredits special relativity, instead of confirming it!

Notice that Catt refuses/fails (one tactic of his is not to reply to emails and letters, although I know from my email server and recorded delivery that he has received them) is written by me (Nigel) not by Ivor. Anything coming from anyone else is not welcome if it is substantial and not trivial. Hence, you won't find my Riposte to the Catt Anomaly, the Riposte being http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/2006/04/maxwells-displacement-and-einsteins.html , anywhere linked on Ivor's pages, despite hundreds of letters and emails requesting this Riposte link, and despite Ivor Catt's own (now disproved) fake assertion:

"Riposte

I make the commitment that anyone wishing to counter any assertion made on this site will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a website of their choosing at the point where the disputed assertion is made.

(Possibly we need a standard word for this. I suggest "Riposte", or the symbol [R] .) Ivor Catt. 24dec98. (Later developments.) (Continued.) " - http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

Because of the hypocrisy involved in Ivor denying me any Ripostes despite the above false claim (which he should delete), I'm publishing this email as a comment on my electrogravity.blogspot.com blog. If Ivor does delete the Riposte claim (or, impossibly, link to my Ripostes on various subjects where he has not put them) I'll add another comment saying so. What will happen in the end is that Ivor's paid-for sites will disappear when he gives up, like Raeto West's did (which were mainly nonsense) because he has no back-ups on free (advertising funded) sites. He could link to proofs which would give substance. However, I'm actually glad he has since first acquaintence in 1996, been abusive towards my physics without discussing its content - his sites are so full of junk and speculative clap-trap, that it would harm my case more to be acquainted with him than if he did allow Ripostes from me on subjects I have factual evidence on (electron, particle physics, modern physics generally, gravitation, electromagnetism mechanism via exchange radiation and how an abstract representation of that is simply summed over by path integrals to give quantum field theory substance).

What I really hoped for was a physics discussion with Ivor. However, he doesn't know - nor care about - 99.9999% of physics, and areas he claims to debunk are areas he doesn't understand anything about. If is not a nice situation being in a slightly flooded boat as someone who thinks the best way to keep the boat afloat is to drill a hole in the bottom to allow the water to drain out! No matter how much explanation you give the fool, they "debunk" you. When finally you give up and the boat sinks, they will probably say "why didn't you tell me?" or something silly. Ivor is probably "genuine" in that (very fascist) way, not that it makes any difference. I had a hearing defect in school and was constantly sneered at by teachers who would shout (loud garbled noise) instead of speaking clearly. These "people" are out to enhance their own egos, not

The most abusive thing anyone has ever said about me is a Catt-like comment by John Gribbin that I'm not going the right way about making friends when I point out errors in physics: of course I'm not, why should I want to be friends with egotistic people who are in error. I want facts, and won't allow friendships to get in the way of the facts,

mate.Nigel

Second to last para above ends:

These "people" are out to enhance their own egos, not to further human understanding.Copies of comments to

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/nasa-will-colonize-moon.html

I reviewed Hawking's latest book at http://nige.wordpress.com/2006/1...rticle-physics/

comment 20.

Dr Stephen Hawking and Dr Leonard Mlodinow, A Briefer History of Time (Bantam Press, London, 2005, 162pp)

Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s biggest offense is on p125: ‘In string theories, the basic objects are not point particles but things that have a length but no other dimension, like an infinitely thin piece of string.’

How can something be ‘infinitely thin’? Is this a joke? Surely the Emperor’s New Clothes were woven out of infinitely thin cloth? Clearly, I’m thick because I think they mean they mean the width was 1/infinity metres = 0 metres. If my bank balance is X, that doesn’t mean I have any money, particularly if I have infinitely little money, X=0. A mere quantitative difference, ie, the difference between having 0 width string and 1 mm width string, is a QUALITATIVE difference, because it is the difference between having the Emperor’s New Clothes thread, and having real thread! Clearly, even string theorists can’t be that dumb, so Hawking and Mlodinow are bad explainers.

Hawking and Mlodinow’s second biggest offense is on page 10, where they repeat the damn lie that ‘… Copernicus[’] … revolutionary idea … was much simpler than Ptolemy’s model…’

This lie was disproved by Koestler in the his analysis of the Copernician revolution, The Sleepwalkers published in 1959. He showed that Copernicus has ~80 epicycles compared to only ~40 in Ptolemy’s model. The liars claim that every new theory is simpler in complexity, but that is not true. Sometimes reality has a technical complexity: for example the ‘theory’ that ‘God created and controls everything’ is ’simple’ in some sense but it is not a step forward for science to dump all the complex knowledge and to prefer a simpler hypothesis which fits all the facts. What makes science good is PREDICTIONS that can be checked objectively.

On page 14, Hawking and Mlodinow prove how confused they are:

‘… you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions … what actually happens is that a new theory is devised that is really an extension of the previous theory.’

These two sentences contradict one another, so either the first needs correction or the second needs deletion (actually the second is correct and the first is wrong).

Page 23 contains another ignorant lie:

‘Actually, the lack of an absolute standard of rest has deep implications for physics: it means that we cannot determine whether two events that took place at different times occurred in the same position in space.’

This is a lie because you can find out the location and absolute times of say two supernovae explosions by their redshifts, etc., and you can determine motion according to the absolute measure due to the +/- 3 mK redshift/blueshift in the 2.7 K microwave background due to earth’s absolute motion in space:

h

nigel cook | Homepage | 12.05.06 - 6:03 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... Muller, R. A., ‘The cosmic background radiation and the new aether drift’, Scientific American, vol. 238, May 1978, p. 64-74:

“U-2 observations have revealed anisotropy in the 3 K blackbody radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees hotter in the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its future development. Based on the measurements of anisotropy, the entire Milky Way is calculated to move through the intergalactic medium at approximately 600 km/s.”

Another deception in Hawking and Mlodinow is on p58: ‘The behaviour of the universe could have been predicted from Newton’s theory of gravity at any time in the nineteenth, the eighteenth, or even the seventeenth century.’

This is a deception because it gives the deceiving idea (for convenient reasons of obfuscation as we shall see) that nobody predicted the big bang!

In fact they did! See:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~wo...73#comment- 5322

… please note Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), father of Charles the evolutionist, first defended the big bang seriously in his 1790 book ‘The Botanic Garden’:

‘It may be objected that if the stars had been projected from a Chaos by explosions, they must have returned again into it from the known laws of gravitation; this however would not happen, if the whole Chaos, like grains of gunpowder, was exploded at the same time, and dispersed through infinite space at once, or in quick succession, in every possible direction.’

The big bang has never been taken seriously by cosmologists, because they have assumed that curved spacetime makes the universe boundless and such like. So a kind of belief system in the vague approach to general relativity has blocked considering it as a 10^55 megatons space explosion. Some popular books even claim falsely that things can’t explode in space, and so on.

In reality, because all gravity effects and light come to us at light speed, the recession of galaxies is better seen as a recession speed varying with known time past, than varying with the apparent distance. Individual galaxies may not be accelerating, but what we see and the gravity effects we receive at light speed come from both distance and time past.

So the acceleration of universe = variation in recession speeds / variation in time past = c/t = cH where H is Hubble constant. The implication of this comes when you know the mass of the universe is m, because then you remember Newton’s 2nd law, F=ma so you get outward force. The 3rd law then tells you there’s equal inward force (Higgs/graviton field). When I do the simple LeSage-Feynman gravity shielding calculations, I get gravity within 1.7%.

It is suppressed like Tony Smith’s prediction of the top quark mass by arXiv.org

Another bad deception in Hawking and Mlo

nc | Homepage | 12.05.06 - 6:11 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...-dinow is on p59: ‘In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble’s discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble later found.’

Similarly they say on p102: ‘If general relativity is wrong, why have all experiments thus far supported it?’

This is due to the landscape of an infinite number of possible solutions of GR to cosmology, depending on the values of parameters for dark energy and dark matter ...

nc | Homepage | 12.05.06 - 6:12 am | #

Copy of a comment to Louise's blog (

you'd be wrong to think I'm burning my boats by making fun of Professor Jacques Distler of arXiv because he or someone else at arXiv burned)myboats in 2002 by deleting my paper from arXiv, so I've lost everything and have nothing further to lose by putting up with more attacks on me of a stupid sort, besides who says I'm out to win a war anyway? - my objective is to ridicule people who behave badly, it is not my objective to make friends with them anywayhttp://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2006/12/treacherous-ground.html

Carl,

On dimensions D. R. Lunsford (a wannabe Mars visiting astronaut!) is correct. There is a time dimension for each distance dimension. That's the correct, true spacetime correspondence!

See his peer-reviewed unification of EM and gravity based on SO(3,3) at http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2003-090.pdf. It was deleted from arXiv which is moderated by people like Professor Jacques Distler.

Notice that three expanding time dimensions predict gravity accurately (see my home page, top banner and link) and the observed cosmic expansion without requiring dark energy. (Redshift of gauge bosons exchanged between receding masses in a big bang cuts out quantum gravity strength G over large distances, which is the error of GR which doesn't take this into account and instead "compensates" by adding in a cosmological constant powered by magical dark energy.) Lunsford's unification is more abstract than my dynamics, but reaches an identical conclusion on a key test: the cosmological constant is zero.

The distance-like dimensions describe matter which is contractable. (Time dilation is a local phenomena that comes in from distance contraction, because the spacetime ratio of

distance/time = c, so a contraction in distance causes time-dilation. In GR, the average 3-d contraction radially around a mass is (1/3)MG/c^2 = 1.5 mm as Feynman showed which in the same was as the FitzGerald contraction of moving bodies, produces gravitational time-dilation.)Every effort to do anything politely leads to Prof. Jacques Distler sneering that I need to study more tensors or something else, which I already know. He makes totally irrelevant (personal) comments.

If he gave a proof and I responded by ignoring it and sneering that he needs to learn more of something that isn't used in the proof, he'd probably be offended.

(The problem is that if I or you take offense too easily to veiled insults, he can claim I don't want his advice and he is only trying to help, and so on.)

It isn't a question of trying to insult people or to allow others to turn a scientific discussion into a personal one (much as they want to do that, because it is easier for them to ignore the facts and make personal comments).

You can't expect to get Jacques to listen. Traditionally what happens are the following 3 stages:

‘(1). The idea is nonsense.

‘(2). Somebody thought of it before you did.

‘(3). We believed it all the time.’

- Professor R.A. Lyttleton's summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in ‘Home is Where the Wind Blows’ Oxford University Press, 1997, p154).

That is how things occur.

“If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner - even though he sat at the feet of Faraday... beetles could do that... he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!”

- Oliver Heaviside, “Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1″, p337, 1893.

A bit more about the worship of "no absolute motion" in false special relativity, when general relativity is an absolute motion theory (dealing with accelerations, deflection of light according to an absolute coordinate system, circular motion, etc., etc., etc., all of which violate special relativity principles):

The special theory of sex states there are no women in the world.

The general theory of sex cannot retain this law, and demands that there are women in the world.

However, the special theory of sex is a religion to queer physicists who want to go on worshipping it.

These queer physicists pretend that the general theory of sex is merely an extension to the special theory of sex, and is not really in conflict with it.

The above analogy is a trifle rude, but these people won't listen to anything polite so witty humour is vital to make an impact on the key point.

‘... the [special relativity first] law of the constancy of the velocity of light ... the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result according to this latter theory, the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present.’ - Albert Einstein, Relativity, The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt and Co., 1920, p111.

‘... the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified, since we easily recognise that the path of a ray of light ... must in general be curvilinear [hence velocity of light changes in a gravitational field and special relativity is bunk]...’ - Albert Einstein, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1923, p114.

‘The special theory of relativity ... does not extend to non-uniform motion ... The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. ... The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, p23.

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus [hence there is a spacetime continuum aether or fabric, as Einstein claimed - note that he only debunked Maxwell's gear cog and idler wheel mechanical aether in 1905!]. The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

Anonymous,

One of several major problems with "aether" was that made physics into a spiritual religion and laughing stock. (A second major problem was that it inspired endless speculations, all contradictory; that is really a problem so long as they can all be evaluated and checked experimentally, but they didn't make checkable predictions or else the predictions were falsified experimentally as in the Michelson-Morley experiment,

which incidentally just falsified one particular aether prediction, and was soon replaced by FitzGerald's and Lorentz's aether in which moving objects get contracted in the direction of motion by the pressure of moving in the aether, and this FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction "saves the aether" by correcting preventing interference fringes due to absolute motion in the Michelson-Morley experiment.) Einstein's paper of 1905 had no immediate effect on the wide physics community outside of a few mathematical physicists, and it had zero immediate effect on the public at large. It was only after general relativity was confirmed by Royal Society physicists in 1919, that it became news (Eddington made the measurements while J.J. Thomson announced that general relativity was confirmed as a revolutionary advance). By this time the errors (Einstein made early errors like papers claiming that a clock at the equator would run at a different rate to one at the poles, and in 1908-11 he developed a pre-general relativity prediction that starlight falls at the Newtonian rate, not twice that rate, which would have "falsified" Einstein's theory had eclipses been checked for starlight deflection before Einstein corrected the error in 1915), and twins paradoxes in special relativityhad been dispensed with by the development of general relativity of 1915.See http://home.alphalink.com.au/~loge27/Science/aether_einstein.htm which states:

"In 1916, the sometime President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Sir Oliver Lodge, had reported conversations with his dead son, Raymond. This loss carried Lodge beyond any of the scientific efforts to retain the aether. Indeed, he went further than those scientists who adapted the New Physics to let God back into their equations. Lodge’s 1925 popular exposition, Ether and Reality, proclaimed aether to be the connecting link between the material and spiritual worlds, though “in ways which at present we can only surmise”. The joke going around was that a bishopric rather than a knighthood had become the apt honour for a physicist.

"Newspapers reported in June 1930 that the AWA’s Fisk expected to use wireless to contact the departed. Whether or not Fisk held that opinion, he knew that such speculations gave his many critics a chance to ridicule his fitness to dominate the industry. Hence, he issued a correction. He claimed to have been answering a question about using radio waves to contact Mars; in reply, he had joked that such communication was about as likely as with the dead, who would at least understand what we were saying. Fisk’s loss of a son in the Second World War revived his interest in wireless as a medium for Spiritualism.

"The philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead is reported to have warned: “A science which hesitates to forget its founders is lost”. That maxim is true in as much as reputation has no rights against evidence or better explanations. The brilliance of a Kelvin and a Lorentz was never an argument in favour of aether. ...

"The conviction that some form of aether existed as an expression of a godhead afflicted the Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853-1928), who shared the second Nobel Prize for Physics in 1902. Instead of aether’s being “God’s conductor”, as Newton had proposed, Lorentz hoped that it would be revealed as the “world-spirit that permeates a physical system, without being tied to a particular place. Such a spirit could feel all events in its system and would pick a preferred coordinate system.” In that case, relativity need not be absolute.

"Until 1911, the Special Theory of Relativity was known as the Lorentz-Einstein theory because a 1904 paper by Lorentz was formally equivalent to Einstein’s 1905 account. Yet, Lorentz never accepted Einstein’s Special Theory. For him, an aether frame of reference held out the prospect of reaching absolute measures for time, length and the velocity of light."

The author of that page is unaware that

In 1995, physicist Professor Paul Davies - who won the Templeton Prize for religion (I think it was $1,000,000), wrote on pp54-57 of his bookAbout Time:

‘Whenever I read dissenting views of time, I cannot help thinking of Herbert Dingle... who wrote ... Relativity for All, published in 1922. He became Professor ... at University College London... In his later years, Dingle began seriously to doubt Einstein's concept ... Dingle ... wrote papers for journals pointing out Einstein’s errors and had them rejected ... In October 1971, J.C. Hafele [used atomic clocks to defend Einstein] ... You can't get much closer to Dingle's ‘everyday’ language than that.’

Now, let's check out J.C. Hafele:

J. C. Hafele is against crackpot science: Hafele writes in Science vol. 177 (1972) pp 166-8 that he uses ‘G. Builder (1958)’ for analysis of the atomic clocks. We then need to follow the paper trail to source by finding the Builder article. It is astonishing:

G. Builder (1958) is an article called 'Ether and Relativity' in the Australian Journal of Physics, v11, 1958, p279, which states:

‘... we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks... does indeed compel us to recognise the causal significance of absolute velocities.’

So, the clock experiment actually discredits special relativity, instead of confirming it!

Absolute velocity (Builder) is incompatible with the first postulate of special relativity. This is because you can't measure anything absolutely unless you have a privileged frame of reference to use.

Quantum field theory now clearly demonstrates that this absolute background exists because quantum field theory has a vacuum filled with virtual particles (ground state of Dirac sea), which look different to an observer who is moving than to an observer who is stationary. See http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510040 (Introductory Lectures on Quantum Field Theory) page 85:

"In Quantum Field Theory in Minkowski space-time the vacuum state is invariant under the Poincare group and this, together with the covariance of the theory under Lorentz transformations, implies that all inertial observers agree on the number of particles contained in a quantum state. The breaking of such invariance, as happened in the case of coupling to a time-varying source analyzed above, implies that it is

not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognized as the vacuum by all observers." (Emphasis added to the disproof of special relativity postulate 1 by quantum field theory.)As for the background to us to determine absolute motion: the cosmic background radiation is ideal. By measuring time from the big bang, you have absolute time. You can easily work out the corrections for gravitation and motion. It is easy to work out gravitational field strength because it causes accelerations which are measurable. Your absolute motion is given by the anisotropy in the cosmic background radiation due to your motion. See

Muller, R. A., 'The cosmic background radiation and the new aether drift', Scientific American, vol. 238, May 1978, p. 64-74:

"U-2 observations have revealed anisotropy in the 3 K blackbody radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees hotter in the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its future development. Based on the measurements of anisotropy, the entire Milky Way is calculated to move through the intergalactic medium at approximately 600 km/s."

After all, if the Milky Way has an absolute motion of 600 km/s according to the CBR, that is a small value compared to c, so time dilation is small. Presumably galaxies at immense distances have higher speeds.

The current picture of cosmology is an infinitely big currant bun, expanding in an infinitely big oven with no edges so that each currant moves away from the others with no common centre or "middle".

However, the universe is something like 15,000,000,000 years old and that although the 600 km/s motion of the Milky Way is mainly due to attraction toward Andromeda which is a bigger galaxy, we can still estimate that 600 km/s is an order-of-magnitude estimate of our velocity since the big bang.

In that case we are at a distance of about s = vt = 600,000t m/s = 0.002R where R = ct = radius of universe. Hence we are at 0.2% of the radius of the universe, or very near the "middle". The problem is that the steady state (infinite, expanding) cosmology model was only finally discredited in favour of the BB by the discovery of the CBR in 1965, and so people still today tend to hold on to the steady-state vestage that states it is nonsensical to talk about the "middle" of a big bang fireball! In fact, it is perfectly sensible to do so until someone actually goes to a distant galaxy and disproves it, which nobody has. There is plenty of orthodoxy masquerading as fact in cosmology, not just in string theory!

Once you have found your absolutely known velocity and position in the universe, you can calculate the absolute amount of motion and gravity-caused time dilation (if the observer can see the observable distribution of mass around them and can determine the velocity through the universe as given by the fact that the CBR temperature is about 0.005 Kelvin hotter in the direction the Milky Way is going in than in the opposite direction, due to blueshift as we move into a radiation field, and redshift as we recede from one).

The matter distribution around us tells us how to correct our clocks for time-dilation. Hence, relativity of time disappears, because we can know for absolutely what the time is from time of the BB. (This is similar to the corrections you need to apply when using a sundial, where you have to apply a correction called the "equation of time", for the time of year. For old clocks you would need to correct for temperature because that made the clock run at different rates when it was locally hot or cold. Time dilations are not a variation in the absolute chronology of the universe where time is determined by the perpetual expansion of matter in the big bang. Time dilations only apply to the matter which is moving and/or subject to gravitation. Time dilation to a high energy muon in an accelerator doesn't cause the entire universe to run more slowly, it just slows down the quark field interactions and the muon decays more slowly. There is no doubt that all "relativistic" effects are local!)

Also, you can always tell the absolute time by looking at the recession of the stars. Measure the Hubble constant H, and since the universe isn't decelerating ("... the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating..." - Nobel Laureate Phil Anderson, http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901 ), the age of the universe is t = 1/H (if the universe was slowing due to critical density, the Friedmann solution to GR would be not t = 1/H but rather t = (2/3)/H, however the reason for the classical Friedmann critical density solution failing is probably that gravitons are redshifted by cosmic expansion and so the quantum gravity coupling constant falls over vast distances in the expanding universe, preventing gravitational retardation of expansion, and this effect is not accounted for in GR which ignores quantum gravity effects; instead an ad hoc cosmological constant is simply added by the mainstream to force GR to conform to the latest observations).

Alternatively, all you need to observe to determine absolute time is the value of the CBR temperature. This tells you the absolute time after the BB, regardless of what your watch says: just measure the ~2.728 Kelvin microwave background.

The average temperature of that is a clock, telling you absolute time. When the temperature of the CBR is below 3000 Kelvin, the universe is matter dominated so:

Absolute time after big bang = [current age of universe].(2.728/T)^1.5, where T is the CBR temperature in Kelvin.

For T above 3000 Kelvin, the universe was of course opaque due to ionisation of hydrogen so it was radiation dominated and the formula for time in that era more strongly dependent on temperature and is

Absolute time after big bang = [current age of universe].(2.728/T)^2.

Reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html . Although the Friedmann equation used on that page is wrong according to a gravity mechanism http://feynman137.tripod.com/ , the error in it is only a dimensionless multiplying factor of 0.5e^3, so the underlying scaling relationship (ie the power-law dependence between time and temperature) is still correct.

Defining absolute time from the CBR temperature averaged in every direction around the observer gets away from local time-dilation effects. Of course it is not possible to accurately measure time this way like a clock for small intervals, but the principle is that the expansion of the universe sets up a universal time scale which can in principle be used to avoid the problem of local time dilations.

There is a limitation with the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. This caused FitzGerald and Lorentz to come up with the contraction of spacetime to save aether. It was measuring effects of the motion of the light receiver, not of the motion of the light emitter. If light speed varies with redshift, then the CBR radiation will be approaching us at a speed of 6 km/s instead of c. This comes from: c x (300,000 years / 15,000,000,000 years) = 0.00002c = 6 km/second compared to the standard value of c = 300,000 km/second. This would be easily measurable by a simple instrument to confirm what the velocity of severely redshifted light is. For suggested experimental equipment, see: http://mrigmaiden.blogspot.com/2006/09/update-to-riofrio-equations-post.html .

One interesting case study of objections against Einstein is contained in the declassified U.S. FBI files on Einstein, see the FBI page http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm for downloads of 1,427 pages of reports on Einstein (mainly from the security perspective because the FBI site says: "An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.")

Page 64 (numbering by the Adobe Reader, for the PDF file download) of the first of those declassified Einstein files contains a report to the Director of the FBI (J. E. Hoover) dated 10 February 1950 which includes:

Einstein. What about him?

[which one, special or general relativity, the steady state universe cosmological constant, the photoelectric effect, the diffusion equation for Brownian motion, the Bose-Einstein theory of bosons??]Dr Nikola Tesla: "The Einstein theory

[Presumably this refers to Eddington's massaging of the 1919 solar eclipse data by eliminating from the statistical analysis all measurements which would lead to an unwelcome conclusion. However, general relativity is right regarding light deflection by gravity on the basis of energy conservation alone.]is in many respects erroneous." ...

Dr Chas. Lane Poor (Columbia University): "The supposed astronomical proofs of the theory, as cited and claimed by Einstein, do not exist."

[again, which one??]Prof. Thomas Jefferson See: "Einstein is neither astronomer, mathematician nor physicist. He is a confusionist. The Einstein theory

is a fallacy. The theory that aether does not exist, and that gravity is not a force, but a property of space can only be described as a crazy vagary, a disgrace to our age.[Spacetime fabric and aether of gravitation are admitted by Einstein in many places; obviously popular presentations obfuscate between the geometry of space and the spacetime fabric of gauge boson radiation which actually causes gravity, but presentation issue that itself is not an error in the mathematical accountancy that constitutes general relativity.]

[Which theory? Claim to experimentally refute a theory is not a refutation, what is important is the evidence the experiment gives and the accuracy and reproducability of the results.]Prof. Dayton C. Miller lectured before the Western Society of Engineers on his experiments in complete refutation of the Einstein theory.

[a book published by Philip Alan, London, 1932, and by published by Dodd and Mead in New York in 1933, 275 pages]Dr Arthur Lynch [1861-1934), "The Case Against Einstein"

, a technical analysis of the mathematical and philosophical fallacies if Einstein shows the following noted mathematics as critics:

[who had his own, rather different, version of relativity published in 1904, before Einstein, and produced the same mathematical results from a different set of postulates]M. Picard, Henry Poincare

, G. Darboux, M. Paul Painleve, Le Roux, and[if correct, that part is extremely interesting historically about the developers of tensor calculus, Ricci and Levi Civita, objecting to special relativity]the Italians Ricci and Levi Civita who did most to develop the mathematics used by the RelativistsDr Lynch in analyzing Einstein theory:

"Yet, as I cast my eye over the whole course of science I behold instances of false science, even more pretentious and popular than that of Einstein, gradually fading into ineptitude under the searchlight; and I have no doubt that there will be a new generation who will look with wonder and amazement, deeper than now accompany Einstein, at our galaxy of thinkers, men of science, popular critics, authoritive professors and writty dramatists, who have been satisfied to waive their common sense in view of Einstein's fallacies."

Problem with this is, Einstein admitted and corrected the errors of special relativity by building general relativity! Some of the popular worship of Einstein came from his good natured personality, so those of us who don't want fame had better stay extremely angry in personality.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/12/15/putting-your-money-where-your-beliefs-are/#comment-155425

nc on Dec 17th, 2006 at 7:49 am

RE: advanced mathematics, Professor Morris Kline describes the situation after 1911, when Einstein began to search for more sophisticated mathematics to build gravitation into space-time geometry:

‘Up to this time Einstein had used only the simplest mathematical tools and had even been suspicious of the need for "higher mathematics", which he thought was often introduced to dumbfound the reader. However, to make progress on his problem he discussed it in Prague with a colleague, the mathematician Georg Pick, who called his attention to the mathematical theory of Ricci and Levi-Civita. In Zurich Einstein found a friend, Marcel Grossmann (1878-1936), who helped him learn the theory; and with this as a basis, he succeeded in formulating the general theory of relativity.’ (M. Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1990, vol. 3, p. 1131.)

It's weird to see in the declassified U.S. Government files on Einstein collected at the request of J.E. Hoover, Director of the FBI, that both Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita, inventors of the "absolute differential calculus" (named "tensors" by Einstein fifteen years later) used to formulate general relativity, were at least until 1915 dismissive of Einstein's work (see p64 dated 10 Feb 1950 on the first PDF download at the FBI page http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm for downloads of 1,427 pages of reports on Einstein, mainly from the security perspective because the FBI site says: "An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.")

Prof. Thomas Jefferson See: "Einstein is neither astronomer, mathematician nor physicist. He is a confusionist. ... The theory that aether does not exist, and that gravity is not a force, but a property of space can only be described as a crazy vagary, a disgrace to our age."

... a technical analysis of the mathematical and philosophical fallacies of Einstein shows the following noted mathematics as critics:

M. Picard, Henry Poincare [who had his own, rather different, version of relativity published in 1904, before Einstein, and produced the same mathematical results from a different set of postulates], G. Darboux, M. Paul Painleve, Le Roux, and the Italians Ricci and Levi Civita who did most to develop the mathematics used by the Relativists ...

General relativity is mathematically correct for the physics it emcompasses, since its modification to Newtonian physics is based on a correction forced by the need to make the divergence of the mass-energy tensor zero, for energy conservation. It isn't speculative, so any errors come from omissions of details. It is based on observed facts like energy conservation, and isn't a guess, apart from the cosmological constant (added in 1917) or speculations about what Yang-Mills "graviton" radiation is behind the curvature.

If mathematical skills were intelligence, Ricci and Levi-Civita would have discovered general relativity, not Einstein. Levi-Civita only corresponded fruitfully with Einstein from 1915-1917 concerning "the variational formulation of the gravitational field equations and their covariance properties, and the definition of the gravitational energy and the existence of gravitational waves." - http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Levi-Civita.html

Post a Comment

<< Home