no equivalence

comment 

 
How ignorant are Stuart Clark and obviously the editors of New Scientist too, maintaining that the general theory of relativity with its equivalence principle still is the best for explaining gravity. One should read the book The Quantum Theory of Gravity (2003) by Vasily Yanchilin, who argues, on behalf of the Mach principle and hypothesis that the Heisenberg uncertainty lessens near mass, that gravity is a pure quantummechanical phenomen.
Only the spanish wikipedia mentions the work of this russian scientist, while the english and dutch versions boycot like in the dark Middle Ages to vested authorities unwelcome books were burnt.
Yanchilin attaches to the Mach principle the following meaning (page 64): when a particle moves away from large mass the uncertainty in its motion increases. As a result (page 74) the radii of electron shells and the size of atoms decrease near mass; or the unit of length becomes smaller. Which means that the electrons have to rotate faster because charges stay the same and as time should be regarded connected to physical processes the duration of the second near mass decreases. Einstein considered time from a mathematical standpoint and failed to describe reality as illustrated by the principle of least action: A photon passing mass tries to do so with as big steps (oscillations with low frequency) as possible and a minimum of these. So it follows a parabolic track. If Einstein were right a hyperbolic route would be observed. There is big difference between mathematics and physics as is well observed with a point. In maths it exists, but not in physics since it has no dimensions.

Page 90: The gravitational field of the universe creates our space-time. Planck and c change with the expansion of the universe (new hypothesis in agreement with observations on energy and potential of total mass in the universe), but in a noninertial reference system they do not. Therefore there is radical difference and none equivalence.

To help understanding the Heisenberg uncertainty I propose to keep the name of a particle for the whole thing with a Heisenberg sphere and call iets the appearances and disappearances within it. P.e. the word electron stays denoting the whole sphere with activity of iets inside the electron. This is just a sidestep for easier grabbing. So in the half of a particle nearest to an external mass there will be less iets going to the more distant half than from the more distant half iets are going to the nearest half (because as said before nearer to mass the Heisenberg activity decreases). Net result is movement towards the external mass. This is a qualitative explanation given by Yanchilin while Newton and Einstein only got quantitative interpretation available. I add that when external mass is absent a particle may have Heisenberg balance in its two halves and nothing happens and no mass is felt.

Yanchilin tries to prove with atomic clocks that time near mass runs faster. As a consequence the supernovae Ia standard has to be revised since then c was bigger in the past. If so accellerated expansion of the universe diasappears and the Nobel prize physics 2011 has to be returned. Likewise black holes, inflation, negative energy and the cosmological constant become phantasy (not giant big masses!; consider that at the Big Bang processes with its enormous concentration time ran very fast). In the new theory with smaller atoms in the past due to bigger concentration of the universe stable transuranium elements could exist. However some measurements indicate that radio-activity increases near the sun when there are flares. Could this be beta-decay caused by rearrangement within nuclei and so only the new theory a not harming bubble? Atomic clocks may not quite be trusted and Yanchilin propses another experiment with delayed light. I wonder whether a laser beam can be split and sent through prisms at different heights where the second differs and thus also the refraction as frequencies change. Measurements might be done with satelites that have well known coordinates. Anyway slower second farther from the sun solves the Pioneer anomalies.

Read page 184 and next about the square of an interval with new formula. Also in the book new interpretation is given of the sun's red shift. In the general theory of relativity this is caused by slower second on the sun and by overcoming its gravitation, but not the sum of both is measured. The book is full of excellent new interpretations and broadens our horizon. A main problem though is how potential of mass gets transferred. Dark matter may have an origin as light, says Yanchilin, and could this play a role as kind of medium in transferring? Note that Higgs things or fields if existing were present also in the past and then called ether? Study what Yanchilin tells about rest masses, these being smaller in the past, in order to do further research. Professors at the University of Amsterdam, cooperating with the formerly christian Vrije Universiteit, banned Yanchilin's book to a distant storehouse, where students do not come and thus stay ignorant, in order to promote an own theory of lesser or no quality and grab the Spinoza premium of a million euros for it.