astronomy and logic
A scientist changed his mind: Stephen Hawking does not believe anymore in black holes. But he sticks to the general theory of relativity on which those things are based. Is that right?
In astronomy the expression for an interval can be written as
2 2 2 2 2
ds = 1_ . c dt - k . dl
2
k
I write it again in order to avoid confusion:
ds (qadr.) = 1/k (quadr.) . c (quadr.) dt (quadr.) - k (quadr.) . dl (quadr.)
with d for differential
s for interval
c for speed of light
t for time
l for length
and in the general theory of relativity k (quadr.) = 1/(1 - 2GM/r c (quadr.))
while in new theory k (quadr.) = (1 + 2GM/rc (quadr.)).
This theory dates from 2003 when Vasily Yanchilin wrote his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation.
Far from mass k becomes 1 and nearer to mass it gets bigger than 1.
In the old theory k allows standstill of time at black holes, although such does not agree with the fast processes around the Big Bang with its enormous concentration.
For both k this or that near mass the above described interval decreases. Then logic has to be applied:
Those adhering to the general theory of relativity from a century ago think that a smaller interval means less time passing. Or when on a distant clock one second ticks then near mass only part of a second will be registered.
Yanchilin however argues that decrease of an interval means decrease of the duration of physical processes. On page 192 of his book one can read that such duration will take only parts of a second near mass. In other words time goes faster near mass and he explains the big mistake of Einstein's theory (of mathematical origin). Time there is not connected to physical processes but "in analogy with distance" considered to be on an imaginary axis. In reality when the unit of length shrinks near mass - and all scientists agree on this- then the distance increases, but when a physical process runs faster then the duration of that process also decreases. There is difference between maths and physics; p.e. a point does not exist in the latter because it has no dimensions. The didactically superbly written book explains further: When the unit of length shrinks near mass then oscillations get higher frequencies and to the latter time is connected and measured. So Einstein was wrong. Time accellerates near mass.
As a consequence in the past when the universe was more compact time ran faster or the speed of light was bigger. But then, Yanchilin maintains, the standard supernova Ia has to be corrected and accellerated expansion of the universe disappears. (The Nobel prize physics 2011 has to be returned). Likewise negative energy, inflation, the cosmological constant, not to forget black holes become phantasy. In the new theory the Planck varies, but a small devil interfered thus that in the book this still is denoted as the "constant of Planck".
Probably Yanchilin's book has not been read yet in England. Wikipedia boycotts it like in the dark Midlle Ages to vested authority unwelcome books were burned. Busy with good science means providing counterargumentation, not looking away.
A scientist changed his mind: Stephen Hawking does not believe anymore in black holes. But he sticks to the general theory of relativity on which those things are based. Is that right?
In astronomy the expression for an interval can be written as
2 2 2 2 2
ds = 1_ . c dt - k . dl
2
k
I write it again in order to avoid confusion:
ds (qadr.) = 1/k (quadr.) . c (quadr.) dt (quadr.) - k (quadr.) . dl (quadr.)
with d for differential
s for interval
c for speed of light
t for time
l for length
and in the general theory of relativity k (quadr.) = 1/(1 - 2GM/r c (quadr.))
while in new theory k (quadr.) = (1 + 2GM/rc (quadr.)).
This theory dates from 2003 when Vasily Yanchilin wrote his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation.
Far from mass k becomes 1 and nearer to mass it gets bigger than 1.
In the old theory k allows standstill of time at black holes, although such does not agree with the fast processes around the Big Bang with its enormous concentration.
For both k this or that near mass the above described interval decreases. Then logic has to be applied:
Those adhering to the general theory of relativity from a century ago think that a smaller interval means less time passing. Or when on a distant clock one second ticks then near mass only part of a second will be registered.
Yanchilin however argues that decrease of an interval means decrease of the duration of physical processes. On page 192 of his book one can read that such duration will take only parts of a second near mass. In other words time goes faster near mass and he explains the big mistake of Einstein's theory (of mathematical origin). Time there is not connected to physical processes but "in analogy with distance" considered to be on an imaginary axis. In reality when the unit of length shrinks near mass - and all scientists agree on this- then the distance increases, but when a physical process runs faster then the duration of that process also decreases. There is difference between maths and physics; p.e. a point does not exist in the latter because it has no dimensions. The didactically superbly written book explains further: When the unit of length shrinks near mass then oscillations get higher frequencies and to the latter time is connected and measured. So Einstein was wrong. Time accellerates near mass.
As a consequence in the past when the universe was more compact time ran faster or the speed of light was bigger. But then, Yanchilin maintains, the standard supernova Ia has to be corrected and accellerated expansion of the universe disappears. (The Nobel prize physics 2011 has to be returned). Likewise negative energy, inflation, the cosmological constant, not to forget black holes become phantasy. In the new theory the Planck varies, but a small devil interfered thus that in the book this still is denoted as the "constant of Planck".
Probably Yanchilin's book has not been read yet in England. Wikipedia boycotts it like in the dark Midlle Ages to vested authority unwelcome books were burned. Busy with good science means providing counterargumentation, not looking away.
Remarkable is that both old and new theory agree when factors vary little as is the case on Earth.
This because 1/ (1-x) equals (1 + x) up to x quadratic.
Attention should also be paid to the measurement in 1919 of the curvature of light towards mass. In relativity theory this appeared to be the double as in classical physics.Yanchilin: Half of the change in potential energy turns into internal energy according Einstein's formula on the relation between energy, mass and speed of light. That half is extremely small compared to the total energy and therefore was not noticed or considered to play a role.
How about the special theory of relativity?
Yanchilin offers the hypothesis that c is related to the potential of the total mass of the universe -following 19th century Mach-, which is the same in all directions to moving observers. But changes with the expansion of the universe and the book provides suggestion for an experiment with by mirrors retarded light to measure that expansion.
Also atomic clocks at differnt heights might reveal whether the second is slower or faster near mass, but inside the nucleus of an atom things happen - in the past transuranium elements could exist as the atoms were smaller (think of shrinking the unit of length when mass gets concentrated) and research on inner processes that influence the radiation emitting electrons is still scarce. In America phase difference was measured and interpreted as confirming the old theory. But this is not correct since not the total of oscillations was counted and the presented result of phase difference fits also in the new theory.
This because 1/ (1-x) equals (1 + x) up to x quadratic.
Attention should also be paid to the measurement in 1919 of the curvature of light towards mass. In relativity theory this appeared to be the double as in classical physics.Yanchilin: Half of the change in potential energy turns into internal energy according Einstein's formula on the relation between energy, mass and speed of light. That half is extremely small compared to the total energy and therefore was not noticed or considered to play a role.
How about the special theory of relativity?
Yanchilin offers the hypothesis that c is related to the potential of the total mass of the universe -following 19th century Mach-, which is the same in all directions to moving observers. But changes with the expansion of the universe and the book provides suggestion for an experiment with by mirrors retarded light to measure that expansion.
Also atomic clocks at differnt heights might reveal whether the second is slower or faster near mass, but inside the nucleus of an atom things happen - in the past transuranium elements could exist as the atoms were smaller (think of shrinking the unit of length when mass gets concentrated) and research on inner processes that influence the radiation emitting electrons is still scarce. In America phase difference was measured and interpreted as confirming the old theory. But this is not correct since not the total of oscillations was counted and the presented result of phase difference fits also in the new theory.
Yanchilin derives his formula for an interval with the principle of least action. A photon seeks to pass mass with as big steps (oscillations with low frequencies) as possible and a minimum number of these. If Einstein were right a hyperbolic track would be observed since distances increase near mass. We know that a parabolic route is chosen!
Now for the main content of the book, a qualitative analysis of gravity: Based on the hypothesis that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty (which is very large in the micro world but unnoticed in large objects) "gravitation is a pure quantummechanical process": In the half of a particle nearest to an external mass there will be less quantummechanical transitions to the farthest half than from the latter to the nearest half. Net result is movement of the particle towards the external mass. Newton and Einstein only gave quantitative descriptions. I add that in the absence of external mass gravity is not felt, as if there exist balance then.
The russian scientist rejects the quivalence principle as in his opinion "The gravitational field of the universe creates our space-time. The values of the speed of light and Planck's constant depend on the value of the gravitational potential. But in a noninertial reference system the values of the speed of light and Planck's constant do not change. Therefore a gravitational field radically differs from a noninertial reference system". (If an electrical charge is accellerated then it radiates electromagnetic waves; a charge at rest in a noninertial ref. system radiates while a charge at rest in a gravitational field does not).
The book is available by googling the authors'name for less than 14 euros. Every student should read it thoroughly as it widens the horizon.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten