a call for countering
The Economist of march 11 describes the general theory of relativity as immensely succesful. However this is wrong according Vasily Yanchilin in his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003). All scientists agree that the principle of least action is valid and a photon therefore seeks a path near mass with as big "steps" (oscillations of low frequency) as possible and a minimum of these. Observed is a slightly parabolic route, not nearest to the mass. In other words the photon passes through a zone where time runs slower -where oscillations with lower frequency have less energy- than at the mass. Einstein maintained a century ago the opposite, namely that near mass the second has longest duration. Such would allow existence of black holes with standstill of time but is contradictory to the fast processes around the very dense Big Bang.
The general theory of relativity is of mathematical character and confuses that time is related to physical processes. There is difference between maths and physics as illustrated by a point which does not exist in the latter since it has no dimensions. It is accepted by everyone in astronomics that near mass the unit of length shrinks and distances become larger. But when some process gets faster, needs near mass less of the time unit in empty space, then its total duration becomes shorter. Near mass atoms become more compact and consequently the electrons need more energy to radiate, will do so with higher frequencies. Not so in the gtr and see page 192 of the book for Yanchilin's summary.
Another argument against the gtr is that it accepts red shift of sunlight as caused by slower second on the sun and by overcoming gravitational attraction of this star while not the sum of both is measured. Yanchilin gives satisfactory new interpretation. Meanwhile the special theory of relativity stays valid if understood thus that the speed of of light is the same for all moving observers at a certain place and a certain time. Namely changing with the expansion of the universe and becoming zero at the "edge" of it. There everything looses speed and direction, gets into a pure quantum mechanical state. Thus the principle of Mach is interpreted as mass limiting quantum mechanical aspects; and from measurements the potential of the total mass of the cosmos looks connected to c, the speed of photons. Then in the past c was much bigger or if preferred one can say with constant speed of light that time went much faster. Reflect on this. Bigger c in the past means that the standard supernova Ia has to be corrected which makes accellerated expansion of the universe and its motor negative energy a phantasy. The Nobel prize for that accelleration presumption should be returned.
In astronomy an interval is much used and from wave theory Yanchilin derives a better formula which exempts existence of black holes. He explains further that in the old formula d t is misunderstood. All the book is written didactically very well and also accessible to philosophers specialised in logics. However they lean back and are content with their high salaries, do not check what news the russian scientist brings, widening our horizon. At the University of Amsterdam his book was banned to a distant store house, not easily accessible to students, which now stay ignorant, dumb. This in order to promote an own theory of the professors there, which however has no value since it does not resolve any problem. But they got a million euro Spinoza premium for it from friends! At Utrecht University a renormalisation was invented for shortcomings in the gtr and if the latter is not correct that work looses significance. Wikipedia boycots like in the dark Middle Ages to vested authority unwelcome books were burned. Instead of providing couter argumentation. NIST in America seeks a new standard for the kilogram based on constant Planck, while in the new theory this changes in opposite way as c.
Very important is that the gtr is not in harmony with quantum mechanics which did not exist a century ago. Yanchilin presents the hypothesis that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty and then the half of a tiny particle nearest to an external mass will have less quantum mechanical transitions towards the farthest half than the latter to the nearest half. The result is movement of the particle in the direction of that external mass. This is a qualitative explanation where Newton and Einstein only gave quantitative descriptions. So gravitation may be understood AD 2017 as a pure quantum mechanical proces; therefore is relativily very weak and operating in one direction only. Without any external mass there seems balance in transitions and no gravitation, no mass is felt. The american scientist Feynman remarked that even a house maid will understand a correct theory as that must be simple.
In his book Vasily Yanchilin gives only a hint regarding the origin of black mass: it might result from abundant light. Research on this should start and consider that old a little bit dispersed light looses ability to react with anything unless the waves are concentrated by a lense. Yet it keeps its energy and energy is somehow equivalent to mass. That is subject to gravity and may be very concentrated in the centres of galaxies. Perhaps also a bit round Earth, causing atomic clocks in satelites sometimes tick faster than at the surface of the planet? Can waves of light be seen as quantum mechanical transitions in only one direction? Then that stops when changing into dark mass like reflecting light does not react with what it hits. So the photon gets triple character as from Huygens, Newton and now also with mass potential. In the Beginning there was only radiation. While the gtr assumes that rest mass is invariable Yanchilin argues that it decreases when going back in time. For in a closed system of particles mutual gravitational attraction occurs while the impuls momentum stays the same and thus the involved mass is reduced though nothing disappears. So also here work is to be done and Yanchilin should be invited to give an interview, presenting recent results of his research. Or better be invited to give a lecture with afterwards discussing.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten