SPACE & TIME AND EQUIVALENCE – Basudeba Mishra
Space is emergent. It emerges after time. Both space and time emerge from our notions of sequence and interval. Ordered intervals between sequential objects is space and that between events is time. Since intervals have no markers to describe them, we use alternative symbolism of the boundary objects and events to describe space and time. For measurement, we use an easily intelligible and fairly repetitive interval between objects and events like a foot or a day and its subdivisions or multiplications as the unit and scale up or down the given interval.
We can perceive something only when it is in motion or in a state of transition. We perceive the universe because everything here is ever moving. Its state is ever in transition – time evolution. Thus, for observing space, we must first observe the boundary objects in a sequence and for that our observation mechanism must focus at one and then the other (including what exists beyond the object – its base) leading to two transitions (events) in a sequence. Only after this, we could observe or measure space. Thus, space is an emergent property after time.
Number is a property of all confined objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Based on sequential perception of similars, the many can be labelled as 2, 3, 4 … n. Infinity is like one, but with the difference that while there are no similars, it is not confined to be labelled as a number. Since space and time are not confined, they are infinities. Infinities can coexist. Hence space and time coexist as spacetime.
Since space and time are the interval between objects, they do not have any material or physical existence. They are mental (abstract) constructs only. Einstein was influenced by the work of his teacher Minkowski, when the latter was trying to find an answer to a practical problem – the curvature of metal sheets when heated. From this Einstein got the idea of fabric of space and from that geometry of space and curvature of space. But if we compare the two examples, we are confronted with some questions: the metal sheets curved when they were heated by someone or something, but who or what heated the fabric of space to be curved? If the answer is gravity, then there is no proof that gravity heats up objects. A fabric, like a metal sheet, has two prominent dimensions as compared to the third. But space is equally pervasive in all directions infinitely. Only limited objects have dimensions: length, breadth, and height. We can measure distances between objects from different angles, but we can’t measure the length, breadth or height of space proper. Space has no dimensions: only objects limited in space have dimensions. Hence the comparison of hot metal plates to space or the concept of space-time geometry is wrong.
If spacetime curves, then a branch under the apple or a bird flying through it at that time, should also be affected. But that does not happen. Hence there is no proof that spacetime curves. It cannot curve, as curvature is a property of objects that physically exist and can be shown distinctly from others. Space or spacetime being mental constructs, do not have physical existence and cannot be shown distinctly from other spacetime.
The problem of the perihelion of Mercury was solved by Gerber without involving relativity and Einstein plagiarized his work. When Gerber challenged him, Einstein could not reply. Hence that does not validate GR. The initial readings of the published atomic clock experiment was fudged in the final report published a few months later, to prove Einstein right. Anyone can see the figures from the archives. The GPS result can be explained by refraction of light while travelling between different layers of the atmosphere with varying density levels. There is no real proof that GR is right.
The cornerstone of GR is the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses: mi = mg. The EP does not flow from any mathematics. Equivalence is a wrong description of reality. No one has given any mathematical reason (like a consistency constraint) why all matter fields should couple universally to gravity. This is not the case for the other fundamental forces or the Higgs field (which is why different particles have different masses). Higgs field is specific as to which particle couples to it. Gravity is said to be an universal field – an all pervading medium.
Every particle in the universe, whether massive or not, are said to couples to it. Since F=ma and universal free fall for all mass types hold, F ≈ g ≈ a holds. It can be explained only if gravity acts like river current propelling all objects uniformly based on local density gradient. The apple fell because its coupling with the stem softened and became weak – thus, unable to support the weight against a less dense medium. The galactic and star systems are like a “free vortex” arising out of conflicting currents in which the tangential velocity ‘v’ increases as the center line is approached, so that the angular momentum ‘rv’ is constant. The orbits are not elliptical, but circles with a shifting center. Hence gravity cannot be quantized and gravitons will never be found.
GR assumes general covariance and the equivalence of the two masses follows. General covariance means invariance under diffeomorphisms. This implies the equivalence principle. This implies that gravitational and inertial masses are equal. It is not a first principle of physics, but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. The appeal to believe in such a miraculous form of gravity is very strong. Virtually everyone accepts EP as an article of faith even though it has never been positively verified directly by either experimental or observational physics. All indirect experiments show that the equivalence or otherwise of gravitational and inertial masses is only one of description.
Thousands of years ago, Prashastapada in the Chapter on Motion of his book Padartha Dharma Sangraha, had discussed the equivalence principle by giving the example of a person moving from one room to the other and being observed by different people. While one observer describes the motion as exit, another describes it as entry. A third sitting in a vantage point describes it as neither, but describes as motion from point A to point B, which is unambiguous. So he says, the Equivalence Principle is a wrong description of reality. Later, Russell, in his famous paradox in Set Theory, proved the same thing.
No one knows why there should be two or more mass terms. In principle there is no reason why mi = mg: why should the gravitational charge and the inertial mass be equal? The EP states that the effect of gravity does not depend on the nature or internal structure of a body. The experiments of Galileo, who dropped balls of different masses from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, were conformed in 1971, when Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott performed a similar experiment. A heavy object (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously. Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer proving all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. Thus, the acceleration is only a function of distance and not mass. Thus, this should be inbuilt in the distance parameter in the gravitational equation. But the problem is the difference between the values of G (constant – though it might be changing: doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.111.101102) and g (known variable).
All objects are said to fall in similar ways under the influence of gravity. Hence locally, one, it is said, cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an un-accelerated frame. But these must be related to be compared as equivalent or not? Let us take the example of a person in an elevator. The person seats in the elevator that is falling down a shaft. It is assumed that locally (i.e., during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space) the person in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator and being stationary in completely empty space, where there is no gravity. This is a wrong assumption. We have experienced the effect of gravity in closed elevators. Even otherwise, unless the door opens and we find a different floor in front of us, we cannot relate motion of the elevator to the un-accelerated structure of the building – hence no equivalence. The moment we relate to the structure beyond the elevator, we can know the relative motion of the elevator, because unlike the effect of inertia or gravitation, both of which induce motion, the building is stationary.
Inside a spaceship in deep space, objects behave like suspended particles in a fluid (un-accelerated) or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt (accelerated). Usually, they are relatively stationary (fixed velocity) within the medium unless some other force acts upon them. This is because of the relative distribution of mass and energy inside the spaceship and its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point in the medium. Further the average density of the local medium of space is factored into in this calculation. If the person is in a spaceship where he can see the outside objects, then he can know the relative motions by comparing objects at different distances. In a train, if we look only at nearby trees, we may think the trees are moving, but when we compare it with distant objects, we realize the truth. If we cannot see the outside objects, then we will consider only our position with reference to the spaceship – stationary or floating within a frame. There is no equivalence because there is no other frame for comparison. The same principle works for other examples.
It is said that a ray of light, which moves in a straight line will appear curved to the occupants of the spaceship. The light ray from outside can be related to the spaceship only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spaceship. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the spaceship, they will notice this difference and know that the spaceship is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature of light path will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the spaceship, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the spaceship. The consideration will be restricted to those rays emanating from within the spaceship. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the spaceship. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, the foundation of GR – the EP – is wrong description of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon such wrong description are also wrong. There is only one type of mass.
In absolute terms, there is nothing like a center or an edge or a boundary. Both these are related coordinates in any frame of reference. The initial point of measurement is either the center or the edge. Measurement is invariably concerned with motion (the process involves action) and direction. Where the natural tendency replicates a positive charge – radiating or spreading out – the starting point is called the center. When it replicates a negative charge – confining something that radiates out – the starting point is called the edge or the boundary. In practice, we are the center from where the observation starts. When we observe galaxies moving out equally in all directions, it generally implies that Earth is the center of the universe. But closer observation shows a direction of this motion. Combined with the fact that we are seeing both redshift and blue-shift (including galactic mergers) and the fact that the so-called expansion of the universe is not apparent in scales less than the galaxy clusters, it is evident that, like everything else, the universe is spinning around a galactic center. We see similar phenomena in the solar system, when some planets appear to move away at times, while they come close at latter times. Our observation of redshift is insignificant in cosmic scales. There is no dark energy.
If we examine the original GR paper by Einstein, we find that he was talking about two bodies in space separated by a long distance and connected only by gravity and being observed from one of the systems. Though he didn’t give any example, we can take the Sun-Jupiter system being observed from Earth. He says one body will appear spherical, while the other elliptical. It is wrong. He was talking about the orbits as being observed from one system like the Sun’s orbit looks spherical and the Jupiter’s orbit looks elliptical as observed from Earth. Thus, he was talking about celestial dynamics.
Einstein was a bad student and couldn’t find a job by himself. He joined as a clerk in the Patent Office through the recommendation of someone. Hence, he didn’t have knowledge about celestial dynamics. He tried to solve the two body problem using F=ma, and obviously failed. Then he tried to use the Mach’s Principle, which is the hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. Even now, the extent of the universe is not known. How could Einstein know the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe at that time? This is specifically when he was considering only two bodies being observed from one of the systems?
Earlier, Berkeley, based on ancient Indian astronomical texts like Surya Siddhanta, had argued that all motion, both uniform and nonuniform, was relative to the distant stars. Einstein didn’t know about it and thought that Mach’s principle was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter. He used it to build a hotchpotch and later discarded it, once he could succeed to fool others.
Inertia, is NOT a property of a body by virtue of which it opposes any agency that attempts to put it in motion except in the case of elasticity, If the body is moving, inertia doesn’t oppose the force to change the magnitude or direction of its velocity. The magnitude depends on the weight and mass of the body and the direction depends on the direction of the force applied.
Equation of motion is a mathematical formula that describes the position, velocity, or acceleration of a body relative to a given frame of reference. Newton’s second law, which states that the force F acting on a body is equal to the mass m of the body multiplied by the acceleration a of its center of mass, F = ma, is said to be the basic equation of motion in classical mechanics. If the force acting on a body is known as a function of time, the velocity and position of the body as functions of time can, theoretically be ascertained. Incidentally, Newton framed his three laws of motion after reading it from the Chapter on (Samskara) inertia from the book of Prashastapada. He took it verbatim, though in an incomplete manner, Anyone can verify it. I had written repeatedly about it.
But then how do you know the force acting on Jupiter and and the time of its revolution around the Sun? Strictly speaking, the Sun and Jupiter orbit around their common barycenter, which is the center of mass of the two or more bodies that orbit one another and is a point just outside the Sun’s surface – not center. Hence, F = ma can’t be applied to it through back door, as Einstein tried to do.
Further, all orbital periods of Jupiter are not same, as it is influenced by other factors like the position of other astral bodies. Hence, like in atomic clock we have to take an average of a large number of revolutions, Surya Siddhanta did it. They used 3,64,220 revolutions of Jupiter around Sun in a time equal to 4,320,000 years on Earth. This makes one average period of revolution of Jupiter as equal to 4,332.216792 Earth days against modern value of present period of rotation equivalent to 4,330.6 to 4333 Earth days or about 11.86 years. If we take Kepler’s third law or law of harmonics, the period is 11.18 years. This shows, Surya Siddhanta is the only scientific text on Astronomy.
Regarding geodesic motion, we must keep in mind that geodesic path pertains to the geometry of curved surfaces, in which geodesic lines take the place of the straight lines of plane, because there is obstruction in the straight path. This changes the geometry. A curve γ(t) on a surface S is called a geodesic if at every point γ(t) the acceleration ¨γ(t) is either zero or parallel to its unit normal n. Example: Strictly following the definition, a straight line γ(t) = at + b is a geodesic since ¨γ(t) = 0. so that it is a geodesic. But this concept is NOT applicable to planetary motions. All planets move around the star in circular orbits, which appears elliptical because the center of the circle – the star – is moving. There is no curve or obstruction, but only circular motion. A circular motion is totally different from geodesic motion. Thus, this concept is not applicable here.
Geometry is the branch of mathematics concerned with the shape of individual objects, spatial relationships among various objects, and the properties of the surrounding space. It deals with the measurement, properties, and relationships of points, lines, angles, surfaces, of solids: the study of properties of given elements that remain invariant under specified transformations or varies according to fixed laws (like a weight placed on a rubber sheet). But geometry, by definition, can’t be used to space, which is everywhere? While inside sea, can we measure curvature of water?
Both space and time are infinite. Infinities are like one – without similars, with one exception: whereas the dimensions of one are discernible, the dimensions of infinity are not discernible – hence, can’t be measured. Infinities co-exist. Hence, space and time co-exist as spacetime. But how can you have geometry of spacetime? You can’t measure. It can’t curve, because curvature implies empty area to which the object can curve. The hot metal plate could curve, because because it is limited and there is space for it to curve. But how can spacetime curve?
The metal plate curves because of heat. If mass causes the curvature (which is impossible for space), then what is the ole of gravity? It is mass all the way. Why should we introduce another term? If the unicorn has one horn, it will not only pierce with it, but also can cut with it like a sword. But where is the unicorn?
There is an ancient saying, turn the facts so much out of context to such an extent that no one will understand anything. Then, the fools will think, you are a genius, because your thoughts are so high that he is not able to understand it. To hide his limitations, he will praise you.
Einstein could make an impression with explaining the black-body radiation problem (though I can explain it differently). His Special Relativity is all about optics and kinematics – how the observer sees something and not how the things evolve in time. For example, the man on the platform and the friend in the running train are observing each other as reducing in height, while neither actually reduces. You see water in a mirage, but you don’t get water there. It is apparent – not real. But Einstein succeeded in fooling everybody and continues to do it till now. Even tensor mathematics is no mathematics, but manipulatics, as it is logically not consistent. I have written several times on it.
Time to relook at Einstein and all of modern science without superstition.