Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About andsm

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

714 profile views
  1. Really, misread it, sorry. So you not expressed your belief here, not towards realism or towards idealism.
  2. I may not know your beliefs, but I can see that you wrote. And you wrote that Unverse existed long before observers. And here you expressed your beliefs. Such vision, that Universe exists independent of observers, have name realism. It is not scientifically proved, so it is not knowledge, it is belief. If you disagree that realism is belief, I would be interested to know when realsim was proved.
  3. These is your philosophical beleif. You believe in realism, and believe that Universe exists independent of observers. If my theory correct, we live in Universe based on subjective idealism, and realism is wrong. My theory even can be, in principle, tested for predictions. The article describe only part of theory, so the possibility may be not seen from the article. So, question of that is true, realism or idealism, can be verified. Note - the subjective idealism can be directly derived from my theory. So, while you express your beliefs, the question can be considered based on scientific method.
  4. It is necessary to split question in two parts. 1. Are any problems with current understanding of GR? 2. Are any problems with derivation of GR? For first part, obviously, all is perfect, if not talk about problem with unification of GR amd QM. And all that you wrote relates to the part, about current understanding and interpretations of GR. For second part, there is problem. It comes from fact, that action in GR have to be postulated, not derived, and it have described results with tensor. There is no way no derive it (in my theory I did it, however). Einstein admitted there is problem with it. Many others scientists think so. I have seen several attempts to build alternative theories of gravity with non-zero value of gravity in tensor of mass-energy. I not see any of them as more or less successful, many problems. But main problem for such theories - GR fully satisfy to all observations. However, peoples trying to do something in the direction, because they see both problem and opportunity. Weak anthropic principle is tautological, I agree. But in my theory there is no weak anthropic principle. Result (and not postulate) of my theory is strong anthropic principle. Actually, anthropic principle in my theory is even stronger than strong anthropic principle, because in my theory observers bring Universe into Being, Universe cannot exists without intelligent observers.
  5. The paper is #1 in google search result for search phrase "einstein marble and cheap wood" I searched the phrase, because it is phrase how Einstein seen GR: "a mansion with a wing made out of marble and a wing made out of cheap wood". And the phrase directly related to discussed before value of variation of Smg I not read part of the paper, related to theory they propose. However, I see in introduction part they at least discuss problems of GR with absense of gravity in tensor of mass-energy. I would prefer to give link to some textbook, but I not know any textbook where the problem was discussed. For example, in Landau-Liftshiz 'Field theory' the problem is well masked and not mentioned at all. The theory was written even before I read the statement. Actually, I saw that one of consequences of my theory is strong anthropic principle. I opened Wiki, and found such citation. The citation looks right in line with result of my theory. So I added reference to the citation without check of source. I know, it is bad practice, and it is well known that Wiki is unreliable source. I will check the reference, and if it is as you wrote, I would remove all references to the work of J, Wheeler, I would simply write that strong anthropic principle is result of my theory. Nothing in the theory or in result of the theory may be affected by the change. Thanks for noticing it, it will make the article better. It looks like you have some misconception of the work. Probably you expected some new equations from the theory? I not tried to derive some new equations in the article, and I not had such goal for the article. My goal was to derive well-known equation of SR and GR, compatible with idea of absense of time and dynamic at fundamental level. And, as it looks, it was achieved - SR and GR was derived, on Euclideam space without time and dynamic. You said the equations were not derived. But, so far you not shown any logical errors in the article. Even if I simply copy pasted equation from textbooks (and it is not so), if as result I was able to get logically consistent theory, it also would be big achievement. It is easy to check is it was simply copy-paste, on example of SR. SR is simpler than GR, so it is easier to discuss. Quote from article: Is anything from the 3 points was not derived, prior to its usage? SR follow directly from the points.
  6. Quick search in Internet gave me following paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.09236.pdf In the paper, authors propose new alternative theory of gravity. The part is not relevant to your question. But the article contains good introduction part, first 4 pages, which describes why there is problem with zero value of mentioned earlier variation of action Smg. Other references: Einstein, A. and Grossmann, M. Outline of a generalized theory of relativity and of a theory of gravitation. Zeit. Math. Phys. 1913, 62, 225-261. Jaramillo, J. L. and Gourgoulhon, E. Mass and angular momentum in general relativity. in Mass and Motion in General Relativity 2011, (Springer, Netherlands). Misner, C. W., Thorn, K. S. and Wheeler, J. A. Gravitation. 1970, (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York). Einstein, A. Note on E. Schrodinger’s Paper: The Energy Components of the Gravitational Field. Phys. Z. 1918, 19, 115-116. Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity. 1922, (Princeton University Press). Vishwakarma, R. G. On the relativistic formulation of matter. Astrophys. Space Sci. 2012, 340, 373–379. It is related. Reason, as I see it - because I try to build theory without fundamental time and dynamic. Looks as it nearby impossible to imagine Universe fundamental time and dynamic, it too contradicts to philosophical beliefs about realism. One of consequences of the idea - realism is wrong, Nature expained by subjective idealism. The idea, about absense of fundamental time and dynamic leads to superdeterminism. The idea, about absense of fundamental time and dynamic allows to easily derive quantum mechnics (it is not covered in the article). Superdeterminism allows to build quantum physics without violating Bell's inequalities. In Wiki, if look at superdeterminism, there is mentioning what hypothetical class of superdeterministic theories can have hidden variables and not violate Bell's inequalities. And I have such 'hypothetical' theory. All local symmeties if Standard model can be easily derived from just idea about absense of fundamental time and dynamic. It is possible to answer to many other questions. However, so far I was unable even to publish paper where I describe how to build spacetime without fundamental time and dynamic. It looks as idea is too unusual to understad it. Where I wrote it, may you point to the part? I have seen on many forums quite similar behavior. If peoples have nothing to say, they ask to provide data on forum. I post parts of article on forum. And they have nothing to say. Simply ask to ask something? It would be good if I am wrong for the case. Part of article below.
  7. Why you think so? I did it. Several times journals send it to peer review, always rejected. Reason of rejections always were very generic without any specific, so I not know reasons. My guess is: it is because my model imply idealism instead of realism. It is hard to consider for reviewiers and editors, easier to reject based on philosophical beliefs instead of trying to follow scietific principle and try to do professional review. In one case review results were send to me, it was quite funny to read. Reviewer found one real error in formulations (quite minor, I fixed it later). After that he looks as started to read without thinking. In one place, I had equation L=0. He wrote "lagrangian is zero so ...". In entire article, lagrangian was not mentioned, L mean completely different. The review had several such cases. Its about quality of reviews. Ok. How it is relevant here? I derived GR with all its equations. Do you see any error in how I derived it? No, I not see any objections on the part. Except "objection" about how action shoukld look. I already answered about it, and I proposed to you to read textbooks, because, obviously, you need to to improve your knowledge in the part. Next you wrote about energy conservation. Well, it is possible to talk about energy conservation in GR. All that you wrote about symmetries applies to current theories, I not added any new symmetries. Same problem with energy conservation in GR, dervied in scope of my theory, as in standard GR. Really. I looked in article instead of my post. Yes No. #1 not follow from #2. Otherwise, Newtonian mechanic with Euclidean space would also lead to same result. And, as we know, it not leads to absense of time and dynamic. In Newtonian mechanic, time is fundamental phenomenon. Formulation of #3 is a bit unclear. It is better to formulate it after #5, because it is about absense of prefereed direction for equation of fundamantal field. #4 is simple repear of #1, so that it would be harder to miss it for readers. About #5 I already wrote that, for purpose of the article, I not need to know exact equation of field, it is enough to know some of its properties. It is possible to derive spacetime, SR and GR just with knowledge of some properties of the field. In the post the parts only mentioned, not explained. Explanation is in the article. Are any problems with explanation of them in the article?
  8. Checked. I not found any numbering in entire article except one part, but it have numbers only from 1 to 6. So, I not understand it. As I said, knowledge of exact equation of the field is not required for purpose of the article. Properties, which are required from the field, are described. Field, which I use, is not some well known type of field. Reason - it is defined not on spacetime, but on space without time and without dynamic. So, while it is scalar field (all values belongs to set of real numbers) , it have different propertiesthan scalalr field from textbooks for quantum field theory. It means, it is not possible to try to use typical properties of fields for field in the article, properties are different. As I already wrote, I not see numbered premises in the article. No. First I said time does not fundamentally exist, next derived from it special relativity with its max velocity which is same in all IFRs. I not just put them. First< I derived action for curved spacetime. Unlike Einstein, who postulated the action, I derived it. Resulting equations are same, but path to the equations is different. No, it was never purpose of GR. GR just describe gravity, but it nor describe creation of spacetime.
  9. I not remember, is it possible to define Newtonian gravity in symmetries. If it is possible, it would result in exactly same equations. But it is not related to the topic. No. Einsteain postulated his action. I derived the action, not postulated. And, as we found earlier, your knowledge of GR is far from perfect. GR in the article was derived near end of article. There is derivation of spacetime earlier. There is derivation of SR, also earlier than GR. Lots if the theory can be checked for logical correctness without good knowledge of GR. Hard to say anything about any of numbered premises, because I not know what each number means. I guess it is about adding scalar field? I have no equation for the scalar field. And, for purpose of the article, I not need it. All what I need: the field shoukld satisfy certain restictions, described in the article. May you name them? I would like to improve article, if there are some weak spots in it, but I not see them.
  10. It depends on point of view. Also, classical mechanics can be formulated in multiple ways. For example, it can be formulated with symmetries. I know about problems with energy conservaton in GR, I studied GR in university. How it is rrelated to the topic? No, I not say what the world is mathematical abstraction. Mathematical abstaction, in my theory, is spacetime without intelligent observer. Reasons are explained in the article. In the article was not shown how mass arise in such model, because the article cover more narrow topic. However, it is easy to show how mass arise in the model. So,m absense of mass (and energy) at fundamantal level is not a problem for the theory. Here I conpletely disagree. I not just say that observer is fundamental. I show, what if fundamental structure of Nature have no time and no dynamics, it leads to physical models where observer is more fundamental than observable spacetime. Basically, say that time and dynamic ansent at fundamental level - and one only possible physical model would require observers whichs are more fundamental than observable spacetime and it means subjective idealism.
  11. Thanks, you confirmed what my theory have same "singularities" as special relativity when approaching speed of light. Quite expected "singularity", I would say.
  12. If the "scalar" field would include only variation of relative lengths (space), results would be different than predicted by GR. If it would include variation of time too, how it would differ from existing theory? I am not sure it is full equavalent to curved spacetime, but it looks so from first glance.
  13. It is wrong right at start. I define function of fundamental field not on (t, x, y, z), but on 4d Euclideam space without time. Time dimension is absent in my model. Next, I derive from the space with field, defined on the space, spacetime. And here, during the derivation, I have to use observer and conscience, because there is no other way to derive spacetime from space without time and dynamic. As for standard equations. Yes, I use them, but only after I shown how and why they can be used in my model. Hmm, if you think it is gibberish and invented by me... Really, no questions. Just some hints. You may look on it in textbooks, for your self education. 1. Action for any force, except gravitation, is S=Sm+Smf+Sf 2. Smf=0, for gravity, is one of greatest mysteries in GR.
  14. And what was written right above the equation? Derivation of how action should look in my model: So, I not take Smf=0 for gravity out of nowhere, it it result of my model. And next yes, I took Sg from excellent textbook. I can do it, because in the textbook the action is calculated based on curvature only - exactly what I need.
  15. How energy emerge from assumptions of my theory? I derived space and time. Build it in such way, that time will have symmetry to translations. Next, I can use existing math and Noether theorem to show I have energy and energy conservation. So, I can use energy in my equations. About inverse mapping - you mean what there is no bijection for the mapping or what?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.