andsm

I checked references in article. Removed reference to Wheeler, because that formulation come from Copenhagen interpretation. So, instead of anthropic principle of participation I would simply state that strong anthropic principle is one of results of my theory. Article of Vixra was not yet updated, I will update it somewhere later, after more changes.

So far, I have theory and there is no any known errors in the theory. Small mistake (incorrect reference) was found by joigus, thanks to him. I looking for criticism of the theory, but so far no success. May be the theory is too complex? Looking on it, and math of the theory looks really simple. The article was written to show part of bigger theory, which is really complex, and it was written to be both as simple as possible and to have scientific accuracy.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's not what I said.

Here's what I said:

Can you read it now? Take some time. Read it twice, three times, if necessary.

Really, misread it, sorry. So you not expressed your belief here, not towards realism or towards idealism.

1 minute ago, joigus said:

You believe too much with too little evidence. AAMOF, you believe I believe something. Not only that; you go on to assert it, as if you were privy to my mental states. You couldn't be farther from knowing how I form my opinions. Which goes to prove that you give too much value to your beliefs.

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.

35 minutes ago, joigus said:

Universe did a pretty nifty job of looking as if it had existed long before any intelligent observers were around. That's all I can say.

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.

9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

That’s because there isn’t any such ‘problem’. How could there be? The energy-momentum tensor is a local quantity, whereas the self-interaction of the gravitational field is non-local, so of course it doesn’t form part of aforementioned tensor. It can never be a tensorial quantity, because all tensors are local, and any concept of ‘gravitational energy’ is necessarily non-local and observer-dependent. You can, however, define such a quantity as a pseudo-tensor (such as the Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor, or the Einstein pseudo-tensor); this allows you to write down a combined conservation law. 
The self-interaction of the field is instead encoded in the structure of the field equations themselves; that is why they are non-linear. This is perfectly well understood, both physically and mathematically, so there is no ‘problem’ here.

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.

7 hours ago, joigus said:

The anthropic principle is tautological. Tautologies are not necessarily bad in physics. They can never be false. What could be more robust than that?

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.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I have to say this is one of the worst papers on GR I have ever seen; it is just full of errors and basic misconceptions from beginning to end. Only goes to show that what is on arXiv is to be taken with a grain of salt - it’s a pre-print server after all.

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 S_mg

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.

20 hours ago, joigus said:

That sounds to me more like a rhetorical question than the statement of a principle. And have you based your whole theory on a rhetorical question from John Wheeler? Rhetorical questions tend to be the weakest points in any argument. Anyway, my answer to that rhetorical question, and the answer from most scientists today is "no". There are other ways.

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.

20 hours ago, joigus said:

In any case, none of this has to do with the fact that you just copied and pasted standard equations from physics books to make your "paper" look like a genuine idea, as I pointed out. Neither Lorentz transformations, nor the geodesic equation, nor Einstein's equations derive from your idea. You just say the do. 

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:

Quote

To derive Lorentz transformations, one shall need:

1.       Space and time homogeneity

2.       Space isotropy

3.       Presence of the maximum interactions velocity

Is anything from the 3 points was not derived, prior to its usage?  SR follow directly from the points.

22 hours ago, joigus said:

OK. Give me a list of books, papers, and authors I'd better read to meet your standards. I really would like to improve my knowledge in the part.

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 S_mg.

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.

22 hours ago, joigus said:

May I ask what generalities were those that the experts found so unpalatable? Or is this not relevant to the present discussion, like talking about energy and Noether's theorem? 

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.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

 

No I have not read the article you advertised.

Are you now telling me that it is different from your opening post  ?

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.

Quote

Abstract

The hypothesis, allowing deriving a space-time with a Minkowski space metrics on Euclidean space with no time and dynamics is suggested. This is a fundamental novelty, to the best of the author’s knowledge, such an opportunity has never been considered before.  This hypothesis also allows deriving the curved space-time with a metrics of the general theory of relativity. It was demonstrated that the principle of causality and the anthropic principle arise from the hypothesis. It was demonstrated that the strong principle of equivalence of gravitation and acceleration arises from the hypothesis. All principles and postulates, on which special and general theories of relativity are based are being derived, Lorentz transformations and the general theory of relativity equations were derived. It has been demonstrated that the principle of locality arises in such a hypothesis.

Introduction

There are two principal models of the nature at current time. The first model tries to use aether, the second model is based on physical vacuum and relativity. Aether theories have many problems, which seem unresolvable. This means that, in fact, there is only one main opportunity for derivation of theories. Is it possible to derive an entirely new model of the nature, different from the first two? Hypothesis with such model is offered in this article.

Is it possible to derive a hypersurface with a Lorentz space metrics in Euclidean space? As S.Hawking, J. Ellis [1, p 55] show, in Euclidean space, it is impossible to derive the enclosed hypersurface with both a Minkowski space-time metrics and in metrics of a general theory of relativity.

The demonstration of impossibility to derive the enclosed hypersurface with a special theory of relativity metrics in Euclidean space appears convincing, seems like it cannot be disproved. Any demonstration is based on some provisions, which are considered as true. If there is any possibility to call into question any of these provisions, then all conclusions, dependent on such provision, also become doubtful. The provision questioned in this article is realism.

Time participates both in a Minkowski space-time metrics and in metrics of a general theory of relativity.  Therefore, before considering the offered hypothesis, let’s consider what the time is.

Time is the phenomenon the effects of which we constantly observe. The physics still does not know the nature of time, the existing description of time and its properties is phenomenological. Special and general theories of relativity have established dependence between time, space and gravitation. It shows that time is not the independent phenomenon, and has the connection with space and matter causing gravitation. The physics has established the properties of time. However, there is no knowledge why there is time, why time is unidirectional, whether there are time quanta, why time has one dimension and whether it is possible to travel to the past. 

Whether the space, time, matter and fields exist independently or are the manifestation of something more fundamental?

Let's assume that at the fundamental level time does not exist at all. Let's consider the arising consequences of this assumption

If at the fundamental level time does not exist, then there has to be no dynamics. Options when there is dynamics at the fundamental level, and time is emergent at the macro-level, are difficult to call model with no time. More likely, such models can be called models with a numerous of times at the micro-level.

With absence of time and dynamics at the fundamental level, the question now arises of how to coordinate it with dynamics and time observed in the nature.

Model of Hypothesis

Let us assume that there is a four-dimensional Euclidean space with some fields, defined on this space at each point. There is no time or dynamics. Thereby, the fields also have no dynamics. It also means full determinism. I will call these fields fundamental ones. I suppose that the fundamental fields are smooth and are described by certain partial differential equations. Each of the fundamental fields is independent of other fundamental fields. This means that there are no other fields in the equations describing any fundamental field. I think that fundamental fields the values belong to the set of real numbers at each point.

Let us assume that in this space, we can build a series of non-crossing hypersurfaces, on which fundamental fields have some values at each point, and some additional conditions are satisfied. Namely, let us assume that the projections of fundamental fields can be divided into several components. Each of these components is an effective field in this series of hypersurfaces. Also, let us assume there is a continuous transformation of the effective fields  state on one hypersurface of  series to the effective fields state on another hypersurface   of the same series.

Each point on one hypersurface is mapped to some point on other hypersurface. As the transformation is continuous, there is a curve consisting of mapping points on intermediate hypersurfaces, connecting a point on an  hypersurface to a point on an  hypersurface. Let’s  call this curve the line of evolution.

It is possible to say that fields on hypersurfaces evolve along this line.

Further, I will use the word field mainly as a designation of an effective field. Where the type of the field will be ambiguously understood from the context, there will be a more complete designation.

In the presence of the mapping of fields states on one hypersurface to the fields states on another hypersurface along the line of evolution, the distance on this line serves as the time in the equations. In this case, we can talk about the time vector, and this vector is tangent to the line of evolution.

I believe that at the level of fundamental four-dimensional space, the preferred direction is absent; all directions are equal.

The question now arises of where time vector is directed.

In fundamental space, there is no preferred direction. Thereby, this vector has to be directed in the most symmetric way concerning a hypersurface. For the case of hyperplane, the greatest symmetry achieved, if time vector at each point of hyperplane is directed perpendicular to the hyperplane. For the hypersurface, the greatest symmetry achieved if the time vector is directed perpendicular to the tangent hyperplane. The time vector has a direction. I will return below to the question of finding its direction.

In such model of the hypothesis, the question arises as to what the consciousness is.

Consciousness

Within the suggested model, I am postulating that the consciousness is an epiphenomenon caused by the change of physical fields on hypersurfaces. Change occurs not in time, but in fundamental space, which differs from the observed space. The observed space corresponds to the space of hypersurfaces. It is necessary for the observed three-dimensional space that hypersurfaces also were three-dimensional.

The space, time and matter observed by us are the product of consciousness. Without observer, they are mathematical abstraction. Thereby, according to this hypothesis, they do not exist objectively, they exist subjectively.

I will call the observed space-time as the generated or emergent space-time.

`

Anthropic Principle

From the model of theory follows that the observer is necessary for existence of the Universe Thereby, the anthropic principle follows from the theory.

The anthropic principle was offered [2][3] for an explanation scientifically, why, in the observed Universe, there is a number of nontrivial relations between fundamental physical parameters, necessary for existence of intelligent life, takes place. There are various formulations; usually, the weak and strong anthropic principles are marked out. 

The variant of the strong anthropic principle is the anthropic principle of participation stated by John Wheeler [4]:

 Observers are necessary   to bring the Universe into being.

In the suggested hypothesis, the anthropic principle of participation is a direct consequence of subjective existence of the observed space-time.

Principle of Causality

All models of intelligent life known to me require the principle of causality. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being. Only the rational being can be the observer. It means that intelligent life is necessary to bring the Universe into being. Based on this, hypersurfaces with the physical fields changing on them need to be built so that the principle of causality was achieved. Thereby, the principle of causality is a consequence of the anthropic principle of participation.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

If you're so sure about it, why don't you send it to a peer-reviewed journal?

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.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

It is completely on-topic, as we're talking about symmetries and conservation laws in dynamics, which is relevant here.

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.

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Seems very clearly numbered 1 through 7 to me.

Really. I looked in article instead of my post.

On 7/29/2020 at 12:00 AM, studiot said:

remise 2 simply proposes the existence of a fundamental Euclidian space.

Yes

On 7/29/2020 at 12:00 AM, studiot said:

Premises 1,3 and 4 are redundant since they are already implied by premise 2.

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.

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Both 6 and 7 have mixed unsupported statements with premises.

Premise 6, for instance introduces an 'observer'. Any statements of the properties of this observer must fllow by rational deduction from 6 plus the previous 5 premises alone. No other material is allowable.

In the post the parts only mentioned, not explained. Explanation is in the article.

Are any problems with explanation of them in the article?

22 hours ago, studiot said:

They are your premises, not mine and you numbered them not I.

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.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

However it is where you first introduce a fundamental field so it must be necessary.

So what are the field variables ?
It is up to you, as the author, to define them.

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.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Please don't tell me you know what General Relativity is, but don't know what a Field is?

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.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Both 6 and 7 have mixed unsupported statements with premises.

Premise 6, for instance introduces an 'observer'. Any statements of the properties of this observer must fllow by rational deduction from 6 plus the previous 5 premises alone. No other material is allowable.

As I already  wrote, I not see numbered premises in the article.

19 hours ago, lagrangian said:

Ok, I'm not too good with physics and mathematics, but first you said that velocity is zero then you use the maximum interactions velocity for a lot of things.

19 hours ago, lagrangian said:

Because you use the maximum velocity to say that time does not fundamentally exist.

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.

19 hours ago, lagrangian said:

The other thing I notice it's you just put the equations for general relativity out there, with no special meaning.

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.

19 hours ago, lagrangian said:

Isn't general relativity supposed to create space-time?

No, it was never purpose of GR. GR just describe gravity, but it  nor describe creation of spacetime.

23 hours ago, joigus said:

OK. Give me the dynamics of the Solar System with only integrals of motion derived from continuous symmetries.

You can't. And the reason is that the system is not integrable (the number of integrals of motion is insufficient, far less than the number of degrees of freedom.)

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.

23 hours ago, joigus said:

This is how: You wrote down Einstein's equations in the vacuum from the Einstein-Hilbert action.

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.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Premise 2 simply proposes the existence of a fundamental Euclidian space.

Premises 1,3 and 4 are redundant since they are already implied by premise 2.

Hard to say anything about any of numbered premises, because I not know what each number means.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Premise 5 add new material but does not properly define the Field variables, which are necessary for the existence of any scalar field, since they are not one of the Euclidian axes.

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.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Premises 6 and 7 are a complete mish mash and need to be rewritten.

May you name them? I would like to improve article, if there are some weak spots in it, but I not see them.

On 7/26/2020 at 2:03 PM, joigus said:

Energy is not a primitive concept.

It depends on point of view.

Also, classical mechanics can be formulated in multiple ways. For example, it can be formulated with symmetries.

On 7/26/2020 at 2:03 PM, joigus said:

Oh, and in GR energy is not conserved in general. Some metrics have a time-like Killing vector and then you can derive a particular "version" of energy. Energy in GR is not a very useful in general, very fundamental concept.

I know about problems with energy conservaton in GR, I studied GR in university.

How it is rrelated to the topic?

On 7/27/2020 at 6:54 AM, lagrangian said:

First, you consider that the world is mathematical abstraction.

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.

On 7/27/2020 at 6:54 AM, lagrangian said:

How could we even create mathematical abstraction without mass?

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.

On 7/27/2020 at 6:54 AM, lagrangian said:

You simply say the observer is fundamental.

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.

8 hours ago, joigus said:

All of them, AAMOF:

 

f(α)=tanα

 

 

α=π2(2k+1),k=0,±1,±2,⋯

 

Thanks, you confirmed what my theory have same "singularities" as special relativity when approaching speed of light. Quite expected "singularity", I would say.

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.

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

Here's a try to guess at what you've done:

1) Define an arbitrary map (not even well defined mathematically) from t, x, y, z and claim that you've shown space and time as "emergent" from your singular variables.

2) Copy and paste standard equations from physics books.

3) Puff it all up with lots of words. Throw in "conscience" and "observer" and "hypersurface". Big words.

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.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Thank you. Some gibberish you invented must be zero. Only non-trivial stuff comes from a book.

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=S_m+S_mf+S_f

2. S_mf=0, for gravity, is one of greatest mysteries in GR.

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

Then you narrow it down to a simpler form. And then you pull the rabbit out of the hat about here:

Quote

Now we can proceed to the derivation of the gravitational field equations. These equations are obtained from the principle of least action 𝛿𝑆=0, 𝛿𝑆=𝛿(𝑆𝑚+𝑆𝑔)=𝛿𝑆𝑚+𝛿𝑆𝑔

Variation 𝛿𝑆𝑔 is equal to [5,p. 355]:

𝛿𝑆𝑔=−𝑐316𝜋𝑘∫(𝑅𝑖𝑘−12𝑔𝑖𝑘𝑅)𝛿𝑔𝑖𝑘√−𝑔𝑑Ω

And what was written right above the equation? Derivation of how action should look in my model:

Quote

The gravitational field in the model under consideration is the hypersurface curvature, necessary for the fulfillment of the principle of causality and the sameness of the laws of physics. This means that the gravitational field is determined by particles completely. It follows from this that there is no interaction between the gravitational field and particles, the particles configuration determines the gravitational field. Then, for the gravity and particles interaction

S_mf=0

Consequently,

S=S_m+S_g

where S_g – gravity action.

So, I not take S_mf=0 for gravity out of nowhere, it it result of my model.

And next yes, I took S_g from excellent textbook. I can do it, because in the textbook the action is calculated based on curvature only - exactly what I need. 

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Sorry, you do introduce it later. But I don't see how this emerges from any new assumptions of your own.

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?

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Your time and space have infinitely many singularities.

Many singularities? May you show even one?

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

And there's no inverse mapping from the alphas

Sorry, what is alphas?

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

And no offence, but the rest of it looks like you're just copy-pasting common physics and puffing it up with lots of words, TBH. Example: Because there are hypersurfaces, there must be curvature, and thereby, there must be a geodesic equation. So you write down the geodesic equation. Nice.

First I derived hypersurfaces with certain properties, next started to use them. So, their usage come from ideas of my theory, not simply copy pasted from somewhere.

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

Why? What particles are moving along them? Where are these particles?

It is question, not considered in the article. I have answer to it, but I prefer to not discuss it. Reason - it will lead to necessity to talk about how quantum physics arise in the model. And the article is about how spacetime arise in the model, more narrow topic.

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

You also copy-paste the Lagrangian of GR as if it were derived from your idea. It's not. You've just attached it to your idea.

It is simply wrong statement.

Do you disagree with derivation of action variation in my article? If the derivation of action variation is correct, it means I derived equations of GR too.

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

You also talk about conscience giving rise to the world. Whose conscience? Mine? Donald Trump's? How many are there? How do they give rise to the world?

Looks as you read the article too fast, because there is answer to the question in the article. Conscience of any intelligent observer.

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

You also talk about energy long before you talk about Lagrangian formalism or anything that logically amounts to it. And energy is a consequence of it. Energy is not a primitive concept.

Energy is primitive concept. It is  enough to have symmetry to time translations, and you would have energy conservation law. I wrote how symmetry to time translations arise in my model.

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

I have also serious doubts that you can construct pseudo-vectors like angular momentum, helicity, etc.

Such questions are not covered in the article, in order to make it more simple. What can be tested - is SR and GR are really derived in such model without fundamental time and dynamic.

Is it possible to build spacetime based on system without time and dynamic?

It looks as it is not possible.

However, seems as there is way to derive spacetime based on system without time and dynamic.

I wrote article how it can be done.

Link to article is: https://vixra.org/abs/1812.0157
Or, direct link to pdf document: https://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0157v5.pdf

In the article, I propose following model:
1. Time and dynamic is absent on fundamental level. No any motion, no energy, nothing related to time and dynamic on fundamental level
2. On fundamental level there is Euclidean space, with al least 4 dimensions. (And yes, I know about impossibility to derive hypersurface with Lorentz metric in Euclidean space. There is solution for the theory)
3. All dimensions are equal, there is no preferred direction.
4. Reiterating that was written before – time and dynamic on fundamental level is absent. Completely. No anything like time dimensions etc.
5. There is some field or field on fundamental level. The field(s) are defined at each point of fundamental space and have values belonging to set of real numbers (scalar field). (Scalar fields, described in textbooks for QFT, have different properties than these fields, so statement about insufficient degrees of freedom is not applicable here. But lets put it aside of the discussion) There is no time or dynamics. Thereby, the fields also have no dynamics. It also means full determinism. I will call these fields fundamental ones. I suppose that the fundamental fields are smooth and are described by certain partial differential equations. Each of the fundamental fields is independent of other fundamental fields. This means that there are no other fields in the equations describing any fundamental field.
6. Quite obviously, it is not possible to add observer to the model in traditional way. Observer always requires time for its existence. Absence of time means it is necessary to add something else to add observers. Instead of time dimension, I use space dimension. Details are in article. All space dimensions, as I already write, are equal, no preferred direction. Observer is able to observe changes because I postulate that changes on consecutive 3-d hyperplanes in fundamental space can lead to appearance of observer. [These is hardest of understanding point of the model].
7. Because observer appear as result of changes of field(s) on consecutive 3-d hyperplanes in fundamental space (I reiterate, there is no changes in fundamental space, But state of projections of fundamental field(s) on consecutive hyperplanes can change), observer is not exists objectively. And even more, Universe is not exists objectively. It exists only when there is some observer which observe it. Without observer, spacetime in the model is just mathematical abstraction.
So, I propose subjective idealism in foundation of my theory. Fundamental space with defined on the space field(s) exists objectively. But, because observer cannot exists without time and dynamic, the space and fields exists in quite nontraditional way, without any ability for direct observation. Their presence can be verified only indirectly, based on how well the theory fit to observations.

As one can notice, there is no relativism at the model. There is no aether at the model. There is no motion at the model. There is no gravity at the model.
What I claim as done in the article in scope of the theory:
1. Derived anthropic principle. Yes, derived, not postulated
2. Derived principle of causality
3. Derived equations of special relativity
4. Derived principle of locality
5. Found what is gravity
6. Derived equations of general relativity. And I derived in in such way, that there is clear explanation why gravity part is absent in tensor of energy-mass.

And all above done on model without time, without dynamic, without principle of locality, without gravity.
So, I remove lots of phenomena from list of fundamental ones.

The claims, as it can be seen, are quite big. I am interesting in testing the theory, test are the results correctly derived, are any obvious weaknesses.
 

The improvement I see needed in the GR section is in details. One recommendation is to show its compatibility to the SO(3) symmetry Lorentz group. Details on how you arrive at your modifications is also recommended.

 

As far as I know, solutions of GR, even without my changes, has no compatibility to SO(3) in general case.

About details.

I have impression I explained how and why I did modifications to GR in details, but may be I am wrong.

May you wrote which details are not clear?

Ok recognizing this as under development I will offer some advise on direction.

 

1) get a spell/ grammar checker as well as someone to proof read it.

 

(Numerous spelling errors and broken sentences)

 

I somehow thought number of such errors is small. Ok, I will improve it.

2) show in mathematical details how GR or QM and the ideal gas laws describe a homogeneous and isotropic universe (accurately in accordance with well tested and well established models).

I already described it in mathematical details, for GR. And it fits to well tested and well established theories.Where you see need for improvement here?

As for QM - yes, it is one of areas I plan for future development in ER-hypothesis.

I understand the more testability the beter. However, some testability already exists. It predicts recession velocity law different from Hubble law, so it can be tested. Of course, it is small, but it makes the hypothesis testable and falsifiable. What do you think?

Overall, thanks for comments. Somehow the speculations forum is very quiet when someone comes with more or less reasonable speculation.

As for you other comments - yes, I already have such plans. It just requires some time. Probably, first I will add math for QM in ER-hypothesis, not decided yet.

!

Moderator Note

Threads merged. One per topic, please.

And what reader will see?

He will look at start post, quickly notice there is no math in hypothesis, and leave.

And he would not even notice there is math in ER-hypothesis now, there are laws of gravitation, new law for recession velocity instead of Hubble law etc.

Big change in math of hypothesis was done, so separate thread is necessary.

 

Then why not submit it to some journals to find out.

Already submitted, waiting result.

However, I want it published on arXiv first

Its continuation of previous thread, Reality as emergent phenomenon

I wrote new version of emergent reality hypothesis. significantly improved math of the hypothesis. It have now equations of gravity. Feel free to read it and critisize.

I submitted article for viXra.
The article is available on viXra

I want to publish the article on arXiv, but the site requires endorsement.

All my previous publications (publications with me as coauthor) were done in physics of accelerators, plus more than 10 years ago, I was PhD student at that time.
So I looking for endorsement to publish it on arXiv. If someone is ready to endorse me for arXiv - please contact me.

Below is abstract from article.

You need to mathematically show how the particles form for the fundmental ones. Not merely describe it they are fundamental for a reason. Energy is a property of particles it does not exist on it's own.

May be it is possible to mathematically describe process of formation of particles without knowing their equations, not sure. Its one of tasks I left for future, I want to see critisism of conceptual model of my hypothesis first to understand is it worth to do.

As of now, seems as on conceptual level model looks simply excellent.

Energy conservation law, according to my hypothesis, not works at Planck epoch. Or, more correct, it transformed into more complex conservation law.